Byron Katie's School For The Work March '09

Gimme,

Perfect!  And it helps me identify myself: a Failed Leaper.  Grounded, but lousy at leaping.  I'll add that to my general response on those bits of paperwork that still dare to ask about Religious Preference:  Reform Evangelical Druid and Failed Leaper. 

So glad to hear from you!  Word has it, on a site where I was startled to find myself quoted and linked, that ol' stu is a "troll."  Didn't know there was such a thing, but he nearly brought our enjoyable conversation to a screeching halt.  He sure went after you, even when it seemed...well, random.  Aptly named, I guess.

Humor is the most celestial of human traits.  This video is wonderful and so timely.  I really miss Dudley Moore.

Cheers.

Hi AA,

I'm done dialoguing with RandomStu. It appears that he and Byron Katie's husband Stephen Mitchell shared the same Zen teacher Seung Sahn and that right there could explain why he wants to disrupt this discussion of Byron Katie. A little thing called conflict of interest, hello!!

From what I've read, Seung Sahn was no paragon of virtue (to say the least!!) so I believe he and Byron Katie are in good company.

People need to remember there is A LOT OF MONEY at stake in connection with Byron Katie!! Not just for Katie but for all the people who are getting paid to facilitate the work or are involved from other angles.

As for the Moore/Cook video, I'm very glad you enjoyed it!!

GS

I'm done dialoguing with RandomStu... It appears that he and Byron Katie's husband Stephen Mitchell shared the same Zen teacher Seung Sahn...A little thing called conflict of interest

-gimmeshelter

Hi GS,

I don't understand the conflict of interest. How do you get a conflict of interest just from having the same Zen teacher? Is RandomStu paid to facilitate the work? (Is Stephen Mitchell, for that matter? I thought he made his money as an author.)

I thought RandomStu was basically just saying that the definitions of "creep" and "cult" can be different for different people. I can't really argue with that, since my spouse and I argue all the time about how we disagree on how different people are (or aren't) creepy.

My therapist tells me often when I'm mad at something that has happened that I have to take responsibility for my own feelings, and try to understand other people's points of view, so I don't label people "creep" without good cause. This sounds like good advice.

As for "cult," I don't know. I was/am concerned about Katie being addictive for some people, and/or dangerous for some people. Leading an intense workshop doesn't automatically make her a cult, though. My college experience was very intense and some people in my dorm killed themselves. That didn't make school a cult, it just made it too intense, with a sad lack of proper counseling support.

As for "cult," I don't know. I was/am concerned about Katie being addictive for some people, and/or dangerous for some people. Leading an intense workshop doesn't automatically make her a cult, though. My college experience was very intense and some people in my dorm killed themselves. That didn't make school a cult, it just made it too intense, with a sad lack of proper counseling support.

-jgf75

You seem to have a problem with labeling Byron Katie's stuff a cult, yet use words like "addictive" and even "dangerous" in regard to it.

To consider The Work dangerous but oh no not a cult seems downright bizarre to me!

There was someone commenting on Byron Katie at Jody's blog recently re his/her former involvement with The Work and it really struck a chord for me, as a former "true believer". I'll go find that comment and share it here........

Jody,

I visit your blog from time to time... always enjoy what I read. I like to go back and read what I missed in between times... and finding this one was a REAL TREAT.

I remember back when you posted about Byron Katie earlier on, and somehow became convinced that she was on the up and up by one of her followers... an acquaintance of yours, I believe.

I'd already been to The School, and was figuring out what a jerk she really is. In fact, it was a sample of my post of Rick Ross that you included in your blog.

I wouldn't say she's been poisoned by success... but now that she has success, she certainly doesn't have to work as hard to hide her "other side".

It's sad and funny, both, to see the Byron Katie fanatics here trying to stamp out any opinion that might shake them into reality... and squash their perfect vision of their guru.

