--- In [email protected], blastedactresses <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> "  But I would like to elaborate on that incident which I described when 
> Werner attacked me
> physically (along with his assistants). "
> 
> ( maskedzebra, before you said: )
> 
> "and he physically attacked me. "
> 
> ( can you please "elaborate" on how any person(s) in fact,  actually  
> "physically attacked" you  and law enforcement/police not get involved? )

RESPONSE: First of all, blastedactresses, are you 1. an est, Forum, or Landmark 
Education graduate? 2. Did you post on this blog before you read about my 
account of my confrontation with Werner? 3. Are you acting, in writing on this 
blog, on behalf of the Werner context of self and reality?

Assuming the answers to these 3 questions are "NO", then I would merely ask you 
to think of how two bouncers would remove an obstreperous or boorish or 
intoxicated person from a bar. That pretty much gets at the physicalness of 
what happened that evening at the est headquarters in San Francisco in, I 
think, 1983. There must have been several hundred witnesses, so I am sure 
(especially if somehow you have any contacts with Werner's organization) you 
could find persons who could corroborate my story—at least the putting of hands 
upon my body and forceful removal of myself from the physical space where 
Werner was giving his lecture. 

If this latest response of yours comes AFTER having seen my more comprehensive 
analysis of WE, then I suspect that I am right: you are, choicelessly, 
compulsively acting on behalf of the reputation of Werner.

Because to so emphatically ignore the existence of that follow-up is both bad 
manners and an act of inexplicable obstinacy. A perfect instance of the est 
universe.

But surely, blastedactresses (that name itself could be derived from an 
inspired sensation of what happened to you after undergoing the Werner 
transformation, the training) I am wrong, and that you will answer honestly 
those 3 questions in the negative.

If this is the case, then fire away again.


>


Reply via email to