About Member of Friedrich Grohe Gang Javier Gómez Rodríguez

Also See:

Pages About Grohe & Gang and their influence mongering in Krishnamurti foundations, KFT, KFA:


UPDATE: Another Fake Guru Born Out of Pathetic Grohe Gang

Like a couple of other members of the Grohe Gang, Javier has become a "guru".

There's NO WAY these guys would have reached such positions by the virtue of their own qualifications. They rose up, to the detriment of Krishnamurti, because of Friedrich Grohe's clout of big money and influence mongering at the "K world".

The other two "gurus" who are part of the Grohe Gang are Rabindra Singh and Raman Patel. None of them call themselves guru, but Raman is even called "guru ji" by others -- he was considered as the most powerful person at KFT / Brockwood Park School without even having an official role -- and made it to Executive Director role after his/ Grohe's recruits, Nasser Shamim and Mina Masoumian and the trustees who were supposed to oversee them screwed up big time, and after our research report came out and facts started creeping out. Our 340 page report contained statements of over 70 witnesses. https://www.rezamusic.com/writings/on-j-krishnamurtis-work/KFT-Mismanagement

Rabindra reportedly told a friend he'll become a guru once they start trusting him and will rise to the top like cream -- and he did. He became the top dog at KFA - and in coordination with his boss Friedrich Grohe brought Jaap Sluijter as the Executive Director of Krishnamurti Foundation America, which in my view and view of some of the closest friends of K, has been a disaster.

Javier's most boring talks were so un-insightful and his persona, so crude. His reaction to criticism has been reported to be vulgar. I witnessed that first hand - and also heard troubling reports from others about how angry and vulgar and arrogant Javier was in multiple situations -- and now he's teaching people how to live and some people who are more familiar with him contend he has become a Krishnamurti interpreter, which K dreaded.

Now he has a money making site where he sells his so called "course" - he calls it "the book of yourself" where him the teacher is supposed to know and teach people about K - but as K said you have to live it otherwise it's meaningless, and I don't see any trace of K's teachings in Javier's behavior.

On his site you can buy his drivel for a meager 350 Euros! And when you enter his site, first thing you notice is a giant picture of J. Krishnamurti. Poor Krishnamurti!

~~~

One serious student of K and researcher said Javier is making money from Krishnamurti, and there are sessions that are charging people who want to listen to Javier. I can't imagine why anyone would want to pay to listen to Javier's dull, boring, egotistic, arrogant drivel.

KFA is charging money for people who want to attend a "course" by Javier on relationship (LOL) -- it's pretty funny that Javier would be teaching people about relationship. A guy who arrogantly blasts people who question his authority that was given to him via the clout of being on the payroll of Friedrich Grohe -- and by people who need a guru. Poor Krishnamurti. If Javier was bright, insightful, humble, agile in his mind, that would be something -- but that's not the case in my view based on numerous interactions with him and wasting time in his boring dull self-pumping lectures, and guru-like manner of speech. A close friend of K said Javier must really like the sound of his own voice. The way he talks reminds me of clergies who have nothing to say.

KFA didn't charge people to hear Krishnamurti talk. They're charging people to hear Javier Gomez Rodriguez talk. https://archive.is/bXpnF-- that's pretty funny!


About Member of Friedrich Grohe's "Gang" (KLI): Javier Gómez Rodríguez

In public settings, Javier has exhibited unacceptable, aggressive, uncivil, arrogant, irrational behavior towards people he apparently thinks he's above, I guess because he's part of Friedrich Grohe's "gang" or because some gullible people look up to him as a guru or something :-).

New Reports on Javier Gómez Rodríguez's uncivil unacceptable behavior

23 Jan 2021

I was appalled after hearing from a credible old friend that Javier called her a liar in a large dialogue group at a public gathering -- in the same kind of setup where he also said utterly stupid arrogant things to me (see my response letter below). She reportedly asked him to apologize after the meeting but what ensued was not civil.

I also heard today from another friend who said she had a discussion with Javier and he exhibited angry, irrational behavior and she was surprised about the level of aggression. Yet he seems to act as some kind of Krishnamurti expert, while K spent decades talking about the problem of aggression, etc., seeing it, ending it.

I wrote him the following email but haven't sent it yet.