I know at one time, I would have been posting that garbage too... trying to get you to do turnarounds on your opinion, and angrily swearing that it was all your own projections... meanwhile trying to portray a loving, grateful and enlightened disciple... light years beyond your understanding... giving my "amens" to those who were on our side. All I can say is...

THANK YOU.

You nailed it this time.

I've been in counseling ever since I got out of that mess, and I'm happy to report that I no longer wake up doing the work. I no longer blame myself for everything that happens to me, and force myself to pretend that I'm happy and peaceful about it. I no longer claim that I don't understand it, but I only know that it helped me... it totally messed my life up... and I didn't even realize how badly until I'd been free of it for several months. I finally "woke up"... and realized... I'd been sleep walking through that weird world of Byron Katie for too long.

I'm so glad this blog is here, to give another (and more accurate, objective) perspective to this crazy Byron Katie thing.

I resist using the word "cult" about Katie because I've been watching her and her followers for two years now, quite closely, to determine whether I think she's a cult, whether she is doing something dangerous for her participants, or whether she's totally benign. I don't think she's a cult.

Look, Starbucks Coffee is addictive for some people and dangerous for some people, depending on their reaction to caffeine. That doesn't make it a cult. Prime time TV is addictive for most people, and downright dangerous for people who take their role models from TV.

Some people may follow Katie around. Some people may have a bad reaction to The Work. That, by itself, just makes her a typical self-help workshop leader. Plenty of people are addicted to Oprah and attend her events. Or Marianne Williamson. Or the angel-therapy lady. Or Dr. Phil. Or Rush Limbaugh.  Those people may give dubious advice that can damage some percentage of attendees, but that doesn't make them cults.

The word "cult" has all kinds of connotations having to do with brainwashing people into giving up their lives and families, conforming to one rigid set of thinking, and generally isolating themselves from outside influences and giving over their will and sometimes possessions to the cult leader.

My two "touchstones" for cults are these: A childhood friend of mine started wearing orange back in the mid-70s and eventually moved onto the compound of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and pretty much dropped out of sight until the compound was disbanded. A friend from college gave over all his belongings to the Scientologists and went to their offshore "training center" and pretty much ... dropped out of sight.

THOSE are cults, Katie's workshop involved no physical isolation, no enforced thinking patterns ("the work" is a set of questions you ask about your own thinking, NOT a particular prescribed set of answers or viewpoints to adopt), and no enforced signing over possessions to BKI. Even the much-discussed exercise about giving up a treasure possession isn't about giving away valuables; it's about examining the *emotional* value we give to inanimate objects.  At my School, no one gave things of monetary value. People gave things like a scrapbook, or a scarf that had been a present from someone they loved. I gave a hat. Katie offered no fewer than six times for people to go reclaim their items at the end of the exercise if they weren't comfortable giving them away. The idea was to examine what those items meant to us (why did I put such importance on a hat? why did I react to it as if it were the person who gave it to me? did I really want to be an emotional slave to ... a hat?)

I just noticed you may have overlooked my first question: could you help me understand the conflict of interest issue? How does sharing a former Zen master constitute a conflict of interest with Stephen Mitchell? I'm totally missing your point and I'd like to understand it.

I just remembered the angel lady's name: Doreen Virtue. (That couldn't possibly be her real name, could it?)

What was said was "could be a conflict of interest" and it it is speculative, but not a great leap to assume that Stuie and Steven are buds and in the BK biz and want to control the internet dialog/damage control by disrupting threads such as these.  You may choose to disregard that as mere coincidence.

What was said was "could be a conflict of interest" and it it is speculative, but not a great leap to assume that Stuie and Steven are buds and in the BK biz and want to control the internet dialog/damage control by disrupting threads such as these.  You may choose to disregard that as mere coincidence.

-beebonnet

Thanks, that was beautifully put! That's pretty much what I was trying to say.

