|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2013 21:31:35 GMT -5
When i talk about what's going on, I'm typically specific so that there is the opportunity to look and see if it's so. I'm saying these general comments of yours don't seem to be opportunities for me, just gratuitous insults intended to cause harm. 'You are basically a deluded person' isn't a giraffe. Nobody ever said you did. Enigma, when I tried to be specific and tried to discuss some particular giraffes of yours you NEVER responded, just IGNORED all my posts which were specific. You disliked that opportunity which made it possible look and see your giraffes. You didn't want them to be seen and discussed. Ok, I stopped being specific as it was useless, you didn't want to see your own giraffes, and only wanted to point to others' giraffes. Now you started to respond with calling me a person who intends to cause harm as my comments are general. I see it as an insult. Saying that I want to cause harm after I told you that I don't, means you ignore what is said to you, and you either keep on to be deluded, or you try intentionally to insult. When I said you are BASICALLY a deluded person I use the word "basically " in order to point out that my statements are not about some particular giraffes of yours any more, but about my viewing you as a deluded person as such - because you even don't want to notice what was told you, as you prefer to not take into account those statements which don't please you. You do it on a regular basis, that is why I use statements of a general type. You've lost the opportunity to respond to the specific statements, and become deluded permanently. (Now he will be saying that he doesn't remember about my being specific, or that there wasn't anything worth noticing, etc. But there was. It was about his primary ideas which he was not able to present in a truthworthy and logical way, - as it had happened before with his definition of Oneness which he didn't have.) Oh, yes, Ma'am, I remember when you were quite specific. I remember you going on for weeks about how some of us were NLP'ing all over the forum when none of us really knew anything about NLP. I remember you declaring how obsessed I was with oneness when nobody was talking about it but you, starting thread after thread to get to the bottom of your imaginary oneness issue. I know why you don't get specific anymore, but making gratuitous general attacks that can't be addressed is cowardly. Have a little pride and stop sniping from the bushes.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Feb 16, 2013 21:31:48 GMT -5
I didn't choose to be angry. Anger arose from my perception of loss of time invested, effort, money combined with the sense of failure, not making a deadline, not being able to put food on the table, not meeting mine or other's expectations, etc. From my own observation of how this particular body-mind works, emotions are a by-product of many factors, but they are not controllable directly.
I haven't met anyone, who upon closer examination, was truly able to control their emotions at will. Please note that I do not consider controlling emotion and responding to emotion to be the same thing. Noticing "Oh, I'm getting angry" and asking "Why am I getting angry" and then digging into the factors at play in the sub-conscious is not controlling the emotion. I see it as responding to emotion in order to address the factors which are contributing to the arising emotion. Emotions are signals to the conscious mind about what is going on sub-consciously. There is no controlling the signal. However there is processing it and responding in healthy ways. This is what I understand about emotions from observing this body-mind.
Having a naturally happy and carefree personality that doesn't get angry very often is not the same thing as controlling or even processing anger.
When you say you can control emotion, it doesn't compute with what I understand. So I am genuinely curious as to what you mean. We can proceed however you want in order to help me understand what you mean by being able to control emotion. EDIT: Grammar I like your ability to see the intricacies that reside beneath the surface of a topic and you express yourself in a way i can clearly understand. Here's my original definition...And because of your expansion above, i shall expand on my definition. I agree with you regarding the two aspects, that there is control that produces the initial emotion, and responding to one that has already manifested. I have and continue to experience both, in that i can choose an emotion upon first involvement of an experience, and i can observe an emotion that has automatically manifested, and i examine the reason(s) it fired up and can easliy change that emotion if i choose to.
So when i say i can choose what kind of emotional response i will have, my focus is on the response that i project outwardly within the experience. That regardless of whether i have chosen the initial emotion of joy to respond with or i have changed the initial emotion of anger to joy, so that joy is what is expressed outwardly, i regard both of those processes as self control. One is a state of self control that produces one emotion that i have consciously chosen, and the other is a state of self control where autopilot has produced an emotion, but via self control i have turned that one off and decided to produce joy.
To me they both fit under the category of self control. In that i don't give a dingo's kidney if i have an uncontroled reaction type emotion manifest, as i have self control to assess myself and choose another emotional response. So what i mean is i am not bothered if i have a momentary experience of no self control for X amount of time, as it's easy for me to self examine and control myself in order to pick the emotion i want to have. The goal is self control, self mastery, and i choose to not condemn myself for not being perfect at it while developing the innate ability.