~~~

23 Jan 2021

From Reza Ganjavi

Javier

I was just informed that you pulled another one of your arrogant ordeals on someone -- similar to what you did to me at the same gathering (different year) -- but even worse. That's very uncool to say the least. I was hoping you learned a lesson when I pushed back on your uncivil arrogant stupid behavior towards me (see letter below), and that you got off your high horse, but apparently not! How about dealing with your aggression, instead of lecturing about Krishnamurti?!

I don't believe you would get away with such arrogant unacceptable attitude had you not been part of Friedrich Grohe's "gang" as you call yourselves. You should immediately resign from KLI and never ever treat anyone else as such. I guess it gets to your head to be looked up to by gullible people as some sort of a leader. I personally find your talks and writings boring, un-insightful and dull. It's hypocritical to write about K's work and lecture about it, yet act contrary to it.

Best wishes to you.

Reza Ganjavi

Get Off Your High Horse Javier: Letter to Javier Gómez Rodríguez about his arrogant and aggressive behavior.

26 Jul 2009

Javier

I hope you understand by now that I was extremely nice to you last year. Don't push your luck.

You publicly defamed me in the meeting with your false accusations and I responded to your utter aggression, cruelty, insensitivity, vulgarity and stupidity with utter calmness. I told you many times to stop but you kept going. I am not carrying this as an injury -- it didn't injure my psyche -- but it made me sad, and concerned, that you do this while employed by Friedrich -- I have no idea what you do but it doesn't matter -- in a K-organization. Nobody else would dare to talk to anybody else like that in private let alone in public, except your highness from your high pedestal, high horse, which I suppose Friedrich and Gisele have put you on. Get off it man, and get a life.

I am waning you to stop badmouthing me in public and private. If you have a problem with me, be a man, come up, and tell me what is your problem. I did that. I told you that your behavior was not acceptable, but I have no faith whatsoever that it ever got through since then because it didn't then.

Where is K in your life? You are employed by a K-organization, an organization dedicated to K's work. Where is your love for wisdom? How dare you look into another person eyes and say that they are confused, that they're living a confused life? You can do this in a spirit of friendship to a close friend to help them. That was not the case. For you this was a continuation of the kicks and stabs that you delivered with your words. Regardless of the delivery, you were wrong. I told you this already. But where are the ears to hear when you get so caught up in your own images and conclusions? You are so caught into this movement of trying to make a fool out of me, trying to discredit me, because I don't put up with your boring sermons, and I am not one of your worshipers, or for whatever reason, but clearly, your aim has been to defame and discredit me, time and again.

I am copying this to your boss and maybe to Gisele [I didn't send to Gisele because she's had enough to read already!] because it is them whom I believe have given your the license to do this, implicitly.

When you keep striking at someone, year after year, and they keep cool and are a gentleman about it, doesn't that give you a message. I have never raised my voice on you although on a number of occasions you really pushed me to tell you where you belong. Don't you get the message? Even some of your own team-mates told me your action was inappropriate. I don't except an apology. I expect and end.

You are free to express your opinions, but when we're talking about aggression, then we get into a different ball game. You have yelled at me at a number of occasions and every single time you were wrong in doing so. I explained to you gently so, I didn't stand up and yell back at you. I didn't play your game at your level. Don't you get it? Don't you think there is consequence when you yell at people? I was doing yoga on a quiet afternoon when nobody was around in the only place that had carpet in a chalet and you shouted at me that I am there to get attention. Are you sick or crazy? If I want to get attention I can get it so many other ways. You might have been a loner in your earlier life but I have always had lots of rich relationships. If you're thirsty for attention then you project that onto me perhaps. I have no idea what your problem is, and honestly I don't care. I don't have to live or deal with you. I just find it a shame that Friedrich never sees this and he continues to support you (no I am not envious of your salary or position). He should at least demand that his employees should at least contain themselves and not shout at others -- there are so many other ways of handling things. But even that does not matter so much. What does matter is the level of illusion and image making, defensiveness and aggression that you exhibit.

I should have written this email months ago. I am sorry that I didn't. I thought by reading my article you might get it after I gave up talking to you directly last year because you were so stuck in your own ideas. How do you expect to have a dialogue when your first sentence is telling the other guy "you live a confused life"? How dare you say that? I would never allow myself to say this about others specially when they say, no, they're not confused. When I refer to confused people in my article it is about people who themselves admit to being confused. So you shut the door. But eleven months later, I had to write this because I have no confidence that movement has changed. Therefore I am writing now. It has nothing to do with the next gathering.

