Dear Ones, I have something to confess to you. Most of you know me as a snark who scoffs at many things, including and especially the entire idea of miracles. But the truth is – and some of you more savvy readers have read between the lines and have detected the yearning soul who trembles beneath this snarky cloak – I long for tangible miracles in my life. Why, I even wrote about this longing years and years ago, on my old Cosmic Relief web site, during the heyday of Millennial madness when many feared that the world, or at least civilization, would end at the stroke of midnight on January 1, 2000. Here is what I wrote (and I hope you will pardon the royal-"we" affectation):
THESE are the days of miracles and wonders? Oh, we only wish. Either we've led a really wicked life, or the recently* discovered "God module" in our temporal lobe is severely underdeveloped. Or maybe it's just that we never did hallucinogenics.
Whatever the cause, the unhappy truth is that angels don't whisper in our ear, deities don't dictate sacred texts to us, and dead spiritual masters refuse to use us as a mouthpiece.
To add insult to injury, the dolphins at Sea World treat us with disdain, the Weeping Jesus picture just rolls its eyes at us, The Face on Mars stuck its tongue out at us, and the statue of Ganesh laughed so hard at us that the milk squirted out of its nose...er...trunk.
Worst of all, aliens from UFOs have never taken us into their vessels to poke at our naughty bits (oh, but we keep hoping...)
Life, alas, is just so mundane for us. All of the tortillas, billboards, cinnamon buns, and porch lights we've ever encountered are just tortillas, billboards, buns, and porch lights. No face of the Lord, no nunly visage, no apparition of the Virgin, no secret signs of the End Times. (Okay, on one of our quests we did find a misshapen dog-turd that bore a striking resemblance to the face of evangelist Pat Robertson -- pious smirk and all -- but we just couldn't get the media interested.)
The Millennium came and went and, as far as we... I mean I can tell, the world didn't end. Eventually I created my own Whirled. It was fun from the get-go, but still something was missing. My life remained bereft of the type of miracle that draws bored reporters and long lines of desperate believers to one's front door. Except for some isolated experiences with statues, which I wrote about a few years ago, discernible miracles have been few and far between in my life.
Of course I pretended not to care. On the surface I was a happy snarker – a livid one, as one of my snargets has described me – but beneath it all flowed a deep, deep river of discontent. I still felt so... well... left out. Overlooked. Utterly under-appreciated by the Higher Power(s).
And then, and then... last night... Something Happened.
It was so wondrous that it shook my Whirled.
It made me re-examine my entire life.
It made me want to write one-sentence paragraphs.
Or even one-word paragraphs.
Really.
Here's the deal: Last night Ron took me into the Big City (that would be Houston) for dinner at a restaurant that I will not name for reasons that will soon become apparent. We'd been there numerous times before and had always enjoyed superb food and service.
But last night was over the top.
Being in a carnivorous frame of mind and feeling a bit extravagant, I decided to go all out with one of the most expensive steaks on the menu. I was famished and couldn't wait to dig into it when it arrived.
But something stopped me. On that succulent piece of meat I beheld a Face, clear as could be. It was an oddly familiar mug with a toothsome smile. At first I thought it was a demon. Then it kind of looked like an obnoxious ex-boyfriend of mine. And then I realized that it was...oh, my Goddess, the Face of the Master.
It was... it was... Himself. It was The Big T. As in Tony Robbins. The undisputed king of the selfish-help industry.
I gasped.
"What's wrong, sweetheart?" Ron asked, his mouth full of New York strip steak. Speechless, I pointed to The Face.
Ron's eyes widened.
He put down his fork, whipped out his cell phone and began snapping photos.
By then a small crowd had gathered around our table. Most people instantly recognized The Face. Many were astounded; some were crying. People were Tweeting and Facebooking about it. A reporter from a local TV station happened to be dining at a table near us and contacted her producer, and before I knew it there were camera crews and bright lights in my face. I became a minor celebrity for a while. I signed autographs, did a couple of mini-interviews, even landed a book contract.
Finally, I had the miracle I had been waiting for. In spades. Well, in a steak, anyway.