I resist using the word "cult" about Katie because I've been watching her and her followers for two years now, quite closely, to determine whether I think she's a cult, whether she is doing something dangerous for her participants, or whether she's totally benign. I don't think she's a cult.
Look, Starbucks Coffee is addictive for some people and dangerous for some people, depending on their reaction to caffeine. That doesn't make it a cult. Prime time TV is addictive for most people, and downright dangerous for people who take their role models from TV.
Some people may follow Katie around. Some people may have a bad reaction to The Work. That, by itself, just makes her a typical self-help workshop leader. Plenty of people are addicted to Oprah and attend her events. Or Marianne Williamson. Or the angel-therapy lady. Or Dr. Phil. Or Rush Limbaugh.  Those people may give dubious advice that can damage some percentage of attendees, but that doesn't make them cults.
The word "cult" has all kinds of connotations having to do with brainwashing people into giving up their lives and families, conforming to one rigid set of thinking, and generally isolating themselves from outside influences and giving over their will and sometimes possessions to the cult leader.
My two "touchstones" for cults are these: A childhood friend of mine started wearing orange back in the mid-70s and eventually moved onto the compound of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and pretty much dropped out of sight until the compound was disbanded. A friend from college gave over all his belongings to the Scientologists and went to their offshore "training center" and pretty much ... dropped out of sight.
THOSE are cults, Katie's workshop involved no physical isolation, no enforced thinking patterns ("the work" is a set of questions you ask about your own thinking, NOT a particular prescribed set of answers or viewpoints to adopt), and no enforced signing over possessions to BKI. Even the much-discussed exercise about giving up a treasure possession isn't about giving away valuables; it's about examining the *emotional* value we give to inanimate objects.  At my School, no one gave things of monetary value. People gave things like a scrapbook, or a scarf that had been a present from someone they loved. I gave a hat. Katie offered no fewer than six times for people to go reclaim their items at the end of the exercise if they weren't comfortable giving them away. The idea was to examine what those items meant to us (why did I put such importance on a hat? why did I react to it as if it were the person who gave it to me? did I really want to be an emotional slave to ... a hat?)

-jgf75

I am feeling confused now. Earlier you said of Byron Katie, "As for "cult," I don't know. I was/am concerned..." but now you say "THOSE are cults..." and protest why you DON'T think Byron Katie is running one.

Maybe you said it somewhere but I can't find it now. When did you do your school with Katie? Was it recently? If not, is it possible things have since degenerated in Katie-ville?

What frightens me is, Katie's drawing a good number of people who are in some way mentally ill to the school. From what AA said, it seemed like many were coming apart at the seams.

Katie claims she has the way to end suffering, claims she doesn't get angry anymore. Are these things true???

Is it possible she's out and out lying???

What was said was "could be a conflict of interest" and it it is speculative, but not a great leap to assume that Stuie and Steven are buds

-gimmeshelter

Here you and I disagree. I think it is a great leap to assume collaboration. Gurus by their very nature touch hundreds if not thousands of people. It's like college professors. Just because you and I had the same professor, and even both worked in his lab/inner circle, doesn't mean we knew each other, liked each other, or collaborated with each other.

One of the things I've found most disturbing on some of the so-called investigative boards is that some very vocal people take loosely connected factoids, connect them with the phrase "might be," and then build further assertions on top of those linkages as if the linkages were true. After three or four pages of comments, the "might be" falls away from the conversation, and the original speculation becomes reported as near-fact. That's a brainwashing technique and I have no intention of being brainwashed by the anti-Katie people any more than I have an intention of being brainwashed by the pro-Katie people.

I am feeling confused now. Earlier you said of Byron Katie, "As for "cult," I don't know. I was/am concerned..." but now you say "THOSE are cults..." and protest why you DON'T think Byron Katie is running one.

-gimmeshelter

Yeah. When I said "I don't know," I meant it conversationally. Like, "kinda." It was musing out loud with my fingers, while trying to sort out my thinking on the topic. My concern is that she has very powerful stuff that could harm some segment of the population who gets involved. I want to know the boundaries so I know who to refer to her and who to warn away. I also want to know about the ethics of her organization, since I wouldn't want to refer anyone to an unethical organization.