You are free to think and express what you think. You are free to make illusions in your mind. But when you shout at people, and when you say things which are absolutely not true, then it's a different ball game. You have proven to be false in your assumptions of another person's motives so many times. I think K said it very well: is it possible to live without an image? Don't you see Javier that it's thought that makes those images of others images in your head? Your image of my image of wanting attention. Your image of aspects of my life which are none of your business. Your image of my image of the gathering. Your image of my image of myself. Javier, I am not an outsider. I attended last years' program, in that week you were there, almost the same length as you. I did not speak for about 40 minutes in order to respect people who were there longer and had more things to said. "silence is not an invitation to speak" was one of your kicks. I had many friends in that room with whom we've spoke for many years. Several came up and told me afterwards how wrong you were in your empty accusations. No, I am not there at the gathering to judge it or rate it or evaluate it or be superior. That's just an image in your head. Of course these images always find company so you're not the only one. I did not go to the gathering to be some sort of a judge. That's just in your head. There are several people, every year, who come for 1/2 a day, 1, 2, 3, or whatever days. The motives and intension for my writings are clearly stated in each article. Read it there instead of imagining, again, what is not.

But your being on your high horse, in your mind, all your images are just facts. Well they're not. Hello!! Wake up!! Get off your horse for a while and walk with the lowly. If you are indeed tentative about your images then your communication skill is really terrible because you can't start a dialogue by accusing the other of being confused. If you are eager to find out what are another persons motives, what they think, and want to test your conclusions, then you have to be a lot gentler. You can always contact me you know, I have no hard feelings for you, but everything that I have heard about the assessments of how you think I think and what you think is my motivation and your categorizations and abstractions and rationalizations and defenses and justifications, have been FALSE. This is the power of thought. Can you see the false as the false without thought? Can that movement stop? Can you stop propagating nonsense about me and my motives and my attitude? You have no idea about my life and relationships. It is not your business to speculate into them. It is not OK for you to abuse someone's gentleness (knowing they won't strike back) by publicly kicking them. Before you push people to the limit, think about the consequence. I don't wonder for a moment why your old class mate said you were a loner. How many friends do you really have now? It's for you to know. Does something need changing? It's for you to see.

Good wishes to you. I move on with my life without carrying any image of you. If you have something to be addressed I will address it. Otherwise, I am not occupied with you. I haven't been and won't be. I wish you well. Life is too short for anything else, and as I wrote in my journal today:

To wish ill on another is to wish ill on oneself, but that is not the reason I wish them well. I wish them well for no reason. Love has no reason. Anyway, I ended up summarizing what was on my mind in this [see UPDATES section at the end of this chapter]

Have a nice summer.

Best Regards,

Reza

About Javier Gómez Rodríguez: Extract from Reza Ganjavi's 2009 Circular "Commentaries on the work around J. Krishnamurti's work, etc." [this section moved here permanently]

PRIESTHOOD

Member of Friedrich Grohe’s “Gang” (KLI), Javier Gómez Rodríguez has emerged over the years as a European sort of a “priest” for people who used to worship K but now need someone else to hang on to. I say European, because there are Indian ones too. It’s so silly, and of course I am being sarcastic as he is officially not a priest but acts like he must deliver a long boring sermon, must talk, and some of what he says does not make sense, and he does not appear to get questioned on that because people who put him in that role are weak philosophically. I understood K to specifically not want to have any priests. [By the way, I do have respect for good priests who give a message of love and friendship to people].

I don’t know much about his background other than he was a loner in school, according to one of his class-mates, and later, I suppose taught at one of K schools. He’s done a lot of good work translating K books and some years ago he was recruited to be part of the KLI team. I don’t know if he has other jobs than that. I have never had hard feelings for him although I disapproved at those who’d put him on a pedestal which he seemed to enjoy, and he played the role well, giving long boring talks. He has good qualities, like being well versed in literature, but it appears that having been put in the position of power in these gatherings – that look at him as a leader, or rather a helper, “to help us be together” – has got to his head. K’s work doesn’t need any leaders. And also, being part of this powerful organization, KLI, may have got to his head. Raman is also part of this group and it’s not got into his head.

On a number of occasions I can cite but won’t, he gave himself the license to walk all over people. In Murren 2008 he went totally out of line in one afternoon meeting where he was supposed to be a “helper”, a facilitator.

