Well, here Fred, let me ask you, why are you on this particular bandwagon...?

Smoking probably kills more people per day than does cross addiction.

So, possibly do traffic accidents.
(sorry, too lazy to look up the exact statistics.... their exact numbers don't really matter for this post)

Advertising and things like it (religion, propaganda, etc etc...) probably ruins more lives than those things taken together.

Why this particular thing?

Bette, honey calm down stop taking yourself so serious, when I say am as serious as a heart attack I don't mean about myself, I mean about being sober,getting sober is personal and different for the individual so is o tolerance if an addicted person is honest they know that certain substances raises there probabilities of full blown addiction. No I don't mean sugar, caffeine etc. or meds for medical purposes, the people who have problems with chemical dependency know very well what I am talking about. If people want to drink and do drugs to get a since of well being that's fine with me. I choose not to hence my stance of ZERO tolerance! really the best way to help people is to be the object of change when they see someone who is clear minded, clear eyed healthy complexion and a manageable life. that is a very powerful message to the suffering addict. This kind of message also helps young people by having a positive sober model to observe. Its peoples freewill that choose what they will do, all we really can do is change our selves and by doing so we create a different reality even for the ones around us. Fred searching for truth

Actually prescription drugs is the biggest epidemic, not just the abuse which kills more than traffic accidents, and the side effects which they all have, kills so many they have a hard time keeping up with the numbers. smoking is a biggy too, I don't smoke. You are right about religion most all the wars are in the name god . I am not religious. negative Addiction I think is the cause of most all diseases which includes what you bring up, its part of the same thing. Once we realize we are doing it to our selves for the most part, maybe we will stop sticking our hand in the fire, the feedback is there we just need to pay attention. As always its our choice. Fred searching for truth

Actually, after all these years, I just realized that I have no clear idea just what 'zero tolerance' is... um, pardon me, 'ZERO tolerance'.

If your 15 year old daughter comes home and says "Hi dad. I had a glass of wine at the party", do you then ground her? Or throw her out of the house? Or write her out of your will? Beat her? Or shoot her? I guess you must mean something like that....

And then, too, the question arises, why stop at 'ZERO tolerance' ...? Why not go to negative 100? You could, say, like the more ardent and fearless members of the WCTU in days of olde, take an axe and go about smashing the windows of liquor establishments. You could rent a steam roller and and just raze whole city blocks wherein you thought any sort of substance abuse might be occurring. Heck, why not just blow up the whole planet, just to be sure? That would end the problem, I think. And, of course, it would be 'for their own good', right?

In the meantime, do you think it is morally right to use products or services the development of which occurred under the influence of usage of contraband? If not, you'll have to throw out many of the books, movies, and most of the music produced in the last 200 years. Probably, you'll have to lobby congress to pass a bill that says that the 1970's never happened (I think it was Elton John that said "If you can remember the '70's.... you weren't there!") Even Jesus sank a glass of wine from time to time evidently... I'm not sure that your attitude would've been entirely well received at that 'Last Supper' gig. And, as a matter of fact, you'll have to leave the country: The US Constitution was drafted by a bunch of guys the majority of whom drank prodigious amounts of alcohol. (Everyone these days thinks it took them months and months to draft the thing because of erudite debate and deep meditation. Pff~ Half of them didn't get out of bed till well after noon~)

Ah well, like I say, I really have no idea what 'ZERO tolerance' is.

-Montana

Fred,

Isn't it unfortunate that nothing that you pontificate about can actually be trusted. You pay no attention when someone questions anything and provide no actual documentation of your assertions. When numerous others point this out, you just ignore it as if nothing had been said. Stonewalling is the relevant term for this behavior. Is there any reason for your being here other than as a platform for your grandstanding? You maintain that you have no interest in the work of Tom Campbell and basically demonstrate that in your posts. At least insufficient interest to actually go to the trouble of reading his books. Why do you not start a personal blog and seek your own audience? You seek no information here but only present your own opinions and points of view. Do you just think that you should be permitted to continue using our site and bulletin board for your own purposes, contrary to the stated purpose of this board?

Ted as Administrator

You maintain that I have no interest in Toms work, I am very interested in his work, I just choose not to read the books at this time, I get what he is saying! your view on my grandstanding seems very bias! the things I bring up fit in with his concepts much more than your political stance that has subsided lately! I answer feedback as honestly as I can, You are right I don't have any documentation for my experiences. the other things I bring up can be validated on the internet. I post things to get feedback as to learn about this subjective reality and hopefully reduce my entropy, all of my topics have been an attempt to do so! as far as being trusted only one person said that! seems like more bias! as far as my point of view I think they fit in with MBT concepts as much as anybody's, the information I have sought has been very insightful. I have no complaints with anything going on here. I find no reason to defend my point of view to you are anybody else what you call stonewalling I call just being myself. I know I make people think in a way that sometimes makes them feel uncomfortable, that still does not mean that what I say is not true. Fred as being me!

Fred you don't make thinking people think uncomfortable thoughts you just ignore discussion when asked questions and go on as if you were making some impact. You ignore specific questions that would provide your words some depth if you had any. Do you? You are very vanilla which is okay.