But the fact remained that I was still hungry and feeling more fiercely carnivorous than ever. So instead of preserving that wondrous cut of beef, I scarfed it down, much to the dismay of some of the miracle seekers who were still crowded around us. Others, however, cheered me on. They said this was the ultimate self-empowering thing for me to do. They assured me that there was no better way to Awaken the Giant Within than to consume an image of The Giant himself.
I noticed that the steak tasted a little "off," but I didn't care; I was that famished.
Back at home a few hours later, I bitterly regretted my choice to eat the miracle meat. I became violently ill, and am only just now recovering. Some may call that poetic justice or instant karma for destroying the evidence of a miracle, and perhaps they're right. But I really didn't destroy anything. After all, I still have those photos. The miracle lives on and continues to unfold in my life in mysterious ways. Now I am seeing The Face everywhere. What does it all mean? Stay tuned...
* Well, the discovery of the God module was "recent" in 1997, anyway.
* * * * *
Now more than ever, your donation is needed
to help keep this Whirled spinning.
Click here to donate via PayPal or debit/credit card.
If that link doesn't work, send PayPal payment directly to
scrivener66@hotmail.com
or to cosmic.connie@juno.com
If PayPal, be sure to specify that your contribution is a gift. Thank you!
to help keep this Whirled spinning.
Click here to donate via PayPal or debit/credit card.
If that link doesn't work, send PayPal payment directly to
scrivener66@hotmail.com
or to cosmic.connie@juno.com
If PayPal, be sure to specify that your contribution is a gift. Thank you!
49 comments:
Connie! How could you eat such a thing? I mean really, anyone can see it's a bit overdone - kind of like the "Master" himself.
May the bountiful miracles continue to be yours, dear one.
Dave, I am still reeling from the Miracle of the Meat and from the lessons I learned and am continuing to learn from this experience. I can't really explain my actions other than to say that I had reached a point where I was desperately hungry. I thought that if it didn't offer any real benefits at least it couldn't hurt me. I was wrong. But I learn from my mis-steaks.
Your post made me think of this cartoon appearing in the UK this weekend - don't know if you've seen it:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/519751-telegraph-cartoon
His face is on that meat and your face is on this blog. As the earth population grows to 10 billion, we will likely see faces on running shoes, in the trees and on our underwear.
Welcome to a heavily populated planet with people embedding their own and other's faces wherever their imagination and agendas tell them to.
Rational Thinking: Great cartoon. Thanks!
Oh, Anon, you're just trying to rain on my miracle parade. But I know The Face was real!
Careful Connie, if you keep talking like this you might find yourself visited by the face of Steve Salerno and his default bunny metaphor:
"and how do we know there aren't invisible Easter Bunnies in our ass?"
Return to reality oh cute purple one.
But...but...but... I'm not purple! I'm blue!
Whatever color you choose, you wear them well :-)
Now snap out of it and come back down to earth, we miss you.
Thanks, Anon. I've always preferred colors on the cool end of the spectrum. I am down to earth. This is me in satirical mode, not critical mode.
Of the 7 billion faces on earth, given the face you selected to see your dinner, your crit. and sat. mode seem to not be all that distinct.
Thank you for sharing this wonderful miracle. It has touched my heart. I don't care whether it's true. It's inspiring whether it is true or not and has changed my life just reading about it.
Of course it can be no coincidence that the face looks like Tony Robbins (in fact more like Tony Robbins than Tony Robbins even looks - maybe the cow was also shot full of steroids).
For me, a non-blue, non-robot citizen of the universe, I know in my heart that this is a sign that more revelations are about to be, um, revealed.
But Anon, I didn't select The Face. It selected me. :-)
Yakaru, you are correct. The very air is pregnant with miracles waiting to be born. The Face is everywhere. All shall be revealed in due time.
Strange... I keep seeing James Ray on my punching bag. Loved the "mis-steaks" joke!
Keep on punching, Bryan, and maybe that awful image will go away someday. (I've heard it's also been turning up in lame videos on the Internet, but that's no miracle.)
It dawned on me this morning that if you used your magnificant "mad skills" FOR others in instead of for gotcha-put-down-shaming-smearing-mocking of others who you are claiming are victimizing others and who you present as villains, you would be a serious force to be reckoned with and a great writer of note, in my opinion.