Facilitator’s Role:

I am a professional facilitator and get paid good money by companies for facilitating communications, listening, coordinating, managing, understanding a problem and letting it reveal the solution, consulting, analyzing needs, etc.. The job of a facilitator is best served when it’s minimal. In his case, Javier apparently sees his role as a facilitator to be one who does most of the talking, and then, if someone challenges him, he strikes back in a defensive fashion with a self-issued license to walk all over a person due to his position of authority, group leader, helper or whatever.

In one instance, A guy who had not talked for the first 40 minutes of a meeting said some things and Javier jumped all him for speaking too much while Javier himself had consumed the majority of the airwave during that period and he was meant to have been a facilitator whose role is ideally one of less not more. Under the Javier’s verbal lashes, the guy almost left the room but that would have meant giving a cart blanch to Javier to severe the dignity of the relationships and giving him even more power. He therefore told Javier that he will shut up and asked Javier to stop his attacks as a matter of respect for others as their time was being consumed on an unnecessary detour which only served as giving a subject to Javier to keep on his ramble. The preacher was so high on his own sermon, engrossed in his own lecture, that he could not even hear the plea; and nothing could stop him. He took the matter public so addressing the chap’s side of the story in public is totally appropriate.

Javier appeared to have found importance in the friction and having found a topic that ensured his continuity as the central figure. Otherwise, just being a facilitator would have meant, ideally, being nothing, quiet.

Javier also criticized the guy for having gone part-time to the meetings. The fact is, not everyone goes to the gathering for the whole week, and Javier himself had not gone to the whole week either. The guy was there in the beginning of the week and Javier was not. Furthermore, Javier, over the years, skips almost every social event, concert, etc., as well as many of the walks but the guy is much integrated into the social scene despite some years going part time.

After the meeting a number of people spoke with the chap whom Javier had attacked:

  • Two members of KLI told the chap that Javier’s attack was inappropriate / unnecessary / out of place

  • A lady hugged and kissed the chap saying he was just like her son.

  • One man said he was very happy that the chap didn't leave while he was being attacked by Javier.

  • One lady said Javier was inappropriately trying to create a separation between the group and the chap – still caught in tribal thinking – which is exactly along the theme of the week about separation.

I don’t think anyone told Javier himself anything about being out of line, as ones in a position of authority are sometimes viewed as untouched, immune from criticism, and better left in their world of illusion. However, the guy showed up just at the right time when Javier was speaking behind his back to a few others and luckily got the chance to listen in. The guy is a happy clear guy with a lot of joy, rich relationships, inward quietness, education, good job, money, talent, etc., but Javier told him that “you are confused, you live a confused life”. I guess if nobody’s confused priests won’t have a role or would they? It sounded so ridiculous trying to convince a person who’s deeply happy that no, you’re not happy, you’re confused!

This whole subject is important and interesting to me in so far as it demonstrates once again, our human habits and movements that occur after the death of a great thinker, how authority is formed, and its significance and consequences on psyches. I can recall an instance where once a guy was doing floor yoga poses on the only piece of carpet there was around; on a quiet afternoon when no-one was around; he was not on anybody’s way; he was not disturbing or bothering anyone; and Javier walked by (or rather rode his high horse), and lashed out at the guy and scolded him for harmlessly doing stretches on that empty un-traffic-ed space. He had no right to do so but apparently gave himself that right for the reasons mentioned above, and/or for another reason, or to mimic K who sometimes lashed out at people, I guess in his managerial role.

He declared to be approaching dialogues from a Bohmian perspective (Dr. David Bohm’s work) of the sharing of meaning by means of the words. But he projects his apparent difficulty in communicating and relating, onto others and therefore creating yet another generalization which only blocks people – that people can’t do – and if an exception to his stereotype comes along, he apparently insists that it can not be, which is really a joke.

He uses Bohm’s notion of “flow of meaning” which I understand to be a nice, fancy phrase to mean “listen to each other with all your being and your heart and all your senses as well as ears, and be sincere and eager in understanding what they’re saying, and at the same time, listen to your own prejudice, conclusions, inner noise, etc…”.

Communication is not black magic or rocket science. The key is to understand and allow those factors that block it to be removed…factors such as psychological thought, image making, prejudice; fears born out of thought-time, wrong diet, etc. etc.

K’s WORK DOESN’T BRING PARALYSIS

Javier asked at some point: “Do k’s teachings paralyze people?”