When did you do your school with Katie? Was it recently? What frightens me is...mentally ill to the school. From what AA said, it seemed like many were coming apart at the seams.

-gimmeshelter

It was two years ago. Things may have degenerated in Katie-ville. In my School, there weren't a lot of mentally ill people (at least not that I could detect as a layman), but there were a few ex-criminals, who had done The Work in prison and were taking the workshop now that they had served their sentence. I was surprised because they did not seem like the kind of people who would attend any sort of self-help workshop.

I think it's irresponsible to do therapeutic work with people who are mentally unstable without having a strong safety net to make sure no damage is done. I don't know that I consider a traditional therapeutic degree either necessary or sufficient--I've know many licensed, trained psychologists and psychiatrists who have screwed up patients pretty deeply. I don't know what criteria to use. I do know that it seems like Katie's staff are volunteers who aren't trained counselors of any sort, and that doesn't seem sufficient.

To broaden the discussion beyond Katie a bit, I am wondering how other self-help workshops handle this issue. I would imagine Joel Osteen, Landmark Forum (in my mind, much more cultish than Katie), Tony Robbins, NLP trainers, Bob Proctor, Jack Canfield, and that ilk all have this issue. They do "personal power" type workshops that likely attract at least some people who are messed up to begin with. It may be that the self-help industry standard is simply "buyer beware."

At the end of the day, if someone is mentally stable enough to be running their own life (as opposed to living in a mental asylum), it's hard for me to absolve them of the responsibility for getting up and leaving a workshop if it's too intense.

In a slightly different but no less life-destroying domain, what if I see someone take out a variable rate mortgage that will reset to a level they can never afford (as I saw several people do 3-4 years ago)? I can warn them, I can educate them, but if they then choose to sign on the dotted line, I can't blame the bank. (Though if they are uneducated, and the bank uses deceptive advertising, then I can blame the bank. See below for this concept applied to Katie.)

...is it possible things have since degenerated in Katie-ville?

-gimmeshelter

It's certainly possible. Her website seem far more commercially-oriented than when I took The School. In fact at the time, the web site had almost no commercial messages on it. If Katie's advertising has become pitched to draw in the kind of people who would be harmed by The Work, that's very much cause for concern. That's why I want a better idea of where The Work works and where it doesn't. To return to my mortgage example, I'm in favor of educating consumers, then letting them make their own choice. Right now, the only education about Katie comes from her own marketing material (pro) and places like RR (con). Neither source is unbiased or particularly rational. I am trying to get a better-rounded view of the situation so I can help educate people so they can make an informed choice.

"Katie is bad and evil and a cult and stay away from her!" is just as bad as "Katie can cure all your ills." I have direct experience that The Work can be highly beneficial. I also believe there are others for whom it's been hurtful.  I want to be able to say to someone, "Here is what The Work works for. Here are the ways people have gotten hurt, and the kind of people who have trouble with TW. Depending on which group you believe you fall into, go to her or go to (some other resource) instead."

Katie claims she has the way to end suffering, claims she doesn't get angry anymore. Are these things true??? Is it possible she's out and out lying???

-gimmeshelter

I don't know if The Work can end suffering in general. It's been useful for me, and apparently, destructive for Arienariadne.

After reading Janaki's story, I think it's very possible Katie is lying. Whether she's lying to herself as well as her attendees, I don't know. I talked with her briefly and thought she came across as very genuine, so if she says she never gets angry, I believe that she believes that. If Janaki's story is accurate, Katie might benefit from asking, "The Work can end suffering. I never get angry. Is that true?"

JG,

I'm not interested in debating you point by point.  It does seem like you're really interested in defending The Work.  I can understand that because there was a time when I probably would be doing the same thing.  I really can relate to that!

I do want to look at one thing you said.  "'Katie is bad and evil and a cult and stay away from her!' is just as bad as 'Katie can cure all your ills'."

