Re: Randy Revell/CONtext Associated
Date: October 10, 2008 12:04PM
You wrote: "What we are trying to do is determine which explanation fits best."
Not "we". After much examination, I have made my determination.
Correct, I did not provide evidence or argument for my claim. I have decided that that's not something I'm going to do with people who are certain that the wolf in sheep's clothing is really a sheep. I know, through experience, that such an effort is utterly futile.
To clarify, it is not "omissions" or "mistakes" on the webpage that inform me that CONtxt is (was) a con. If it seems that that's the basis of my argument, it's not.
You wrote: "I admit that I haven't bothered to locate the particular and careful measures by which this site (or you in particular) determines the difference between a harmless personal growth program and the more insidious "LGATs" that you apparently find everywhere. But the burden of proof, if you want to sustain credibility here, is on you."
I spent a few years reading about LGATs and reflecting on the CONtxt "courses". It was truly a journey - of my own discovery and insight. I'm not going to spend the time it would take to encapsulate that journey; if you are so motivated you will undertake the task yourself. My participation on this site is restricted only to discussing the topic of mind control with people who have experienced it, and venting about it, although I don't post much anymore. I have no interest at all in proving anything to anyone, on this site or anywhere else. You can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink, is how past attempts to 'prove' have gone. So, I don't do it.
I was lead to water when, after describing some things about CONtxt to a therapist, the word "cult" was offered. I went straight home and started searching for any information I could find. (A couple years earlier another therapist used "cult" in connection with my descriptions of CONtxt but I didn't take it seriously at that time. Also, when I was first involved with CONtxt, one participant quit and called to warn me that CONtxt was a cult, but I totally disagreed.)
You wrote: "And as far as I can see that proof is nowhere to be seen."
You note that you haven't done any looking.
You wrote: "But I don't like seeing a decent person and a decent organization besmirched by a single individual in a public forum. If you have substantial proof, spit it out. Otherwise at least fess up to the fact publicly that you have no proof and this is just a personal opinion."
I know that on the surface things looked decent; for the six years I was involved, I thought so. I no longer think so.
Do some reading, if you're so inclined. But be prepared to change your opinion of CONtxt. I struggled with that quite a bit.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2008 12:06PM by skeptic.