No, the teachings don’t paralyze – it’s the student and the so called leaders who bring paralysis: The leader who talks about psychological walls, the psychologist who makes the patient more confused by his own confusion, and the student who is either incapable or unwilling to take a walk and smell that flower that this is pointed to. The incapability or laziness could be due to a person’s diet, petty addictions, quality of brain, lack of diligent study, wastage of energy, cultural conditioning, force of habit, the strength of the self, or other factors…

Blaming K is simply lame. It’s like a music pupil who complains about not learning anything because all he does is to go to lessons but never practices. K is this incredibly bright guy who came and pointed some things out and clarified several crucial, complex, deep issues that burden the human psyche – of course, it’s up to each person if that’s seen or not as this is a field which scientific method can not be used as proof (and the attempt to do so is exactly why the discipline of psychology is still so primitive).

These complaints about brick walls and other doom and gloom ideas that often circulate gatherings are perhaps addressed by a statement K made in 1955: “But if I see, not just superficially, but right through, that this very occupation of the mind with sorrow is the movement of the self which creates sorrow…”.

K-WORLD OR NO K-WORLD

The earliest occurrence of the term “K world” that I can recall goes back to 1990’s with a letter Gopal wrote, a satire piece if I recall correctly, titled, “the key to the K world”. That phrase was used regularly within the KLI-Kinfonet circle and elsewhere. The most recent Kinfonet circular (June 2009) had the following phrase:

‘Find out what's going in the "K World" with our new and improved events calendar.’

This year too, Javier talked about the “K world”. The organizer reacted and talked to me instead of talking to Javier who raised the idea. I guess Javier is not to receive any feedback and must be left on his pedestal untouched :)

The organizer said, “this is not k’s world”. She made a point of this on several occasions in Murren 2008: “this is not a group… there is no K world… we’re not Krishnamurti people”. Of course! Voila! I never liked that term any way and it’s about time this declaration was made. But the term won’t drop away, unfortunately because thinking in terms of tribes is a deep rooted habit in human psyche.

UPDATES

BY REZA GANJAVI (July 2009)

Sent a long over-due letter to Javier to get off his high horse and walk with the lowly: http://home.datacomm.ch/rezamusic/letter_to_J.html

From: www.rezajournal.com

- I wrote to the organizer a couple of times a while ago but received no feedback -- not that I was expecting any feedback but I had made some remarks about how a replay of the 2007 illusions would be a real shame. I also stated clearly that while email may be prone to misunderstandings, I have only good feelings for her and those who gossip. I have no hard feelings for them. I send them no negative energy and I wish them well. To wish ill on another is to wish ill on oneself, but that is not the reason I wish them well. I wish them well for no reason. Love has no reason. Anyway, I ended up summarizing what was on my mind in this: http://home.datacomm.ch/rezamusic/on_work_around_k_etc-june2009.html#updates (the following):

I have received many emails commenting about the article above and have heard indirectly about the reactions of some of the people who were referred to above. Here in Europe, specially, the process of image making by the "old mind" is very strong and it has clearly led to a number if illusions which some people are happy to live with. Communication is the enemy of illusions as it can wipe them away therefore one who prefers to stay with images and illusions often does not want to communicate. Light of truth dispels darkness. Gossip is usually behind the scenes. We can only attempt to find truth and that attempt itself is virtuous. In most cases of gossip, that attempt is not even made. In 2007 when all these lies were made up, nobody bothered to check them -- they just made their own stories and found relief and entertainment in them. I have no reason to believe that mentality of a handful of people in this gossip clique has changed although I wrote to the organizer pointing this out -- that there aren't a lot of secrets in the world -- there are friends and powers. At least I am open about what I say. As a matter of principle I try not to say something behind someone if I would not say it to them directly. And I like to find the truth in every matter of life.

Before I write an article, I always try to check the facts. That is the scientific way. Sometimes people don't listen and after years of talking with them then they come and say, why didn't you tell us before you write this article. Well, This, happened in 2007 when I wrote an article that came as a surprise to those whom I had tried to get to listen for years, and I bet same thing is happening about the above article. Neither the 2007 article nor in the article above should have contained any surprises.