Bad?  To think something is bad would cause stress, wouldn't it?  Isn't that what The Work is for?  If it's truly as as effective as you say, why not just do The Work on it?

I am not meaning to be a smart ass.  I think this is valid wondering!

Here's a thought.....I reserve the right to step away from this conversation at any point.  Weeeeee!!

Or as Beavis & Butthead would put it, "Heh heh"!!

GS

"It's been useful for me, and apparently, destructive for Arienariadne."

Bless you, I'm right as rain.  Disappointed, annoyed, out a few thou in a tough economic climate, but otherwise quite fit.  Went into The School in fine fettle and only discombobulated for a week or so by re-entry.  I was concerned, though, with those folks who weren't quite so fine, going in. 

There are a lot of people in the US rightly disillusioned with mainstream medical treatment for everything "mental" from mild dysphoria to bipolar mania, from prolonged grief to generalized anxiety disorder and everything north, south, or sideways along the spectra.  While I may have missed something, I just don't think the screening was there for The School.  That meant that people showed up at all levels and stages of suffering.  It's consistent with Katie's philosophy that both health and illness are projections of the perceiver, therefore, what harm could a little Work possibly do...a little inquiry?  And it was my perception that there was some bigtime suffering and some potential for real harm for a few folks there.  Maybe they came out the other end much better.  And maybe some found their issues and illnesses exacerbated.  I can say this, for sure: I'm glad it ain't MY liability insurance on the line at The School for The Work.  Who would insure this?

Again, the further I get away from The School in time, the more I marvel that the thing takes place at all.  That was a pretty large n, 250-300 (?).  It's likely that there was a larger number of diagnosable problems there than would be found randomly in the general populace, given that it is advertised as "an end to suffering," even when you rule out the professionals seeking to affiliate with BKI.  A few people named their diagnoses.  Keep in mind, here, that it's both written in the welcoming paperwork and repeated several times at The School:  if you are prescribed medications, take them as prescribed.  Nevertheless, imagine you announce to a BK Believer at The School, "I have mental illness."  What is supposed to happen next is Question #1, "Is that true?"  Followed by, "Can you absolutely know that it's true?"  And, "How do you react when you believe that thought?," and "Who would you be without that thought?, etc., etc.  Ending, per the formula, with a turnaround that asks you to "find" the truth in the opposite of "I have mental illness."  If you are diagnosed and are bothered, additionally, by the label, the meds, the docs, the therapists, and the responses of family and friends...and, if you aren't recently quite so bothered by your symptoms (some diagnoses have symptoms that are tougher on others than on the "sufferer," at least at first blush), then The School is hog heaven!  Whether or not, once School it out, there's a heavenly outcome or a hellish one is hard to predict.  I can imagine being the mother of a young adult with Bipolar I who hates all the "control" of meds, shrink, etc.  Here's an Oprah-endorsed alternative that's hard to argue with ("checkmate"), and my son or daughter comes home sans meds, avoiding scheduled doctor appointments, and Doing The Work on Mom.  I have no idea if this sort of thing took place, but the setting is right for it.  Some disorders are so hard to treat, some treatments are so hard on the patient, a loving relative would be willing to do almost anything to get help for their beloved...especially when there's no side-effect profile published on the web.

There's no apparent regulation.  And a population that may be a little more vulnerable than average.  And the potential for at least as much harm as help.  That is worrisome. 

It does seem like you're really interested in defending The Work...

-gimmeshelter

I'm interested in defending the Work insofar as it's been useful. I'm interested in understanding where it's useful and where it isn't. As for Katie, I want to understand where the weaknesses are in her and her workshops, so I know when to warn people away and when to encourage them to attend.

I do want to look at one thing you said.  "'Katie is bad and evil and a cult and stay away from her!' is just as bad as 'Katie can cure all your ills'."  Bad?  To think something is bad would cause stress, wouldn't it? ... do The Work on it...