If you were dissecting and probing into how to make the world a better place rather then policing others flaws, my admiration for you would sore even hire.
Would love to have you on the team Connieblue :-)
As it happens, Anon, you are not the first person who has told me I could be so great if only I hadn't gone o'er to the Dark Side. At the very least I could have been another Marci Shimoff or Debbie Ford, I've been told.
And New-Wage gurus such as Joe Vitale (back in the day when we were friends) told me I was sitting on a gold mine with all of my talents and such... oh, what a wasted life I've led.
But some would say that in my own way, on this snarky little blog, I am making a positive contribution.
If I ever do get to a point where I am focusing all of my energies on more overtly "positive" ways to make the world a better place, however, it will NOT be in the service of pricey LGATs and smarmy gurus. And no doubt there will still be criticism involved, because in my view, you can't solve problems without first defining them.
Who said anything about you being "in the service of pricey LGATs and smarmy gurus"? That is such a small SMALL fleeting part of our existance on earth.
And can one define and point to what is missing, without gotcha-put-down-shaming-smearing-mocking of others and claiming others are victimizing others and presenting a fellow man as a "villain" who is somehow not as "good" and honest as one?
Why does there have to be a lesser than you in your writing? I might guess that you value sincerity and honesty and common sense and lightness and health and humour and the benefits of the written word. Can these values not be brought forth not on the backs of and at the expense of others?
Maybe the self help industry does not promote the values you want to see in the world. All the more neeed for someone liek you to step up and start bringing them forth. I would cheer you on. You got style, charisma and skills and I admire the things you are about, just not that you viciously put-down-shame-smear-mock others to display your core values.
Anonymous,
You are anonymous, and criticising someone who is not anonymous, for criticising others. You seem to think that your anonymous negativity is not negative, and that your mysterious unidentified activities are somehow worthy of Ms Connie's non-critical, non-negative attention. But being anonymous no one knows what on earth you are babbling about.
The only thing that is clear about you and your anonymous activities is that you are more comfortable being anonymous, and would be much more comfortable if Connie were part of your anonymous team, rather than being in a position to not-anonymously criticise it.
I find something rather slimey and deceitful about you.
Yakaru,
Your pint of view is noted. Thank-you. Can you help me by pointng out specifically what you find "slimey and deceitful about" about me or my post.
I assume you are commenting on more then just about the billions of people who choose to post as some anonymous avatar on message boards every single day.
Please expand if you would.
It is confusing to me that people bring up anonymity and identities which has very little to do with the topics. Ideas and opinions are what this blog is about. Yet posters bring up the "Anonymous" card when they don't like something or someone, as if their own made up names on their blog accounts are any less anonymous. That a few people choose to post their real pictures and maybe even their real names is a choice and it does not necessarily make them superior to anyone else. Everyone gets to choose their own level of exposure, to add some nefarious meaning to that choice is manipulative and inappropriate.
It is a choice. THIS is the internet, is it not????
Anon - "gotcha-put-down-shaming-smearing-mocking of others who you are claiming are victimizing others and who you present as villains" = Slimy.
Prove her wrong if you're going to make those accusations.
Her depiction of James Ray was extremely accurate and trust me, I know from experience with him. She has personally taken the time to help me through this dark time, unlike James Ray, who could care less about my Mother or my family... that and Connie isn't pushing $2000 get rich quick products like most of the people she blogs about.
I hope and pray every day for more people like Connie in this world, selfless and looking out for the average Joe, informing them about the "get rich quick" predators for free. Thank you Connie, your site means the world to me.
Bryan Neuman said...
"Anon - "gotcha-put-down-shaming-smearing-mocking of others who you are claiming are victimizing others and who you present as villains" = Slimy."
Noted.
What you label "slimy" I would label accurate. There is lots of examples in Whirled Musings of everything I said that you quoted above. Like you I also applaud the values that underpin Connie's Blog, just not the use of others as kicking posts to display what she wants to express in her writing for others. Human beings, authers, advocates and all of us can do better IMO.