The unfortunate thing about gossip and back-stabbing that goes on in these circles -- specially against a person who does not belong to neither the clique that runs the place, nor to the gossip clique -- is that they makes illusions in their own minds and get a couple of the clique members to join them and suddenly the illusion becomes a reality in their mind -- a reality which has nothing to do with truth. These realities for them are things like: He is jealous (of what?), he must be after power or attention or position or authority or control. NO. In what uncertain terms I have to say these are not true? You don't have to believe me but that is a fact. I have no reason whatsoever to be jealous of someone's money -- I have enough myself and have always had enough. Why should I have the motive to be somebody? What is the quality of the mind that projects that onto someone else? Doesn't that mind have those qualities itself that it's projecting onto someone else out of utter illusion without even bothering to check the facts?

I have, and have always had many relationships, artistically, technologically, managerially, etc. etc. -- thank God, I live a rich, fulfilled life, but for a Muerren gossip clique that cannot possibly be the case! I can get far more attention in my daily life than I could ever handle. I have received lots of love as a kid and as an adult. Why would I go to some mountain gathering to find love or to play guitar for some people to get attention? I can step out of my door anywhere, with the guitar and find audiences. Why would I want to write what I wrote as a means of being superior? I wouldn't, didn't and won't. I have much better things to do with my time. My motives are different and are spelled clearly in the article above but the gossip clique prefers to have its ears closed and keep illusions and illusions always want to perpetuate themselves because illusions are by definition weak (not rooted in truth) and would need to find company to continue.

One clear example is cited in the article above. Javier is considered by a Muerren organizer as some sort of pseudo-guru. That, plus, being a part of KLI or what not, seems to have got to his head and seems to have given him license to walk all over people. He is a big illusion maker and an image factory and appears to have deep rooted frustrations and aggressions. The attempts are always to discredit a messenger in order to shoot down a message. Anyone that threatens the pseudo-guru, or calls out his illusions, or shows how stupid his conclusions and aggressions and reactions have been, of how unrefined his holiness has been, is bound to get attacked. A couple of cases is described above. What else is new? And fools always fall for this. Gurus come into being and get powerful and corrupted by people who can't think for themselves. This clique associates itself with a guy who spent his life talking about themes that I understood include living without images and finding truth and thinking for oneself. Where is all that? I have never seen anything like this, perhaps because I usually hang around scientific and artistic circles.

So the message to the gossip loving couple of people who made up totally false stories in 2007 to keep themselves entertained and discredit the author is the following. They were wrong in their stories in 2007 and probably they will make stories this year in order to feed their own illusions, keep entertained, find defense, and find justification to discard what is said that they don't like to hear. (Let me also be clear that none of what I have said in this section applies to Friedrich Grohe. I have no reasons to believe he engaged in illusory activities. He is a kind person and a kind of person, as I know him, who speaks to you directly if he has a problem with something or wants to find something out.)

  1. I am not jealous of your position and power, and have never been.

  2. I am not after FG's money or his organization's power, and have never been. I have always had enough money to live happily though my desires have always been small.

  3. Getting attention absolutely is not a motive for me. You have nooooooooo idea what you're talking about -- if you only knew what my life has been like and how easily I can get attention if I want to, in much more interesting, fulfilling, and fun ways than dealing with boring folks like Javier. It's true that people do all kinds of strange things to get attention but that absolutely does not play a role in my life.

  4. I have no desire whatsoever to will power over the gathering or control you or judge you. I don't find any reason to do that in itself. My life is and has been plenty fulfilling to want to fill it by doing that. I went to these gatherings for years to enjoy the mountains and to be with people some of whom had a similar interest. I never went in order to power over people. That's just an illusion in the gossip factory.

  5. My motives for writing can be found on the top section of this and the KLI article of 2007.

  6. Try for a change to read an article before you categorically discard it. In 2007 my KLI article was discarded by a person who gets money from KLI before she even read it in order "to protect Mr. Grohe". I could not believe my ears when she answered "no" to my question: have you read it before you judge it? This is really embarrassing. Instead, what he and she can do is to point our exactly what they disagree with.

  7. If I wrote something as third person it was only the style of writing I chose. I've been writing every day for 33 years and alter the style at times.

  8. If I referred to a couple of positive comments it was only to balance the gang-attack of the pseudo-guru and the gossip clique who can't stand an independent thinking person questioning the illusions they try to propagate. There are many quiet folks who don't think like the loud voices.

  9. None of what I wrote is defamatory because they're either facts or opinions. There is no intrusion of privacy and no lies about anyone.

There is good feelings for all these folks regardless and I wish them well. I don't carry any ill feelings.