So it's not possible that the STS passed onto their human slaves the knowledge that this book would be written at some point?Fifth Way said:I find that improbable. Even though, if I remember correctly, I was the one who threw into the discussion the by now notorious "you can't be paranoid enough" quote (from the move Strange Days), I think to call the Amazon reviews COINTELPRO is a little far out.Laura said:What it might mean is that it is being deliberately hyped with "clappers" and the Greek choruse a la cointelpro.FifthWay said:What I did find though is this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/188592 ... p;n=283155
I don’t think I have ever seen 40 five star reviews out of 41 ever, if that means anything?
I mean, the guy was internationally not much known and until now, nobody from the Forum even new anything about him. The Amazon thing would be a little overkill for COINTELPRO - no?
I find the exercises demand a lot of self-discipline and are kind of hard to follow through in normal every day life. My take is that he was a member of some secret society and learned the stuff there but then following an genuine STO impulse broke the secrecy and decided to make his knowledge available for anybody who was searching.
If you are not successful in the exercises it is of course easier to call the master a fraud rather than yourself a failure.
Of cause I could be wrong, since it is aparent, even from his few posts, that samvado read all the right books and tried out everything, so it must be true.
Sounds like a Clive Barker short story from one of his 'books of blood' - a man trades his soul for magical powers only to realise what he's done is truly horrific (the 'magic' isn't all it cracked up to be). He decides then to 'belittle' the evil powers who he traded with by carrying out 'magic' on a stage and passing it off as illusion.samvado said:It is however a proven fact that he started his career as a stage magician.
It just seems like overkill to me. Overwhelming recognition for a guy that is really not that recognized.Laura said:
Is there any data that can support that stament? I am German and I can not verify that the German authors in this field get automatically international attention. However with the right data I am ready change my mind.samvado said:German and Indian are the two most blindly respected sources.
So forty people finding the material useful are wrong and you, not being able to make it work, are right - right? And that is due to your credentials that you keep repeating in a verity of post? Compared to this statement I find Laura's take actually the MORE probable one.samvado said:I wouldnt agree with Laura that the posititive Amazon feedbacks are cointelpro - I think they are just from all those who have read but not sufficiently investigated his works.
I can assure you, you do not have to worry about this.samvado said:Dont take my word for it
This is a completely new concept to the members of this site. We were all wondering what went wrong so far! Thanks for sharing.samvado said:I suggest those who are still interested in his work do the homework I have done and find out for themselves...
I am relieved - thanks again.samvado said:...it is not that hard
Of course it is.paulnotbilly said:So it's not possible that the STS passed onto their human slaves the knowledge that this book would be written at some point?
This too seems true.paulnotbilly said:If you're going to hijack something, there's no better place for it to happen than as early as possible. That way you only need to expend minimal energies on keeping the false direction.
Why such cynical remarks towards my msg? What investment do you have towards right or wrong of Bardon? I for one have none. Have you not read (or forgotten) what I wrote before. I did do A LOT OF research on Bardon, I TRIED his techniques, I used kinesiology, i.e. I did my homework - however WHEN I did it I was not considering sharing my results with others one day OR I would have written down my result and established a link-list which I could now present to you to make your life easier. However, it is not that hard to do that for yourself. If you spend one weekend that will be much less time than applying his techniques for years and not having any result to show for the time spent.Fifth Way said:
Because you assume a great deal.samvado said:Why such cynical remarks towards my msg?
samvado said:What investment do you have towards right or wrong of Bardon?
My investment is to assess potential contribution for the Work. Isn't that why you are on this forum? Isn't that why you tried him out? Doesn't that constitute that you do have an investment of some sort?I said:I want to know whether there is something there or not. His principles made sense to me...
Why do you deny it?samvado said:I for one have none.
I said:Compared to this statement I find Laura's take actually the MORE probable one.
Why do you assign so much importance to yourself as to think that I expect you to make my life easier?samvado said:I could now present to you to make your life easier.
Is that what you did? What investment do you have in how I spend my time?samvado said:If you spend one weekend that will be much less time than applying his techniques for years and not having any result to show for the time spent.
Why do you think you need to remind me of that? Do you assume I don't know that? Do you assume nobody knows that on this forum?samvado said:Dont forget that the esoteric realm is the one with the most followers (aka no-judging-believers) and the least number of people ready for critical thinking.
Is that what you think? It seems that you regard me as quite incompetent - at least that is how your communique is perceived by me.samvado said:Have you not read (or forgotten) what I wrote before.
That is humorous - considering the context of this discussion.samvado said:I believe I do have a sense of humor, my name means "communion" in sanskrit and "communication" in hindi - your choice
in what way would that pertain to my comments?Fifth Way said:The below definition from Sign's Esoteric Glossary I put here for the both of us:
In the QFS slang, this refers to a tightly held belief with which one is identified. Questioning the belief will be seen as questioning the holder of the belief and often taken as a personal attack. Oftentimes, the more the sacred cow is at odds with reality, the more ferociously the believer will cling to it.
That is usually an indication that someone feels to be personally attacked.samvado said:if its about being right - fine with me, and end of communication.
That makes me think that a sacred cow might be involved. What kind of cow that is - I don't know. Don't ask me. Ask yourself.savado said:I found nothing in your writings that would make me reconsider.
What you wrote before implies much more than reading Bardon and trying the exercises. But you having shared specific information.samvado said:I had allocated X amount of time to find out for myself (not others) that he's not worthy of pursuing. I have shared that with you.
How do you know he made them up?samvado said:he made them up.
What is the "something" they do? What did you experience? This data might help.samvado said:they dont work as advertised although they do "something".
You didn't provide any specific information about why you feel he is a fraud besides trying the exercises.samvado said:I stick to my opinion that Bardon was a fraud.
Does the above mean that you only did the exercises? Or does it mean (combined with the other things I quoted above) that you researched his background, etc. and came to this conclusion? If so, the information that you found is the data that is valued and what I think Fifth Way and others are interested in.samvado said:I checked on him quite thorouly believe me - and i did his stuff (for a while).
It's not about being right. This is about the data and providing the data to others and using the network to see if the data is valid.samvado said:Do you want to use my findings as little and subjective as they are or do you want to be right - if its about being right - fine with me, and end of communication.
I said from the begining that I had not kept records of my findings and that I could only give an emotionaly colored memory based account.Mike said:It's not about being right. This is about the data and providing the data to others and using the network to see if the data is valid.
So then all you presented to us was noise. An emotionally colored account is not useful, as it is subejctive. Other places may be receptive to your "hints", but here we prefer something with a much stronger signal.samvado said:I said from the begining that I had not kept records of my findings and that I could only give an emotionaly colored memory based account.Mike said:It's not about being right. This is about the data and providing the data to others and using the network to see if the data is valid.
of course its you freedom to not take that as anything - or take it as hint to something and follow up on it.
it was meant as such hint - not as scientific expertise on bardon.
so no data except my opinion based on my memory which is some data but maybe not the one you want.
let me also remark: this is a waste of time - I am not willing to be lectured on communication techniques and I am not able to give out more data than I have on the subject of this inquiry: Bardon.