Please clarify if i am interpreting your description incorrectly. You said...I am using the dictionary definition of 'perception' in my equations. Perception: - Becoming aware of something via the senses - A way of conceiving something - The representation of what is perceived; basic component in the formation of a concept
I interpret this to mean, you have observed, evaluated and formed an understanding that the experience you descibed is upsetting, thus anger manifested. And i will state that feeling anger in that situation is a natural, rational, logical and valid emotional response to a situation like that. That there is nothing dysfunctional inside a person who would respond as you did to that situation.
However, and this is the awesome part i discovered in my healing journey... you can choose another natural, rational, logical and valid emotional response to a situation like that. How can i proclaim this, how do i know this to be true...because i do it all the time. It's not a woo woo theory, it's a fact of my daily life. My understanding is, if anger is the result of observation, evaluation and conclusion of the situation, then anger was a calculated chosen response. But because it happens so fast, and happens in an area that the conscious self did not currently see into, it appears to have just arisen all by itself, aka you had no control of it manifesting.
You also said this.. So to me the key is that calculations were happening within your subconscious, and when the calculations were done, the answer was 'anger'.
Here's a thousandth of a second one act play by Con(conscious self) and Sub(sub conscious self)
Con: A just saw that my lappy is fried beyond repair and i have lost all my work. Sub: Yep, thanks for the info/signals, you work on the problem and so will i, processing now... cross referencing with a lifetime of previous similar experiences of loss of time invested, effort, money combined with the sense of failure, not making a deadline, not being able to put food on the table, not meeting mine or other's expectations, etc. Also calculating possible future outcome because of current incident... Calculations complete...hey Con, natural, rational, logical and valid emotional response is 'anger'...sending the emotional signal up to you Now. Con: Oh, anger,..no other alternatives, Sub? Sub: Nope, this is how self has always responded to situations like this, this is how all humans respond to these types of situations. Con: Ok, anger it is....can't i be joyful, i would rather be happy than sad? Sub: Nope, 'joy' as a response does not match up with my accumilated data of these situations. To feel joy in this situation would be unnatural, irrational, illogical and an invalid emotional response. Con: Okay, anger it is...oh i am so angry my lappy has been fried beyond repair.
End of the thousandth of a second one act play by Con(conscious self) and Sub(sub conscious self) Though the important thing to notice is that Con and Sub are all elements of one Self. That Con can tell Sub to create a new response and once Sub has it stored correctly, the new response either becomes the new natural, rational, logical and valid emotional response, or it becomes a permanent alternative to the other natural, rational, logical and valid emotional response.
You said thisAnd i said this...If you can be aware of your anger and frustration, and delve into yourself (subconscious section of self) in order to see the factors at play, if you keep delving in deeper you can see the source of the signal, thus you can control the signal.
In other words, if you are aware when you look inside that there is a signal and you see factors that contribute to the creation of the emotional signal, it stands to reason that the key is observation of what's going on inside, that if you look deeper you will see the source of the signal, not just see the signal and factors. The signal must originate from somewhere inside you. If you can't find the source, of course you have no control to turn it on or off. But if you believe you have no control of the signal, then of course you will not go looking for it.
And why do you currently believe you have no control of your emotional signals. According to what i have discovered of myself, my speculation is you believe you don't have control because you have never experienced control of your emotions. You have no stored data in your huge memory bank, of control of any emotion you have had. You have experiences of calming yourself down once the uncontroled anger has risen. You have experiences of anger not remaining, of it dying down, either on it's own, or you practicing some form of centering, calming down technique. But you have never experienced an anger triggering situation where you have consciously chosen to be joyful instead of angry. The concept is totally unknown to you, so you doubt it's possible. And i don't blame you, if i haven't experienced something, i will not believe it until i have actually experienced it.
However, not having experienced something doesn't mean it's not possible, it simply means you have not personally experienced it. Thus the person of faith, the inquisitive explorer of unknown territories, upon hearing another's adventures of self control, may venture beyond their current understanding to see if what another claims is real or not.. You have not looked deep enough to see the source of the emotional signal, even though logically a source must exist. If a signal is perceived in reality, any kind of signal, radio, tv, thought, emotion, it must have a source. If you find the source and understand how it's being created, the potential now exists that you can turn that signal off or on. That is the simplicity and power of self control. And the simple but powerful hinderance to achieving self control of emotions is believing it's not possible.
If you can see the signal topology, it's very simple, keep going in deeper till you see the source, how the signal is being created. Then if you have figured out how this signal is being created you can choose any emotional response you like, regardless of the situation you are experiencing. I did not know this a decade ago because my inner journey hadn't gotten me that far in yet. Self control/self mastery comes from self understanding, self understanding comes from self exploration, self exploration is a combo of observing and reasoning.