-gimmeshelter

In this case, something is bad doesn't cause me stress. Let me use slightly different words: Saying "Katie is bad and evil and a cult and stay away from her!" is an generalization. "Katie is great and cures all ills!" is also a generalization. To me, both of those are examples of black and white thinking. Neither is nuanced enough to cover both my and AA's experience: that sometimes Katie does damage, and sometimes Katie causes benefit. I want to understand the dividing line, not obsess about being at one end of the spectrum or the other.

You seem invested in calling Katie a cult. That's fine. You can call her whatever you like; she doesn't meet my definition of a cult.

BUT... that doesn't mean I think she is harmless or that The Work/The School is harmless. I want to understand what's valuable, what's not, and what's harmful.

Here's a thought.....I reserve the right to step away from this conversation at any point.  Weeeeee!!

-gimmeshelter

Uh, ok. I'm totally puzzled as to why you said that. Did I say something to imply that you couldn't step away?

I'm interested in defending the Work insofar as it's been useful. I'm interested in understanding where it's useful and where it isn't. As for Katie, I want to understand where the weaknesses are in her and her workshops, so I know when to warn people away and when to encourage them to attend.

In this case, something is bad doesn't cause me stress. Let me use slightly different words: Saying "Katie is bad and evil and a cult and stay away from her!" is an generalization. "Katie is great and cures all ills!" is also a generalization. To me, both of those are examples of black and white thinking. Neither is nuanced enough to cover both my and AA's experience: that sometimes Katie does damage, and sometimes Katie causes benefit. I want to understand the dividing line, not obsess about being at one end of the spectrum or the other.
You seem invested in calling Katie a cult. That's fine. You can call her whatever you like; she doesn't meet my definition of a cult.
BUT... that doesn't mean I think she is harmless or that The Work/The School is harmless. I want to understand what's valuable, what's not, and what's harmful.

Uh, ok. I'm totally puzzled as to why you said that. Did I say something to imply that you couldn't step away?

-jgf75

JG, I simply had the thought and wrote it down.  It's my business why.  One of the foundations of The Work is not being in other people's business and I don't see you upholding that.  Pretty much all of your defenses of TW are stepping outside your own mind and into other people's business.

If you can't manage the really basic part of TW known as staying in your own business, I wonder if you are truly doing TW or some kind of lite version of it.  For me, this doesn't help your credibility.

Your sharings here have gotten mentioned at the RR site.....

http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,12906,68162#msg-68162 

GS

There's no apparent regulation.  And a population that may be a little more vulnerable than average.  And the potential for at least as much harm as help.  That is worrisome. 

-arienariadne

Agreed!

Janaki's story about Katie is very credible to me.  Yours and others stories too.  The picture that is emerging reveals a bigtime liar and manipulator.

Capitalizing on the mentally ill and others......promising an end to suffering for a very big fee......I find it reprehensible.

One of the foundations of The Work is not being in other people's business and I don't see you upholding that...I wonder if you are truly doing TW or some kind of lite version of it.  For me, this doesn't help your credibility.

-gimmeshelter

It's possible I'm not doing TW as you mean it. I'm making no attempt to stay in my business in this conversation. None of us are. As I have tried to make clear, I am not a Katie adherent. I do not try to imitate the way she thinks, or absorb the magical Katie-speak. So while she might stay in her own business, I move into my business and into your business and into God's business if it seems relevant. Nor is it important to me whether I'm doing The Work correctly. I'm after the benefit, not the label/certification/"right" way to do it. I use The Work on things I find stressful and it helps me deal with them. I don't use The Work on non-stressful things.

What is it you don't find me credible about? I wasn't aware I was making any claims to be an expert on anything except sharing my own experience and doubts about Katie and The Work. Give me a break; we're all posting on a bunch of internet bulletin boards under carefully chosen anonymous names, where we can't be held accountable for a single thing we say, write, or do. I don't expect to find you (or anyone else on this board) credible, nor do I expect you to find me credible...except for sharing our own experiences.

