the members are sketch and often playing peek-a-boo out the windows flashing passersby on the street with their boobs or junk when they aren't outside chain smoking on the benches. and they are ALWAYS outside chain smoking on the benches!!!
Quote from above reader: "Much of what is on Rick Ross' website, and here on Yelp, is based on experiences derived from the first year or three of OneTaste's existence. "
This statement is naive and sounds exactly like something that would be told to a current resident to get them to dismiss what people who have managed to leave the group and are now trying to heal from their experience would say about their experience with OneTaste.
This is classic cult brainwashing technique. Translation: The people who left are bad/not strong enough/weren't able to cope in some way and YOU who are still here are special, enlightened, different from them.
This is exactly how OneTaste works. On the surface, appearing and telling their members that they are free to come and go, free to disagree and have their own opinions, but underneath carefully managing members in all aspects of their lives including and especially their sexuality.
Bottom line, it isn't the practice or any of the surface claims. It is the underneath stripping of your connection to yourself and plugging you into the group think that can be dangerous.
If you are at all in doubt about your OneTaste experience, read the book Combating Cult Mind Control. Believe me, it opened my eyes. OneTaste techniques are on every page.
Ultimately everyone has to decide for themselves. Follow your intuition, trust your inner guide and listen. If any part of you says this is not right or I don't want to go here, don't dismiss it. Don't let anyone violate your boundaries by telling you it is better or more enlightened or "open" to be like them.
/6/2009 b "loody Mary, come to me" h. says:
They used to offer naked yoga class, I never been (nor would I do anything like that), but used to attend their free Friday community yoga classes from time to time. There was a point where all these skeevy investors stepped in, and the classes were immediately halted, no explanation. Afterward I kept receiving calls from their representatives who wanted to talk about the new changes. You can easily sense that something strange was up like they were trying to hit you up for a donation.
Today, The Atlantic Magazine joined their ranks with a spiffy bit of conjuring called “The Triumph of New-Age Medicine.” [www.theatlantic.com]
Orac’s already jumped on top of it, [scienceblogs.com] noting other instances where The Atlantic just completely mangled science reporting, but, honestly, why should Orac have to?
Because they aren’t capable of doing otherwise, that’s why – lying (and being stupid enough to think we’re as stupid as they are) is all they know.
Right here, in a story on the San Francisco cult leader, Nicole Daedone, The San Francisco Chronicle just blithely accepts her word for what she’s up to with her One Taste Urban Retreat Center:
She began to explore San Francisco’s sexual underground, briefly studying under Victor Baranco, who had been publicly staging women in orgasm since 1976 and founded the Lafayette Morehouse sex cult in Lafayette, which still runs today. Baranco died in 2002, and Daedone said she has distanced herself from his legacy, insisting there is nothing cultish about OneTaste.
See? No checking. No nothin’ – they just take her word for it – when even a simple check would show she’s been monitored by the Rick Ross Cult Information Forum for quite some time.
But what do they know? The lady said “no,” and no means no, right?
Yeah, sure, and so does Scientology.
So what’s going to become of us without a free press? Who knows. Blogs are trying to fill the void, but – let’s be serious – you can’t open a blog over breakfast and ignore your wife. It’s just not the same.
But that’s where we are now, and we’re just going to have to get used to it, I guess.
Damn you all to Hell.
The basic Eastern-mystical concept of the unity of all things includes as one of its corollaries that there are no distinctions between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and evil. In fact, Eastern/New Age teaching generally attempts to invalidate Aristotelian logic in toto, so that "A" can also be "not-A." This, if carried to the "logical" conclusion, makes nonsense out of language, and meaningful communication becomes impossible. A typical New Age statement is, "That may be your reality, but it's not my reality."
It is clear, then, that rhetoric is not bound up with a single definite class of subjects, but is as universal as dialectic; it is clear, also, that it is useful.
It is clear, further, that (the function of rhetoric) is not simply to succeed in persuading, but rather to discover the means of coming as near such success as the circumstances of each particular case allow.
Nevertheless, persuasion that takes place before a public audience is not only a matter of arguments and proofs, but also of credibility and emotional attitudes.
4.1 The Definition of Rhetoric
Aristotle defines the rhetorician as someone who is always able to see what is persuasive (Topics VI.12, 149b25). Correspondingly, rhetoric is defined as the ability to see what is possibly persuasive in every given case (Rhet. I.2, 1355b26f.).
This is not to say that the rhetorician will be able to convince under all circumstances. Rather he is in a situation similar to that of the physician: the latter has a complete grasp of his art only if he neglects nothing that might heal his patient, though he is not able to heal every patient. Similarly, the rhetorician has a complete grasp of his method, if he discovers the available means of persuasion, though he is not able to convince everybody.