I see people engage their self control ability all the time in their day to day lives. Self control of emotions is simply a deeper level of this natural ability. If i manifest an emotion, regardless of whether i consciously conclude on the day that i chose to or not, when i look deep inside, the answer always is, i chose to produce that emotion. Self control/self mastery is developing an understanding of oneself in order to always see that every emotion is chosen, thus self can then consciously choose all emotional responses.
Well that has been my experience.
I don't have to prove this theory to anyone, the task of proof is on the individual to go find out for themself. I can share my experiences of self mastery as proof of what i actually experience. But i cannot share what another experiences, i cannot prove another's experiences. That is the individuals task.
My sharing is not to convince anyone of a truth of their life, it is given to show another a possibility it could be experienced for them. I freely share my experiences, and the listener is free to do with this information as they please.
So it's not about believing or not believing this story of my experiences, it's about, "Hey fellow traveller, go check this out for yourself is you like, make up your own mind."
Also, this is not a technique of suppression of emotions and replacing them with another.
It's like Thunderbird 2 when in dock selecting different pods.
Within the emotion storage section of M-G, resides all emotions, all functioning as they should, all fully powered up in standby mode ready to manifest when the signal is given I can see them all, sense them all, but like Thunderbird 2, i choose which one to use, which one to activate within the mission/experience i see before me. And as i choose and use a specific emotion, there is no emotion in the pod bay having a hissy fit because it was not chosen. It's not trying to manifest while i am manifesting a different emotion. That too is one of the elements of self control.
I would not be suprised if anyone examines what i have said and concludes i am talking a ton of bs. But you can't see what i can see from my position. You only can if you experience it yourself, and you can only do that if you go and have a look. My task i lovingly choose to do is to explain my experiences as definitively and clearly as possible to give you the best view i can think of, so you will see something you conclude is worth exploring.
And as i said before, those that experience me on a regular basis, are more convinced it's a real possibility because of my consistant behavior in the various situations i encountered in my life and of their openess to new things.
Good god man, we need to get you laid or at least working on a space ship or something!
|
|
|
Post by silence on Feb 16, 2013 21:33:13 GMT -5
Your obsession with that interaction almost leads me to believe you've either printed it out and hung it on your wall or you can't stop thinking about it. Something tells me you've always been lacking in the character department. Your path. Would you be up to pasting some deepak quotes to help me work on that problem? ;D
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2013 21:37:33 GMT -5
The Mr G stuff also deserved some exploring, and may be related to the potential mental issues. Saying about mental issues without having any right to call such issues 'mental issues', as you are not a specialist in the field, is not only insulting but much worse than insulting. I trust my own insight and I've also come to trust Silence. Something odd is going on and there's reason for concern. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Feb 16, 2013 21:38:08 GMT -5
The Mr G stuff also deserved some exploring, and may be related to the potential mental issues. Saying about mental issues without having any right to call such issues 'mental issues', as you are not a specialist in the field, is not only insulting but much worse than insulting. So it's a matter of not being a specialist?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2013 21:48:31 GMT -5
Greetings.. You assume everything you think you know about 'there', and it's these assumptions and conclusions that I'm really talking about. All of your sensations are happening 'here'. You don't know if there is a 'there'.I don't. Why would I want to do that? 'Your' sensations are happening 'there'.. 'my' sensations are happening 'here', and.. i know something about 'there' from observing the interaction 'we' are sharing, together with all of the interconnected interactions/experiences related to existing.. I am not 'assuming' what i 'know', i am paying attention to what is happening, and comparing it to what is consistently supporting existence.. i am not 'attached' to what i 'know', it comprises a portion of my understandings, which simply 'work' in the context of 'now' and are subject to revision based on new information.. There is no evidence that supports the absence of 'there', and.. unverifiable speculation and conceptual beliefs about the absence of 'there' are not authoritative as to the absence of 'there'.. those are 'thoughts' that come and go, but.. the sensations that reveal 'there' relative to 'here' are consistently repeatable.. You asked: " In the metaphors you can actually walk up to the mirage or the snake and discover that they are illusions, but if your senses and mind deceived you before, why are you suddenly so confident about them now that you see there is 'actually' sand or rope there and not what you thought was there before?".. i am confident because the senses and mind reveal the illusions for what they are, in this case speculation about metaphors.. which, among other of your statements, inspired me to ask, " why do you seek to use mind to defeat mind?".. i am very much a skeptic of appearances, but i am confident of the mind's capacity to understand its relationship with we/us/Life and 'what IS'.. i am more interested in understanding the mind's functionality than discrediting it, being 'mindful' of the 'baby and the bathwater' metaphor.. Be well.. What you see happening 'out there' is sensed inside. No matter how intently you pay attention to your senses, you can't know that anything at all is happening 'out there' or if there even is an 'out there'. In your nightly dreams you likely think there is an 'out there' also, but in fact there isn't and you know it. The only possible purpose of this discussion is to introduce doubt into your certainty. There can be no proof of what I'm saying in exploring your senses, and so I don't offer it as proof. Ironically, what you would need to do is still the mind and look inside instead of outside and notice what's really happening and where it's actually happening. Your mind is not equipped to logically analyze this from your sense data.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2013 21:50:58 GMT -5
Something tells me you've always been lacking in the character department. Your path. Would you be up to pasting some deepak quotes to help me work on that problem? ;D Or at least provide a list of books for you to read like Andrew does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 21:54:06 GMT -5
I just posted my response to topology and i just saw this, so i have no ideas of the backstory context of your comment, but you owe me a new shirt. I laughed so much, so hard, so deeply, just like i did while reading stepvhens wacky RT posts that blood has once again profusely dribbled out my nose.