Here you and I disagree. I think it is a great leap to assume collaboration. Gurus by their very nature touch hundreds if not thousands of people. It's like college professors. Just because you and I had the same professor, and even both worked in his lab/inner circle, doesn't mean we knew each other, liked each other, or collaborated with each other.
One of the things I've found most disturbing on some of the so-called investigative boards is that some very vocal people take loosely connected factoids, connect them with the phrase "might be," and then build further assertions on top of those linkages as if the linkages were true. After three or four pages of comments, the "might be" falls away from the conversation, and the original speculation becomes reported as near-fact. That's a brainwashing technique and I have no intention of being brainwashed by the anti-Katie people any more than I have an intention of being brainwashed by the pro-Katie people.

-jgf75

It's a "known unknown", to paraphrase our beloved former civil servant Donald Rumsfeld....it is known Stu and Steve had the same Zen Teacher, it is unknown if they collaborate.  It is possible that they do.  Simple.
You would prefer to assume they do not and others are not so willing to grant the benefit of the doubt.

Your argument does not preclude the possibility that they are in contact and/or collaborate. I think that's all that was ever said.  The possibility exists.

It's possible I'm not doing TW as you mean it. I'm making no attempt to stay in my business in this conversation. None of us are. As I have tried to make clear, I am not a Katie adherent. I do not try to imitate the way she thinks, or absorb the magical Katie-speak. So while she might stay in her own business, I move into my business and into your business and into God's business if it seems relevant. Nor is it important to me whether I'm doing The Work correctly. I'm after the benefit, not the label/certification/"right" way to do it. I use The Work on things I find stressful and it helps me deal with them. I don't use The Work on non-stressful things.

What is it you don't find me credible about? I wasn't aware I was making any claims to be an expert on anything except sharing my own experience and doubts about Katie and The Work. Give me a break; we're all posting on a bunch of internet bulletin boards under carefully chosen anonymous names, where we can't be held accountable for a single thing we say, write, or do. I don't expect to find you (or anyone else on this board) credible, nor do I expect you to find me credible...except for sharing our own experiences.

-jgf75

What don't I find you credible about??......The Work!!  You say you did the school.  I know that "staying in your own business" is a key teaching.  You can't uphold that.  What else can't you manage with TW?  As I said, not credible.  Not as far as TW goes.  I would think someone defending something as strongly as you have been would be rock solid on Working it!

For all I know you could be Randomstu posing under another I.D.!!  Which would make sense since you want to deny that he might in cahoots with the Byron Katie crowd.  Notice I said "could be", not "is"!  If not Randomstu you could be a friend of his.  You could be a facilitator of TW, that is another possibility.

You said that the "bad" thought you mentioned was not causing you stress and so you wouldn't do TW on it.  It makes me wonder if however you do TW with all its turnarounds has made you out of touch with your feelings?  Having a thought that something is "bad" and then you type up a lengthy message to support your view but no no no you're not experiencing any stress, none whatsoever?  I don't find that credible. 

This statement of yours is a great example of turning stuff around so it doesn't really make sense:  "I don't expect to find you (or anyone else on this board) credible, nor do I expect you to find me credible...except for sharing our own experiences."

Except??!?! 

In your message above you say "Give me a break".  That sure sounds like a statement coming from stress!!!  If you continue to be true to the way you've been communicating so far you'll find a way to deny that one.  Turn it around, sts.

To repeat, I don't find you credible within this discussion about TW.

It's a "known unknown", to paraphrase our beloved former civil servant Donald Rumsfeld....it is known Stu and Steve had the same Zen Teacher, it is unknown if they collaborate.  It is possible that they do.  Simple.You would prefer to assume they do not and others are not so willing to grant the benefit of the doubt.
Your argument does not preclude the possibility that they are in contact and/or collaborate. I think that's all that was ever said.  The possibility exists.

-beebonnet

Once again......well put!!