Bluemoon, you said,
This is not correct. The ONLY issue on this particular forum is the SES/SoP (and whatever other names they call themselves and their linked childrens schools around the world to hide who they really are and their very close links). If you just want to discuss groups in general perhaps you should find another appropriate forum for that.
You have missed my point. I am saying that the issues experienced with SES are due to the way that people are effected by groups and group conformity. I agree that SES has some specific traits and as you have seen, I discuss these. It would certainly help understand what makes SES tick, as well as how one might either address the issues, or move on from them. Also note that much of the issue around SES (that you appear to have) is the way they treat women, and much of this is reflected in wider society than just SES, so once again some perspective on gender outside SES should make understanding better.
Also note, I did not initially raise the racism discussion, someone else did, I just responded, you also weighed into this.
You also keep getting other posters mixed up. You mixed up me (Bluemoon) with Woodgreen on another thread and Bluegreen with me too on this thread. I know we are all women - so perhaps to you we are all the same?!!
I am not good at labels or names as I see them as carrying no value, my only interest is in content. I understand that people get attached to their names. You might imagine that I do as I have such an odd moniker but I usually use my own initials because they are shorter and I am unlikely to forget, however I was not able to register with just 2 letters, so I looked for one I would not forget. So I apologise in advance if you are offended by my disinterest in your monikers, I will try and associate the names better with the ideas they produce. You are also leaping to conclusions about the gender side, I don’t have forum debates with a gender, I have debates with the ideas that are presented.
I am not going to respond to much more except to say that in the thread you seem to be alluding to about the SES and cults I did provide 'substative' backing for my conclusions including recommending a book to you about the raising of feminine energy entitled 'The return of the feminine and the world soul', but you chose to ignore that.
I did not ignore your request for me to study your vision. I suggested that asking me to spend around 20 hours under your direction might be better balanced if you spent just one hour arguing the case for you vision. I do not seriously expect you to invest 20 hours of your time looking at my ideas that come up when I pose them. Your expectation of people to follow your ideas is far more optimistic than mine. This you have still not responded to, yet you use this in this thread as an attack on my lack of response. Did you miss my last post?
I have asked you a direct question that is all, and you have not actually given me a direct answer, but I presume your post above implies that you do not feel you are 'blocking' the forum?
My posts are very focussed on the ideas that are presented. I provide logic where I feel an assertion is not backed up. I ask questions to understand how the assertions are made. If by doing this, I am therefore blocking the poster, then perhaps people should be better able to support their assertions. Do you feel you are blocking this forum by cherry picking my posts for weak points or making assumptions based upon nothing to support them. I spend quite a bit of time pointing out where people have made baseless assumptions, or have not read my posts correctly. Are you ‘blocking’ when you dismiss my school experiences because your assumption was that because I had been in South Africa, I must have been schooled there? I do not see as blocking, its just assumptive, sloppy posting, and very common on forums.
In fact you are behaving in exactly the manner in which the SES heirarchy behaved around the time I woke up to the truth behind the organisation's agenda, and just like them you are trying to twist things around to claim that I have attacked you! It is you that has been trying to crush other peoples experiences and conclusions.
You are making a serious accusation with this, and I cannot see how you can support it. If my ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny, then by all means break them down. I have made far fewer personal comments than I have received from other posters. If you can support your ideas, you will have no issues dealing with my posts. Trying to compare me to the SES approach only serves to make this a more personal discussion (ie. more emotion, less fact) and does nothing to make this a more productive discussion. If you would like to make a case for my posting style being an issue. I suggest you are better off noting that I am indifferent to the person behind the idea and will take the idea on its merits only without consideration for the persons feelings. I do not see forums as small talk, I do this in the actual life, I do not want to waste time in social fluff on a forum site. This is certainly a valid criticism of my posting style. If my questions crush you, then you should look at the way you support them, not at the questions that I pose. If I attack you personally and dismiss them without cause, then make this accusation.
As I said on the other thread, I have no issue debating your vision of the feminine mystique, because this a topic I am interested in, but I expect you to invest enough time to outline the basis of it, before you ask me to spend a big chunk of time researching it. If you cant articulate it, why should I spend time on it?