CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Closer for me would be: we don't need to be goaded by others demands no
>matter what threats they may use, no matter what they say the refusal
>"implies"  about us, and whether others will believe the derogatory
>"implication."  Bottom line is if we don't wanna, and doing what's
>demanded goes against our better judgment and intuitions, then don't, and
>be willing to take whatever consequences.  It's more about respecting
>oneself and own intuitions. If the demander is disrespectful, that's THEIR
>problem, I don't need to make it mine.

     Correct.

     Basically the person demanding proof of powers really needs to
run the Prime Directive rundown.  That's what the honest person wants,
a resolution to what powers he wants to have, and what he would do
with them.

     Somewhere in there he will cognite with great force that power
exists and its ok that he "doesn't have any".  It's actually a power
to not have powers, the magic of no magic.

     His actual cog will be along the lines of "Holy Smoke, I got LOTS
of power and I am using it all the time, but I'm just going to stay
acceptable for the moment, thank you very much."

     You know the game of power became SO dangerous, that it wasn't
even safe to HAVE the power even if you never ever used it.  It wasn't
even enough to *PRETEND* you didn't have it, you really had to not
have it to be safe.

     "How would it be acceptable to have power?"
     "How would it be unacceptable to have power?"
     "How would it be acceptable to not have power?"
     "How would it be unacceptable to not have power?"
 
     Homer