You don't understand MBT concepts because they are in MBT. You think you understand the MBT discussion board is all.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

I thought I have answered all of your questions? when I get a clear question I will try my best to answer them, mostly all I have been getting are opinions. If I never told anybody that I did not read the books nobody would have known, I was being honest. As far as depth goes I am still learning. don't know about you but I have learned a lot from you and others in the short time I have been here. Honestly I don't really understand the MBT discussion board very much at all, I know it is clickish, but I thought there would be more understanding of peoples experiences. You have Ted saying this forum is for discussion of MBT and then say it also for anything else you want to discuss until it does not suit him, and then he reverts back to saying this forum is for discussing MBT concepts. What kind of way is that to run a forum do you call that in line with MBT concepts. I think there is a lot of ego in play here that people seem to ignore, until they recognize it in somebody else and then the bashing begins, the saints start marching! I am use to these kind of behaviors I expect it, I just thought it would be more organized here. I am like this also, its not all that bad when you recognize it, it really can be a lot of fun growing up and I have been having a lot of fun on this forum at the same time learning I like it! I just don't understand it. I understand what Tom is saying much clearer. Fred searching for truth

Fred,

I dare you to read the book. ;)

Fred,

As has been repeatedly pointed out and just as repeatedly been ignored by you, my deviations into 'political action' and economic situations here on the board was for one kept into the appropriate forum and secondly, had clearly explained connections to principles of MBT. Your 'position papers' are inserted all over the forums and in no way are show to be based upon the principles of MBT. Your vague claims and hand waving does not make it so. If you cannot start to conform better with board purpose and stop stonewalling as your standard response to questioners, we may well yet part ways involuntarily on your part.

Ted

Just because you put things in peoples awareness differently does not make them any more credible, in particular your one sided political views. You even started your long running post saying this forum is reserved for the discussing of Toms work, and then for whatever else you feel may be important. I took that to mean just that! or did you mean what you thought was important! you bet the farm on a renegade republication creditability and think you got them now. Your way is not all that different than mine in the respect that they are heart felt. This double standard that exist in this reality is obvious. It really does not bother me I just note it, maybe you should do the same, neither one of us are correct on our stance or our motives all the time! the real issue here is I think control. I agree we need some order here but to refer to us as children sometimes is in my view childish. You got this job and I think you have a lot to offer as an equal, not as somebody above us because you have a good understanding of Toms work. So do many others here in fact I think they go beyond your understanding a lot of times, I know my style is different than most peoples and I need a lot of work on using the forum more orderly. But my motives are to learn by interacting in a creative way. you say I am here for grandstanding, I call it being as honest as my capabilities allow. You do whatever you think is right for you and others and I will try and do the same also. Fred still being me

Fred,

Have you also been here before under another name? Your behavior is typical of problems of the past. You are stonewalling again. You are not paying attention to what is being said but ignoring it, refusing to answer questions or criticisms. There seems to be a developing consensus that you do not over all contribute to the quality of the board. Can you see no way to amend your interactions here? They have been pointed out an not just by myself.

Ted

No I have not been here before how paranoid! and as far as questions in your last post all I saw was your opinion, I did not see that as criticism only your perception of the data you have on my performance and motives and credibility on forum. And I gave you mine back as honestly as I could. If you could tell me please! what would have been an appropriate response to your opinion, that would not have been stonewalling? and as far as your consensus goes that is your opinion again!I really don't understand your liberal views when you act so conservative. I said I need to work on using the form more orderly. I am being as honest as I know! hopefully I will become even more honest in the future especially to myself. I answer things as clearly and as honestly as I can you just don't think so. If you would please tell me clearly where my post where not correlated with Toms perceptions of reality.If I understand your view on stonewalling I think Tom would fall into that category in respect that he will not answer or talk about some of his direct experiences is this what you mean? I respect your attempts to find truth. Fred

Fred,

Do not attempt obfuscation. You have been told before, do not state opinions without being willing to provide references. You have refused. You have been advised to read Tom's books and that the discussion of that material is the purpose of these boards, not personal grandstanding. You refused to read Tom's books and insist on expressing your opinions as truth without documentation of recognized authority nor even a reference for clarification. You insist that we go to the trouble to look it up on the Internet. It has been strongly suggested that it would be polite to provide references if you want your ideas considered. You have refused. Others as well as myself find it as difficult as pulling teeth to get anything concise in the way of information out of you. I think that you reach the end of your usefulness here. You want the use of our platform for your grandstanding. You refuse to change your attitude or approach. What have you to offer?

Ted

Why did you say this forum was for anything else we thought was important if you did not mean it? to me the things I post are very important to me. And as far as reading the books goes I did not know it was a forum requirement. and as far as my references go on the few things I have mention I told you there where to many to mention but maybe I or other people should to give this topic more credibility, and you said the topic was not in line with MBT concepts. I wish you would make your mind up and be clearer about what you think is appropriate. or is there a double standard in play here. I get what Tom is saying in my view very very clear! you still have not shown me where my post are not in line with Toms description of reality. All you assume is I possibly cant know without reading the books. That is simply not true for some people. I know I need a lot of tech. work on using this forum more efficiently and I have been trying. Again I think I have been using this forum in accordance with Toms work as much as anybody. But honestly I don't think it is about that, only you know the real reasons and they could be very loving ones in disguise. I hope so. Fred