Tom Cox AKA "Montalk"

[Skyalmian]

The Montalk issue is such a non issue it's not even worth discussing, to be honest. We have far more important things to focus on.

Yeah—everyone that was involved has long-since moved on. This thread is almost like a wound or inflamed spot that wants to return (though less and less and weaker each over time), and for the most part at this point just seems to be an energetic sink. :/

 

[duyunne]

I consider Tom a friend and I'm gracious for his transparency. I haven't communicated with him in years and our exchanges were quaint, usually in the realm of my just conveying thanks for his effort.

He has drawn good people to you, and as long as his site is still up, more good people will continue to come here and ask questions like this, opening the wound again, and in ways creating new ones.

Maybe there is a better healing method? Not to say RecklessAllegory handled this in the best way, in fact I have suspicions as to their validity regarding the precision of their mothers dream, but can't you appreciate their willingness to want to approach this at all?

 

[obyvatel]

I consider Tom a friend and I'm gracious for his transparency. I haven't communicated with him in years and our exchanges were quaint, usually in the realm of my just conveying thanks for his effort.

He has drawn good people to you, and as long as his site is still up, more good people will continue to come here and ask questions like this, opening the wound again, and in ways creating new ones.

Wound for whom? Please be precise.

[quote author=zin]
Maybe there is a better healing method? Not to say RecklessAllegory handled this in the best way, in fact I have suspicions as to their validity regarding the precision of their mothers dream, but can't you appreciate their willingness to want to approach this at all?
[/quote]

Related to the question above - who needs the healing?

And what exactly has been approached here? Efforts were made to get clarity on this aspect specifically from RecklessAllegory, but it was not forthcoming.

Since you have been here longer than RecklessAllegory and apparently understand where she was coming from, then maybe you can take the step of clarifying?

 

[sitting]

I've tried to word things as carefully as I could, as my intentions, thoughts and feelings do not come from a place of malice.

I don't think you were being malicious.

And you can help us all -- by simply answering Laura's question to you:

"And what kind of change was that you believe you have
identified and in which year did it occur?"

Shouldn't be that hard really.

FWIW.

 

[duyunne]

Wound for whom? Please be precise.

* * *

Related to the question above - who needs the healing?

See

This thread is almost like a wound or inflamed spot that wants to return (though less and less and weaker each over time), and for the most part at this point just seems to be an energetic sink. :/

 

[duyunne]

And what exactly has been approached here? Efforts were made to get clarity on this aspect specifically from RecklessAllegory, but it was not forthcoming.

Since you have been here longer than RecklessAllegory and apparently understand where she was coming from, then maybe you can take the step of clarifying?

Re: Tom Cox AKA "Montalk"

Edit: As to where RecklessAllegory is coming from? I didn't want to have to say this as I don't want them to feel that I'm ganging on them here. If this is a genuine event (their mothers dream) then I'll return with genuine intrigue. But I'm suspicious. As I said, I find it very precise that a dream would lead them directly to the forum. Then of course directly to this thread.

At the end of the day, you can't ignore that Tom's work will continue to bring new comers here and they may see your over cautious handling of him as being too hostile and it will scare them off.

 

[Javi]

And what exactly has been approached here? Efforts were made to get clarity on this aspect specifically from RecklessAllegory, but it was not forthcoming.

Since you have been here longer than RecklessAllegory and apparently understand where she was coming from, then maybe you can take the step of clarifying?

Re: Tom Cox AKA "Montalk"

Edit: As to where RecklessAllegory is coming from? I didn't want to have to say this as I don't want them to feel that I'm ganging on them here. If this is a genuine event (their mothers dream) then I'll return with genuine intrigue. But I'm suspicious. As I said, I find it very precise that a dream would lead them directly to the forum. Then of course directly to this thread.

At the end of the day, you can't ignore that Tom's work will continue to bring new comers here and they may see your over cautious handling of him as being too hostile and it will scare them off.

A dream forcing someone to do something. It does not sound very SAO but rather SAS

 

[Javi]

A dream forcing someone to do something. It does not sound very SAO but rather SAS

Sorry, I was thinking in Spanish. I meant:

'A dream forcing someone to do something. It does not sound very STO but rather STS'

 

[sitting]

At the end of the day, you can't ignore that Tom's work will continue to bring new comers here ...

That is a gross misunderstanding on your part -- in my opinion.

Those that find Laura ... have it in their fate (or karmic connection) to find Laura. Period. It's got little to do with Montalk, or anyone else for that matter.

I have looked into his material. And I found it wanting. And "lite." That would be my polite way of describing it. To mention it in the same breath with Laura -- is an intellectual travesty in my view.

FWIW.

 

[Joe]

Wound for whom? Please be precise.

* * *

Related to the question above - who needs the healing?

See

This thread is almost like a wound or inflamed spot that wants to return (though less and less and weaker each over time), and for the most part at this point just seems to be an energetic sink. :/

It's not a "wound". Describing it that way seems like an attempt to actually make it so and to try and get people worked up. It was such a little blip on our radar so long ago it's pointless even discussing it.

 

[Joe]

Edit: As to where RecklessAllegory is coming from? I didn't want to have to say this as I don't want them to feel that I'm ganging on them here. If this is a genuine event (their mothers dream) then I'll return with genuine intrigue. But I'm suspicious. As I said, I find it very precise that a dream would lead them directly to the forum. Then of course directly to this thread.

