FDR Podcast #888

David J. Heinrich · Number of posts: 68 Registration date: 2007-10-17

sutible4livestok wrote:

David J. Heinrich wrote:

There are also no "layers of knowledge" type secrets, and many other characteristics that are non cult-like.

premium podcasts are 'more insightful' and what pisses me off is that I was involved in a premium podcast ( a call in) and stefanie decided that I was not a high enough donato to listen to it. Saying that 'you obviously understand better and have made more of a comittment at the gold level' I am poor, no way would I donate $100 or more to a ite, eve though it was helpful. I did donate, but only what I could afford. Anyway. This is exactl like scientology in that te more you 'donate' the more 'knowledge' you can recieve.

I'd forgotten about the premium podcasts. However, I don't think they're "higher levels". I think the substance of his thought is in the 800 podcasts. The premium podcasts, imo, added little, which is why I criticized them publicly; the point being, if you think his podcasys gave you value, donate, but don't do so expecting significant additional value in the premium podcasts. They were more like a private, gossipy, conversation.

raureka · Number of posts: 14 Registration date: 2007-10-23

Conrad wrote:

dude, how did you experience Stef's podcasts about you?

Interesting, infuriating, laughable, humiliating, sickening...

I wrote a few paragraphs benignly probing Stefan's ideas, only to find myself being dragged through the mud with my hands tied behind my back. Watching as someone knowingly, unrestrainedly and maliciously misrepresents you is utterly exasperating to say the least - but I'm sure you know that already.

Stefan loves to talk of the power disparity in relationships. Well, how about the disparity between the host of the show, and an anonymous board member. The former broadcasts his side of the story to an audience of thousands; the latter, if lucky, can count his audience on two hands. It's like trying to bring down Fox News by standing on a street corner with a picket sign.

Conrad · Subject: Re: FDR Podcast #888 Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:32 pm

raureka wrote:

Conrad wrote:

dude, how did you experience Stef's podcasts about you?

Interesting, infuriating, laughable, humiliating, sickening...

yeah, that's how I felt too (excl. the 'humiliating' cuz I felt pretty damn confident about my positions and behaviour. that may be for you too so then I doubt that 'humiliating' is the right term)

Quote:

I wrote a few paragraphs benignly probing Stefan's ideas, only to find myself being dragged through the mud with my hands tied behind my back.

good image

Quote:

Watching as someone knowingly, unrestrainedly and maliciously misrepresents you is utterly exasperating to say the least - but I'm sure you know that already.

yep

Quote:

Stefan loves to talk of the power disparity in relationships. Well, how about the disparity between the host of the show, and an anonymous board member. The former broadcasts his side of the story to an audience of thousands; the latter, if lucky, can count his audience on two hands. It's like trying to bring down Fox News by standing on a street corner with a picket sign.

yeah, good comparison.

what I did not understand about your posts after his first podcast about you is that you pretty much apologized and agreed with him (my memory could be at fault here) Did you do this for 'strategic' reasons, thinking 'I will be as accomodating and friendly to him and perhaps that will change his attitude to a friendlier one too'? or was it that you just were sort of overwhelmed and intimidated into apologizing?

mike barskey · Subject: Re: FDR Podcast #888 Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:50 pm

Conrad wrote:

thanks a million for the transcript dude! That must have been one hell of an unpleasant experience. I remember a couple of days ago I had to look up some quotes from a podcast and it was taking me some time and re-winding and stuff and it just felt awful to 'have to' listen to him go on and on... but I sacrificed myself for the greater good! Wink

I thought it was important for new FDR people to hear facts about Stef/FDR. By transcribing 20 mins of Stef's rant and then posting my bitter opinions, I'm certainly not doing that. But my goal was to then reiterate all the things that y'all are doing (thanks!): facts that contradict Stef's incorrect assertions. Facts like the techniques we used, the reasons we were banned, what Stef actually said as opposed to what he said that he said, etc. And evidence like our posts here on LM with quotes from FDR and emails and PMs from Stef/FDR contradicting what Stef claimed.

It was indeed a mentally anguishing task to transcribe those 20 mins, by the way. My feeling at the time was kind of "take one for the team" - I kept on through increasing anger and frustration because I thought it was important to have available. I hope new FDR people continue to be able to find LM.

Again again, for those people: We aren't perfect (unlike Stef, apparently Smile

). Please don't trust what we say about FDR (or anything). Instead, read our posts and our opinions about what happened, listen to and read Stef's and (other FDR members') assertions, read the quotes we have posted and the FDR posts we have linked to (and others) - make your own decisions. If you are going to trust someone with your happiness or with helping you with your own happiness, you might want to consider the integrity and ability of the source.

Free Radical · Number of posts: 170 Registration date: 2007-09-27

Stef insists that you can't get an "ought" from an "is." Yet in this podcast he said:

"You knew this person's history -- that he'd been banned and he shouldn't even be on the board."