Anon - Defend the supposed get rich quick "artists" with facts if you oppose Connie. I can't wait to listen and research further.
Anon - Oh and not everyone is just like you... some of us have a sense of humor and enjoy the snark when discussing greedy predators.
Got this here on quantum quackery - Lawrence Krauss puts the boot in on the Secret.
http://tinyurl.com/2vhapfq
I think he is technically wrong about something, thinking can change the universe, and possibly in a significant way, but not necessarily in the Law of Attraction way.
How does mere thinking change the universe?
Well, consider, let's say it's a warm sunny day and let's say you are male and you have time to sit and daydream.
Naturally the mind turns to thinking, and let's say that thinking is on the subject of lithe, oiled, well endowed bisexual dancing girls jiggling and writhing, and let's say that that thinking causes changes in the shape of the anatomy as the mind imagines all sorts of things it wants to attract.
Lets say that anatomy was only covered by loose fitting pants, allowing considerable scope for movement.
That movement causes a small disturbance in the air, a
small disturbance in the air which although ostensibly unnoticable nevertheless has an effect on the sensitively balanced conditions of the atmosphere - an effect like the butterfly effect.
Well, anything could happen because of that little thought, hurricanes, floods, snowstorms.
Now that the tumescence effect has altered the worlds weather patterns, the albedo of the atmosphere has changed thus altering the amount of electromagnetic radiation reflected out into space, into the universe, having any number of effects.
Therefore thinking can effect the universe.
Scientific!
In principle manly tumescence is not the only physical effect of desire oriented thinking, the mind and body are one system and every thought is linked with a physiological state of the body which necessarily must have effects which feed back to the environment, I merely used that as an obvious example.
All thinking is associated with neuronal changes - transmitter chemicals, blood flow, energy use, shape of brain cells etc. Is the brain hermetically sealed off from the rest of the universe?
A resounding no, it is connected to the rest of the universe in uncountable ways - even when it seems to be doing nothing.
So scientists... you are wrong!
That's my opinion Connie, not that you asked or anything, I just had to say it to counter these arrogant eggheads with their degrees and certificaments and stuff.
Anonymous,
I can't really add anything to Bryan's comments. I trust that suffices for you to either back up your accusations, or retract them.
I will write a few more things though.
I pointed out your anonymity because you have made a string of accusations of a quite personal nature, and claimed for yourself superior moral status. You even deigned to advise Connie on how she would better serve the world.
Doing all that anonymously demonstrates your inability to back up those claims. It also shows that although you are prepared to dish out personal judgements, you are not prepared to open yourself in any way at all to similar exposure. This doesn't necessarily invalidate your accusations, but it makes you look rather dubious.
Also your accusations are plain straight out wrong.
Connie is not shaming anyone. You don't understand the meaning of the word. A shamer is by definition someone who occupies a position of authority over the victim. A teacher, priest or parent shames a child, a boss shames an employee, James Ray shames people who don't do what he wants. It is supposedly for the person's own good, but involves undermining the person's fundamental self worth and triggers deep fears of rejection. Of course in Ray's case he also has a financial interest in the activity.
You are wrong to accuse Connie of doing that. Not only would she, I believe, not do that, she is simply not in a position to do it on this blog. Writing of things about which people should feel ashamed, is another matter entirely, and is not shaming.
Especially when the people don't even feel ashamed. You seem to have missed that detail.
Smearing and mocking are two things I would also not associate with Connie's blog. Again, you clearly don't have any idea what the words mean.
A perfect example of a smear is exactly what you are doing to Connie with those groundless, unsupported, inaccurate and, above all, anonymous accusations.
Mocking and victimizing others? Again, you don't know the meaning of the words, and again, I have never seen Connie, writing here or in her many comments on other blogs, acting like that.
Mocking and victimizing preclude being in dialogue with people, and she is one who actively seeks dialogue with many whom she writes about, and is always careful to reserve judgement when the facts are unclear, as you will see if you read her initial post about Ray.
Again, "dialogue" usually does not involve one of the parties remaining anonymous.
You feel entitled to judge others, Anonymous, but by you don't meet your own standards. I assume the rest of your activities are just as slippery, narcissistic and hypocritical as your comments here, so it's probably a smart move on your part to remain anonymous.