At the end of the day, you can't ignore that Tom's work will continue to bring new comers here and they may see your over cautious handling of him as being too hostile and it will scare them off.

You don't come to a forum and then say that you think that the founder of the forum and the work on which it is based is 'corrupted' and then refuse to explain and expect to be welcomed with open arms. You don't like the 'drapes'? Fine, go look for your drama somewhere else. We don't offer that here. We've seen too many people like RA come here and offer their childish, manipulative 'bait'. RA said she is interested in the 'message' only. Fine. Read the sessions.

 

[RecklessAllegory]

For clarification, I never wanted to start anything, only wanted to share my thoughts as people do in a forum; you said this was a dead issue until I resurrected it, however others will come, who want more info and eventually read the thread. I disagreed on an issue and I did son as carefully as I could. Just because I'm new to the forum doesn't mean I'm new to the website. I've been reading it since the event with my mother led me to it almost a year ago.I have no reason to lie, or make stuff up. My mother gets messages all the time, her whole life and now with the Internet I've helped her research things that are relayed to her this way.

 

[Skyalmian]

Describing it that way seems like an attempt to actually make it so and to try and get people worked up.

Sorry. Projection... I used to hang out in the Montalk Chat Room years ago and direct a lot of folks to this forum for their issues better answered here, and one of them had proceeded to jump into this(?) thread and stir it up. That had stung a lot, enough to stop that practice out of avoiding another such. :(

 

[Laura]

For clarification, I never wanted to start anything, only wanted to share my thoughts as people do in a forum; you said this was a dead issue until I resurrected it, however others will come, who want more info and eventually read the thread. I disagreed on an issue and I did son as carefully as I could. Just because I'm new to the forum doesn't mean I'm new to the website. I've been reading it since the event with my mother led me to it almost a year ago.I have no reason to lie, or make stuff up. My mother gets messages all the time, her whole life and now with the Internet I've helped her research things that are relayed to her this way.

RA, let me be very direct here. One of the "signs" of the individual attempting to practice STO traits is that they are able to "give ALL to those who ASK". That's pretty much the deal. So, when I asked you a very simple question - and so did others - and you were unable to respond except with maneuvers and mercurial slipperiness, it suggests the predator's mind which is "baroque, contradictory, morose, filled with the fear of being discovered any minute now.” Your writing style is exactly that and that is a dead giveaway that there is something more afoot than you just being interested and wanting to discuss a simple matter.

Now, let me state my question again (and I am REALLY asking): What kind of change was that you believe you have identified and in which year did it occur?

Now, just to help you out a bit I'll suggest possible responses.

Vincent Bridges is the first one who made the claim that when Ark entered the picture, I "changed" and everything went downhill from there. In point of fact, it was "Frank" who initially made that claim TO Bridges because once Ark came along, Frank was no longer able to manipulate and drain me. However, in response to this, I would suggest that anyone read all the sessions of those early years to see the numerous times the Cs predicted the appearance of Ark and the global nature of the mission. And yes, they also predicted that everything would change at that nexus point for the purpose of fulfilling that mission. So, if the early Cs are pure enough for you (and Bridges, RIP and Montalk), then you have to factor in that part of it and accept that the experiment evolved - and continues to evolve - exactly as it was designed to do.

Now, coming back to Montalk; he had a ready rant for the fact that he was totally unable to "give all to those who ASK", in even the simplest way. Montalk gives all the evidence of an individual who is engaged in "abuse of sex" in the Gurdjieffian sense (search forum for clear explication of this idea - has nothing to do with sex, per se, but with the energy of that center). The bottom line is: we ASKED Montalk to do a rather small thing to help us in a very significant way and all we got from him was a load of crap. At THAT point he decided to employ the ready-made rant of how things "changed" which had been pre-packaged by Bridges.

Now, you have apparently read a lot of Montalk's writings but claim that you do not read anything by me that is "later than" some indefinite point in time. Since I did not do any real writing about anything until AFTER Ark entered the picture, that means you really haven't read anything I've written such as The Wave, Amazing Grace, etc. In short, you have no real basis on which to make any evaluation or judgment whatsoever. You've only read Montalk's highly biased opinion that he formed when we took measures to protect ourselves when he would not do what we asked him to do in all sincerity and it was no skin off his nose - just a pinch to his ego.

Nevertheless, based on Montalk's opinion you also claim a similar opinion, and it all goes back to Frank via Bridges to Montalk - three individuals who very much wanted to OWN me but who lost out to Ark.

Think about it.

 

[RecklessAllegory]

Laura, if I was slippery or obscure in your opinion it was because I was trying to avoid being attacked for having a difference of opinion. I didn't want to "discuss" anything. I posted my thoughts on what I thought was a forum. No one is "uncorruptable" and we are all STS here on this planet by default. I posted the link that has the dates and all the details although I'm sure it would not be the first time you've come a cross that info. FYI: I had been reading your website first, for almost a year before I even came across the Montalk website. All I have read of Montalk is that link that I posted. I am on ch. 46 of the wave and have bought several of your books. I have been a fan of yours and will continue to be. The change that I was referring to was that after you've been the target of many attacks that does make someone a bit defensive and paranoid. Like I said before I'm a nurse and I work in mental health, so with my background I could understand what Montalk was referring to where he explains his exit from your group. I'm not hiding anything nor do I have obscure intentions I'm a regular person raising a family. My name is Paula (deleted), you can even look me up on Facebook.

Mod's note: surname deleted for privacy