RD

Love this thread by the way...

once again for RD
once again for RD's sake Again, in case it might finally sink in: previous owners made mistakes in what they signed, and as far as I am aware they have all accepted that. Simon betrayed all these people that were very loyal to him. That is a betrayal and is not just to be cast aside. BTW, I was not at all upset, thus all the happy faces. But I was laughing out loud at what you wrote.

and now my question
RD, so here is my question to you. Very simply. Do you really believe that Simon was being noble by 'testing' these guys and then betraying them because they 'failed his test'. I can rephrase that to be less provoking to: Do you really believe that Simon was being noble by 'testing' these guys and then that because they failed his test, Simon should feel free to do whatever he wanted to them and that they would deserve it because they failed this test?

and my feelings on trust
RD seems to suggest that Simon is almost noble in that he tested people by trying to force them to sign a bad document, and that those that failed he 'rightfully' betrayed, and those that passed the test are now new owners. He seems to suggest that these people that failed the test deserved what they got for exposing themselves and trusting Simon with their money and their financial lives. And that they now have learned their lesson and should be happy as they now will be better off with their newfound knowledge of distrust and wariness. Of course all of this assumes that there really is a test. That is something RD has not even begun to prove. Here are my thoughts. I have freely given my trust to many people in the past: girlfriends, parents, siblings, friends, employers, teachers etc. Many times I have regretted giving that trust, and sometimes I have been taken advantage of. Thankfully, so far, nothing as severe or costly as what Simon has done to these previous owners etc. Many times people thought I was really stupid for getting myself into that situation, or to continue in it for as long as I did. Or that I should have asked far more questions before opening myself up to be taken advantage of. I have had to think about that a lot and question my actions. In the end, I am very content with my overall actions and continued. I would never have met my wife if I had not 'exposed' myself again. For the most part, when you trust other people and act accordingly you will be rewarded far more than it ever cost you. If I was always wary and only selfprotective I would think that a sad way to live. On the other hand - if someone abuses my trust, then I am out of there. Simon has roundabout abused my trust, and I am happy to see his 'empire' has crumbled almost to nothing and not one of his past associates will stand up for him. (Don't read that wrong, I am not trying to take credit for the fall). Many people have rewarded my trust in them. And that has enriched my life significantly. Whether it was the mechanic who subsequently does a quick 'engine light' check for free, a friend that lends me their car, or I find an amazing wife and am welcomed unquestioningly into her family. And that is what breeds loyalty and what I feel should be rewarded in others. On the other hand, I understand that Simon sometimes patrols/patrolled his property with guns. I wonder why.... How's that for a random post....

RD

RD

Simon likes the word too: "To this very day only 16 lower ranking master degrees have been issued over a period of almost 20 years. Even here, Grand Master Simon feels that a few unworthy ones have betrayed him being capable of disguising their true character to him." -Publisher's Comment, (1980 edition) of “The White Priest”

Goddam RD, how did you get all that from my post: I was just commenting on your point about the word "Betrayal" not being an appropriate word I know what I saw, I know what I heard, I am comfortable with my position on this subject, I don't need to prove it to you to feel better about myself... (Regarding your point about "you weren't there so how would you know"... I WAS there) Like I (& others) have said before, there are three sides to every story: What you think happened What I think happened What really happened Having said that, some of us are a little more informed than others... NEXT!

RD

RD, You posted, “Sorry I can't comment on ancient history. That's Mr. E's department ;)” With all due respect: Perhaps the following is part of the disagreement between those posting here. Are the definitions we are using the same for all parties? Wiki defines Contract this way; “A contract is a "promise" or an "agreement" made of a set of promises.” Also, “Breach of this contract is recognized by the law and legal remedies can be provided.” Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract What Wiki does not say is how costly seeking “legal remedies” can be. Wiki has this to say about betrayal; “Betrayal, as a form of deception …” Also, “Betrayal…produces moral and psychological conflict within a relationship…”. Here is that link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayal Wiki defines deception this way, “Deception…is to intentionally distort the truth in order to mislead others.” ” There are two classes of deception: “ “Dissimulation - consist in concealing the truth, like inconvenient or secret information.” “Simulation - consist in exhibiting false information.” Here is the link to a much more detailed description. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception And as I stated in my last post; We can change the names and eras being referred to but the stories are so similar (imo). Regards, MrE2Me2 Without prejudice E&OE

RD

RD

Hello RD, You posted, “you Wikipedia-meister you! I am in awe of wiki skills.” I am flattered by your comments. You also posted, “I gotta go get some work done while I still have a job.” Copy that! Regards, MrE2Me2