4.2 The Neutrality of Aristotelian Rhetoric
Aristotelian rhetoric as such is a neutral tool that can be used by persons of virtuous or depraved character. This capacity can be used for good or bad purposes; it can cause great benefits as well as great harms. There is no doubt that Aristotle himself regards his system of rhetoric as something useful, but the good purposes for which rhetoric is useful do not define the rhetorical capacity as such. Thus, Aristotle does not hesitate to concede on the one hand that his art of rhetoric can be misused.
Means of persuasion
A speech consists of three things: the speaker, the subject that is treated in the speech, and the listener to whom the speech is addressed (Rhet. I.3, 1358a37ff.). It seems that this is why only three technical means of persuasion are possible: Technical means of persuasion are either (a) in the character of the speaker, or (b) in the emotional state of the hearer, or (c) in the argument (logos) itself.Quote
) The persuasion is accomplished by character whenever the speech is held in such a way as to render the speaker worthy of credence. If the speaker appears to be credible, the audience will form the second-order judgment that propositions put forward by the credible speaker are true or acceptable
(Corboy Aristotle taught that honestly and honor were important qualities for a speaker; today the emphasis is on exuding confidence and having a convincing backstory)
(Arouse emotions in the audience--this sounds only too contemporary)
b) The success of the persuasive efforts depends on the emotional dispositions of the audience; for we do not judge in the same way when we grieve and rejoice or when we are friendly and hostile. Thus, the orator has to arouse emotions exactly because emotions have the power to modify our judgments: to a judge who is in a friendly mood, the person about whom he is going to judge seems not to do wrong or only in a small way; but to the judge who is in an angry mood, the same person will seem to do the opposite (cp. Rhet. II.1, 1378a1ff.).
Aristotle has descriptons of differences between younger persons and older persons, because a knowledge of psychology and the different stations in life are useful to a word merchant who is trying to devise a strategy.
Part 12 "Aristotle's Rhetoric
<<<Let us now consider the various types of human character, in relation to the emotions and moral qualities, showing how they correspond to our various ages and fortunes. By emotions I mean anger, desire, and the like; these we have discussed already. By moral qualities I mean virtues and vices; these also have been discussed already, as well as the various things that various types of men tend to will and to do. By ages I mean youth, the prime of life, and old age. By fortune I mean birth, wealth, power, and their opposites-in fact, good fortune and ill fortune.
To begin with the Youthful type of character.
Young men have strong passions, and tend to gratify them indiscriminately
Of the bodily desires, it is the sexual by which they are most swayed and in which they show absence of self-control. They are changeable and fickle in their desires, which are violent while they last, but quickly over: their impulses are keen but not deep-rooted, and are like sick people's attacks of hunger and thirst. They are hot-tempered, and quick-tempered, and apt to give way to their anger; bad temper often gets the better of them, for owing to their love of honour they cannot bear being slighted, and are indignant if they imagine themselves unfairly treated.
While they love honour, they love victory still more; for youth is eager for superiority over others, and victory is one form of this.
They love both more than they love money, which indeed they love very little, not having yet learnt what it means to be without it-this is the point of Pittacus' remark about Amphiaraus.
They look at the good side rather than the bad, not having yet witnessed many instances of wickedness. They trust others readily, because they have not yet often been cheated. They are sanguine; nature warms their blood as though with excess of wine; and besides that, they have as yet met with few disappointments. Their lives are mainly spent not in memory but in expectation; for expectation refers to the future, memory to the past, and youth has a long future before it and a short past behind it: on the first day of one's life one has nothing at all to remember, and can only look forward.
They are easily cheated, owing to the sanguine disposition just mentioned.
They have exalted notions, because they have not yet been humbled by life or learnt its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes them think themselves equal to great things-and that means having exalted notions. They would always rather do noble deeds than useful ones: their lives are regulated more by moral feeling than by reasoning....
..They are ready to pity others, because they think every one an honest man, or anyhow better than he is.... They are fond of fun and therefore witty, wit being well-bred insolence.
It is clear, further, that (the function of rhetoric) is not simply to succeed in persuading, but rather to discover the means of coming as near such success as the circumstances of each particular case allow
Am not too sure how accurate this website is. Interested readers can go to other websites and run calculations.
In 2010, the relative value of $200.00 from 1972 ranges from $834.00 to $2,350.00.
If you want to compare the value of a $200.00 Commodity in 1972 there are four choices. In 2010 the relative:
real price of that commodity is $1,040.00
real value of that commodity is $1,010.00
labor value of that commodity is $959.00(using the unskilled wage) or $1,150.00(using production worker compensation)
income value of that commodity is $1,590.00