(cont.)
Smearing and mocking are two things I would also not associate with Connie's blog. Again, you clearly don't have any clear idea what the words mean.
A perfect example of a smear is exactly what you are doing to Connie with those groundless, unsupported, inaccurate and above all anonymous accusations.
Mocking and victimizing others? Again, you don't know the meaning of the words, and again, I have never seen Connie writing or in her many comments on other blogs, acting like that. Mocking and victimizing preclude being in dialogue with people, and she is one who actively seeks dialogue with many whom she writes about, is always careful to reserve judgement when the facts are unclear, as you will see if you read her initial post about Ray.
Again, "dialogue" usually does not involve one of the parties remaining anonymous.
You feel entitled to judge others, Anonymous, but by you don't meet your own standards. I assume the rest of your activities are just as slippery, narcissistic and hypocritical as your comments here, so it's probably a smart move on your part to remain anonymous.
"Anon - Defend the supposed get rich quick "artists" with facts if you oppose Connie. "
Thank-you for the request Bryan. I will not be doing what you asked, my posts were as much as I wanted to say about it. What you said was enough as well and you dont need to defend yourself to me or anyone either.
And Bryan I cannot "Defend" any "get rich quick "artists" as they do not exist. That is rhetoric you are painting people with.
It seems the point to life in the western world and it is catching on in Europe and in the east is to "get rich quick" and that will somehow make people happy. I don't see people in the 'self help industry as any different than any other where people are rushing trying to get rich by lying cutting corners misrepresenting and other things. It is not humans at their best for sure.
If I am going to talk about "get rich quick "artists", I am going to want to include most people in the world. Some succeed at it while others remain broke and dreaming about it. While a few hippies reject it and label the while thing evil and corrupt.
Bloggers and writers are more often than not an impoverished struggling bunch who tend to wind up critiquing and villifying anyone who is shamelessly trying to make $ and succeeding. It is just how it goes IMO.
Bryan you and I can both agree that there are people who are worthy of criticism. I am justnot sure who is qualified to dish it out. I am critical of the Whirled Musings Court. Perhaps I am off in this, if you say I am, you are probably right.
"I will not be doing what you asked [providing documentation supporting her accusations], my posts were as much as I wanted to say about it."
If all you can offer are false accusations and slimy criticisms, while refusing to provide anything of substance to back up same, it is probably in your best interests to remain anonymous, lest you be recognized in "real life" for the obnoxious coward you are online. Truly a case of pot and kettle, but in this instance, the kettle is quite clean by comparison.
RevRon's Rants
"If all you can offer are false accusations and slimy criticisms, while refusing to provide anything of substance to back up same,..."
Specifically, what are referring to when you say "false accusations" and what makes a criticism a "slimy criticisms" other than being one of your usual personal attacks on posters who don't parrot the party line in these blogs?
And isn't this the internet? Last time I checked it was. What statement are you making about the practice of "anonymity" that billions of people wisely practice every single day?
Are you suggesting that women and young children and all others should all post their identities and phone numbers and photo's for predators and the mentally and sociopaths and stalkers and unwell that can inhabit the www to better track down and harass them in the real world. That might be your choice. How about you let others choose for themselves what level of exposure they are comfortable with on the web?
Anon,
Unlike yourself, I will accept the challenge to support my accusations. For beginners (and to mention only one of many instances), you have previously stated that Connie spreads lies about her "snargets," but when asked to provide even one "specific example" of an alleged lie, you failed to do so. The reason is quite obvious: Connie doesn't lie, and you know it. You have also inferred that critics are, for the most part, unsuccessful in their own lives, striking out at others because they are either unwilling or unable to produce anything positive and productive themselves. Yet you make such statements without knowing Connie (or other critics, for that matter) beyond her discussions, and are yourself both unable and unwilling to provide any evidence to support your claims.
When challenged, you attempt to turn the discussion away (in this comment, as in many previous ones), thereby absolving yourself of any responsibility to prove your assertions. Sorry, but that's about as slimy as it gets around here.