Embarassed

_________________
Links:
Freedomainers Cult (Excommunicated) Google Map!
MolyneuxCultWatch

raureka · Number of posts: 14 Registration date: 2007-10-23

Conrad wrote:

yeah, that's how I felt too (excl. the 'humiliating' cuz I felt pretty damn confident about my positions and behaviour. that may be for you too so then I doubt that 'humiliating' is the right term)

...

what I did not understand about your posts after his first podcast about you is that you pretty much apologized and agreed with him (my memory could be at fault here) Did you do this for 'strategic' reasons, thinking 'I will be as accomodating and friendly to him and perhaps that will change his attitude to a friendlier one too'? or was it that you just were sort of overwhelmed and intimidated into apologizing?

The feeling of humiliation stemmed from the powerlessness I experienced - I felt that I was in the right, but could do nothing to prove my case. It was remarkably similar to several experiences in high school, actually, where I would challenge a teacher's assertions, and then be openly degraded and mocked.

The whole interaction was, for me, extremely bizarre. I never anticipated, nor wanted, the attention that I got. I drafted the posts out of curiosity. I took Stefan's definition of 'corruption' and his hypothesis of the connection between family and state, and followed them through to their conclusion in an attempt to see what implications these ideas have for the average person. The invocation of 'my father' was not, as Stefan claimed, an anger-spurred defense mechanism, but simply an attempt to create the image of someone to whom we can all relate - a literary device, of sorts. (As it turned out, of course, I had invested more of my own attachment to my father into the conversation than I then intended or realized). When I heard Stefan's first podcast on my post - where he misread, misinterpreted, misrepresented, mocked and psychologized me - I knew there was little I could do to salvage my position in the conversation. It was like being invited to a debate, only to have the microphone turned off when it's your turn to speak.

Desirous to continue participating in discussions at FDR, I attempted to clarify and address some of Stefan's key criticisms (read: mischaracterizations) of me, and then apologize for any miscommunication between us. All of this, of course, he attacked me for in a second and separate podcast.

Any further debate with Stefan on my part would have been futile. I disappeared, and have been lurking in the shadows since.

reddeerrick · Subject: Re: FDR Podcast #888 Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:14 am

Which thread was this in, raureka?

_________________

http://tails-dx.deviantart.com/gallery/
My daughters art. =3

raureka · Number of posts: 14 Registration date: 2007-10-23

This was many months ago now, but I believe Conrad wrote a lengthy analysis of the whole interaction (including excerpts from my posts and from Stefan's replies) that's floating around here on Liberating Minds. I'll try and dig it up for you.

Conrad · Subject: Re: FDR Podcast #888 Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:06 am

a discussion about how Stef treated Raureka can be found in the first paragraphs of this post

Free Radical · Number of posts: 170 Registration date: 2007-09-27

Free Radical wrote:

Stef insists that you can't get an "ought" from an "is." Yet in this podcast he said:

"You knew this person's history -- that he'd been banned and he shouldn't even be on the board."

Embarassed

I just posted this on the fdr board.
http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/thread/96362.aspx

_________________
Links:
Freedomainers Cult (Excommunicated) Google Map!
MolyneuxCultWatch

reddeerrick · Subject: Re: FDR Podcast #888 Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:23 pm

Free Radical, how do you manage to keep your account on FDR?

_________________

http://tails-dx.deviantart.com/gallery/
My daughters art. =3

Conrad · Subject: Re: FDR Podcast #888 Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:27 pm

I think you misunderstood Stef's remark there: he says 'you knew the person's history - that he'd been banned and that he shouldnt even be on thew board'

So he doesn't say 'therefore' (although even that would be defensible without violating is/ought) but instead makes two logically independent assertions.

Free Radical · Number of posts: 170 Registration date: 2007-09-27

Beats me.

_________________
Links:
Freedomainers Cult (Excommunicated) Google Map!
MolyneuxCultWatch

Free Radical · Number of posts: 170 Registration date: 2007-09-27

Conrad wrote:

I think you misunderstood Stef's remark there: he says 'you knew the person's history - that he'd been banned and that he shouldnt even be on thew board'

So he doesn't say 'therefore' (although even that would be defensible without violating is/ought) but instead makes two logically independent assertions.

I think the link is implicit. Why shouldn't I be on the boards? Because I have been banned.

_________________
Links:
Freedomainers Cult (Excommunicated) Google Map!
MolyneuxCultWatch

Conrad · Subject: Re: FDR Podcast #888 Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:32 pm

Free Radical wrote:

Conrad wrote:

I think you misunderstood Stef's remark there: he says 'you knew the person's history - that he'd been banned and that he shouldnt even be on thew board'

So he doesn't say 'therefore' (although even that would be defensible without violating is/ought) but instead makes two logically independent assertions.

I think the link is implicit. Why shouldn't I be on the boards? Because I have been banned.

Okay, I understand. But then would you say that 'that player received a red card (in football) so he shouldnt even be on the pitch' is a violation of 'is-ought'? Or even 'The Chicago Bulls scored and so their opponents, the San Antonio Spurs should have the ball'?