User talk:Theobald Tiger

Explanation

Hi Theobald, would you mind letting me know whether my explanations at talk:Landmark Worldwide satisfy you? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DaveApter, I have just finished my reply. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HPM

Please stop edit warring over my addition to the Human Potential Movement article and discuss it on the talk page. What do you mean by "the quote is totally corrupt"? DaveApter (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you partly (the copyvio-part) understood what the problem was: you basically restored your previous edit, this time with quotation marks added. Nevertheless, I have reverted your restored edit again. This 'quotation' is corrupt: it is nowhere to be found in the source ([1], p.286-288). The misrepresentation is now attributed to Puttick, what makes it an instance of source manipulation. I would humbly recommend to you to study the relevant rules and guidelines. Think twice before you reply you have done so: obviously you violated the relevant rules. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TT, you might want to ask HJMitchell or one of the other active WP:AE admins whether they believe these edits might qualify under the existing discretionary sanctions on Landmark, broadly construed. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John, I will think about it. Nailing unto the cross is not my favorite pursuit, irrespective of what others have done to me. My attitude might, perhaps, be called christian in spirit, but it is most certainly not goodness or saintliness I am after - either the coward in me is too strong, or my profound dislike of calling the police surpasses my mild adherence to law and order. I was born in 1964, but I have yet to meet the first officialdom that comes anywhere close to what it has dearly promised to us on glossy paper. A stoic attitude is something I have so far not achieved, not even by the wildest stretch of the imagination, but, I think, it is still an enviable objective. Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS A Chinese proverb, quoted by Joseph Brodsky, comes to mind: "If you sit long on the bank of the river, you may see the body of your enemy floating by." Theobald Tiger (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page List of new religious movements has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful. Please do not characterise edits as vandalism unless they are. Your edit did not address the page editnotice, and it removed the additional sourcing added to the lede. Tgeairn (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is of course a question as to whether someone who might be incompetent or dubiously competent to judge policies and guidelines should be seen and/or described as acting in good faith or not. And I acknowledge that such has been a question raised several times in the past. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page of the List - your edits are clearly considered undesirable by other editors. I have nothing to add to what they told you. Claiming the moral high ground, is apparently your greatest pleasure. Since you are irritated that Landmark is called a NRM, you try to discredit NRM scientists and NRM classifications at large. Your means are hairsplitting, nitpicking, edit warring and wikilawyering. You are already busy with the preparations to nail me unto the cross for the third time. Enjoy it, for truth is nothing - what you feel, what you experience is what counts. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a completely irrelevant off-topic comment, it occurs to me now that some of the old sources on est declared it to be putting forward arguments to the effect that, in effect, everyone has total control over their own lives and the only things that happen to them are things that they, basically, wanted to have happen to them or arose as direct results of their own willful actions. A form of monism, as it were, but with everyone being their own monistic god in a sense. That would, certainly, help feed in to thinking along the lines of solipsistic narcissism in people who might be by some personal psychological characteristic inclined to such thinking. I wonder if any of the sources related to psychology of est/Landmark ever discussed that. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John, There are quite a lot of scholarly publications dealing with est that have been published in psychology/psychiatry journals. I have not nearly read all of them. I can give you an example I have read recently: Donald M. Baer and Stephanie B. Stolz, 'A Description of the Erhard Seminars Training (est) in the Terms of Behavior Analysis', Behaviorism, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring, 1978), pp. 45-70, Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies. This one mentions on p.52 solipsism as the first major component of the est curriculum. Personally I think this article is perhaps too eraspecific to be useful as a source. The journalist Peter Marin has published 'The New Narcissism' in Harper's (1975) in which he wrote about the solipsistic retreat into the self, promoted by Erhard (among others). est/The Forum has frequently been described as a symptom of the Me Generation or the Me Decade. Is this the kind of reasoning you have in mind? Kind regards, Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS Paul Vitz, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at New York University, and a reconvert to the Catholic faith, wrote in 1977 Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship (on est and Erhard, see p. 26-27). This book, together with another book of his, The Self: Beyond the Postmodern Crisis (2006), might be of some interest in this respect. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

I actually started an essay, intended to deal with editors other than any involved in this current situation, at User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet. It is still only just a rough draft, but I think it might be useful to change it and particularly take into account any possible questions of solipsistic editors, which I tend to think, in various ways, might be among our biggest problems. Maybe it could be made some sort of addendum or alternate page to WP:EXPERT as well as WP:SPA and or WP:POV. Anyway, feel free to make any changes to it you deem reasonable to make it more useful as an essay. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's interesting. I'll have a look and give you the requested input tomorrow. Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]