You ask whether "women and young children and all others should all post their identities and phone numbers and photo's for predators and the mentally and sociopaths and stalkers and unwell..." Connie has done just that, and here you are. I thought you LGAT folks weren't supposed to live your lives in fear. Connie doesn't. :-)
A core element in a just system is the right of the accused to face their accuser. You are quick to accuse, yet unwilling not only to provide substantiation for your accusations, but to even accept personal responsibility for your own actions by making your accusations in the online version of "face to face." It can only be assumed by a reasonable observer that you lack both the courage and the integrity of the "values" which you would so insistently impose upon others.
Given the statutes protecting individuals against libelous and slanderous statements, it is understandable that you would prefer not to divulge your identity, since you would inevitably leave yourself open to litigation in response to your actionable statements. Furthermore, given your obvious obsession with stilling the voices of discontent in regard to the self-help industry, one is left with the clear feeling that you may well be defending your own business practices, or those of someone with whom you have a close association. Naturally, if you are one of the scammers whom Connie discusses, revealing your identity would serve to erode the already questionable credibility of your criticisms.
I'll make it really simple: Please either come forward *publicly* with substantiation for your accusations, or save them for your next coffee klatch with your fellow LGAT-droids. Your efforts here are too transparent to serve your purposes - a fact which has obviously eluded you thus far.
Anonymous "cannot "Defend" any "get rich quick "artists" as they do not exist."
She has apparently never encountered David Schirmer or Joe Vitale. One has faced disciplinary action from Australia's equivalent of the SEC, and the other's primary objective has always been to get rich quick (though he's apparently not very good at it, since it took him nearly 30 years and a stroke of real luck to "get rich quick."
No.
Dear Connie,
Here I am resurfacing momentarily on a public computer from an absence from posting on the internet. My old PC crashed a few months ago, so I disconnected services from the cable company which has actually been a good thing.
I must say that to go to your blog today and read about the amazing miracle meat Tony R. apparition experience has been truly moving as well as refreshing. One just never knows where Giants and their faces may lurk. Glad you and Ron got some pictures of it and the much deserved press coverage.
@Bryan N, I'd sure like to see a pic of the James Ray-face punching bag. Maybe you've got a new marketing idea. Or would his attorneys kick and scream about it?
Also, Hi Yakaru,hope you're well.
As for you,Anon,come on, where's your sense of humor? Why the buzzkill? Sure it's a scientific fact that humor is relative and there are certain centers in the brain that allow us to "get" jokes, but do you have to be such an ass about your inability or unwillingness to understand? Maybe you're unable to process the satire due to your cultural origin and/or intelligence level. Are you not an SNL,Simpsons,Prairie Home Companion, National Lampoon, or any other satire fan?
Don't you know that satire is an essential part of American culture? We don't see it as necessarily attacking(although in many cases it is,and that's okay,too!)Case in point,in 199,the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew's satire of the Roy Orbison song "Pretty Woman" when they created their own version entitled "Hairy Woman". Satire is wonderful and necessary for many of us.
Since it's Mexican Independence Centennial/ Bicentennial month, I'd just like to say, Viva la Sátira and Viva la Cosmic Connie's Whirled Musings!
Oh didn't know if my name appeared. It's Jean D. who just posted the comment a few minutes ago. Oops. Out of the blogging practice.
ladon7
if the "satire" and relentless mockery and "snarkery" was repeatedly directed, day after day month after month year after year, towards you or your mother or your father or younger sister or best friend or anyone who you cared very much about, and you still advocated the same appreciation of this type of sense of humor, then sure why not, I would be on board for what you are saying.
But somehow I doubt it.
I am a satire fan but I draw a line when it crosses certain lines. You don't?
I'd say that giving such unwavering defense to people who are engaging in deceitful business practices - including those whose business practices have directly contributed to several deaths and numerous injuries - speaks pretty clearly to the defender's own values. I wouldn't willingly be complicit - even by providing a defense - in a loved one's criminal acts when those acts cause real harm - emotional, financial, and even physical - to others, especially if the motivation behind those criminal acts was so obviously based in greed. Your mileage may vary.
Anonymous,
That's the funniest thing I've read for ages - you think Connie's humour crosses the line? The only thing that has crossed a line here is your stupidity. Strange, you strike me as somewhat bullish and insensitive, rather than a person of delicate sensibilities.
As I said in my last comment (which you ignored because you can't answer it), Connie's "victims" do not suffer from shame. Write to Tony Robbins and ask him if how much pain he is suffering because of what Connie wrote.
Your miserable yammering is not because your sensitivities have been offended. The real reason is you have a personal interest in closing down criticism. You are being utterly dishonest about your motives. Slimey and deceitful.
Maybe you should set up a charity for spiritual teachers who have lost their livelihood because of legal problems.
.....
Hi Jean D, nice to have you back!
Oh God, I went off on one again.
(note to self, learn restraint)
Well, Anon, I am related to a famous person in politics;far more famous than any of these faux gurus. My relative receives press coverage in both directions, some of the criticisms are biting and harsh,but our family has always accepted it as par for the course. Public appearance and public work will lead to both praise and criticism.
I can honestly say I'm grateful I live in a country where we can express ourselves and critique others. I'm also grateful there are legal ramifications for fake spiritual teachers who really cross the line with people's money, health and lives. In fact,I wish the laws were more strict, but that's a topic that is is constant debate even here on Connie's blog. She is very balanced in her assertions and gives a tremendous amount of free thought to the topic at hand. So if you don't like it, don't read it. Or accept that you or your "relative" has chosen a vocation that will be critiqued.
Hey everyone: I just wanted to pop in and say thank you to y'all for keeping this discussion going. I haven't bailed on you; I've just been bizzy with processing my Great Miracle, as well as working on my post about Connie Joy's book, Tragedy In Sedona, as well as working on a couple of other posts I hope to publish soon, and, oh, yeah... real paying work too. Damn, if I had my way I'd blog all day, but that doesn't seem to be where the money is, despite what all of the h-dorks that Salty Droid is always writing about tell us.
But I do want to let you know that I appreciate your keeping the conversation going in my semi-absence.
So, carry on!
PS to my fave Anon: Hey, Nerissa, is that you?!? I'm on your side, girlfriend! Wake up and smell the joe... I mean the coffee!
Jean D
Are you grateful you live in a country where I can also express myself and critique Connie my favorite blue (really purple) person? Sounds like no one here is.
I am one of those people that does not agree that anyone who ends up in the spotlight because of their work or actions (by their own choice or otherwise) automatically must accept that they are now fair-game to every hack in tabloids or on line. Fair gaming is a low road practice in my opinion and it is obnoxious and unproductive. As for me , in this case, I am talking directly to the blue person I am critiquing and she has publishing or not publishing option. So I think I am on safe ground with my criticism.
Thanks for all the replies, I know I am out of place here and not forwarding the interests of this discussion group and stirring the pot.
Connie and I have a special thing, and I know she knows I think she is a clever lighthearted minx, even though I do not admire the snarky-speculative-people's-court aspect of Whirled Musings.
Peace to y'all.
Glad you feel like you're on safe ground, anon. But I guess you missed the part where Connie said she sometimes likes to play with her food before she eats it. You really have no way of knowing whether she publishes your comments because she thinks you have something relevant to say, or just to let you provide evidence as to the high degree of ass-hattery you have so obviously achieved. Those of us who know her know that she is basically a sweet person, but she does have her own kind of vicious streak. And as you'd know if you read (and comprehended) her posts for any length of time, she doesn't suffer fools. You decide for yourself what she's doing with you. And have a nice day. :-)
And by the way... I do believe that people who take advantage of others deserve all the criticism they get - and far more brutal than they get from Connie.
VW = spatt... How appropriate!
RevRon's Rants
whatever reason Connie has or does not have for publishing comments on Whirled Musings, it is 100% her choice and I would not submit any comment to anyone other than directly to Connie and I would not post them if she did not have the sole option to publish them or not at her own discretion, as it is her blog and my remarks are usually not flattering and are critical.
Thanks, anon... You've pretty well cleared up my previous either/or conjecture. :-)
Furthermore, your response is quite apropos, given the significance of today's date! http://tinyurl.com/3xyfwqh
Post a Comment