EDIT: i am sitting here rereading it and rereading it..here's a copy of my monologue...
hahaha...sigh...diabolical...hahaha...sigh...hahahahaha...diabloical mind control...hyperventilating....hahahaha...oh my gosh,,,i can't believe this....read it again...no wait i have to catch my breath...ok...diabolical...hahaha...oooh...ooooh man...sigh...hahahaha...banging hand on chair arm repeatedly...hahaha...oh my gosh... big sigh...etc etc
MORE EDIT: More joyful laughter because i i just realized you're not talking about me, but Mr.G whom arsiha mentioned.
My hilarious mistake because a number of people choose to refer to me as Mr. Goat or Goat, so when i see "Mr.G" my initial conclusion is someone is talking about me. Bangs side of head, must create strong memory that Mr.G is not reference to me.
Oh my gosh...the matrix is so much fun...hahaha...sigh.
hahaha, though i am somewhat disappointed that i will not be receiving a new shirt.
And i like how i just posted a really awesome post, and followed it up with this doofus one. hahah, oh my gosh i love being a human on planet earth.
Don't you worry M-G, I'll get that imaginary t-shirt to you! What color Sharpie you want me to use?! ~laughs~ 1: Not even remotely worried. 2: I see no value in an imaginary shirt. I have a bloodied shirt that needs replacing or washing. And my washing skills aren't at a high level 'cus i don't see the value in perfectly clean clothes, seeing as they will get dirty as soon as i wear them. 3: Depends on the color of the shirt, and i take it a 'sharpie' is a felt tipped pen?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 21:57:15 GMT -5
Good god man, we need to get you laid or at least working on a space ship or something! Good god man, why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 22:29:55 GMT -5
Yeah i understood your meaning the first time topology. You have not quoted enigma, your post to silver were your words expressing enigma's conclusions about silver. I can see you make efforts to facilitate clearing up misunderstandings etc. Your intent or motive was never questioned by me.
I see enigma's conclusions as specualtions. If you post your translation of enigma's conclusions, i will still see the translated version of enigma's conclusions as speculations. That's why i said, speculation. Let's suppose person A and person B are having a forum based exchange. They seem to be understanding each other and have an established common ground for the conversation. Person C is watching the exchange but thinks they are seeing something in the conversation beyond what is actually in the common ground between A and B, meaning they are adding something that is not actually there. Person C decides to jump into the conversation based on this extra thing which they think they see and they think exists in the common ground. Both person A and person B respond saying that they do not see what person C is seeing. Person A then tells person C that they are imagining it, i.e. seeing a giraffe, and that they have a pre-existing desire/propensity to think they see what was added. Is person A speculating by telling C that they are (1) imagining it or (2) telling person C that they have a propensity to seeing the giraffe that was not really there? What if C has an established pattern of seeing the same giraffe over and over again? Is it still speculating? Person A is an idiot for two reasons. 1: Thinking they know what another person sees. 2: Telling the other person this.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 16, 2013 22:39:12 GMT -5
Greetings.. 'Your' sensations are happening 'there'.. 'my' sensations are happening 'here', and.. i know something about 'there' from observing the interaction 'we' are sharing, together with all of the interconnected interactions/experiences related to existing.. I am not 'assuming' what i 'know', i am paying attention to what is happening, and comparing it to what is consistently supporting existence.. i am not 'attached' to what i 'know', it comprises a portion of my understandings, which simply 'work' in the context of 'now' and are subject to revision based on new information.. There is no evidence that supports the absence of 'there', and.. unverifiable speculation and conceptual beliefs about the absence of 'there' are not authoritative as to the absence of 'there'.. those are 'thoughts' that come and go, but.. the sensations that reveal 'there' relative to 'here' are consistently repeatable.. You asked: " In the metaphors you can actually walk up to the mirage or the snake and discover that they are illusions, but if your senses and mind deceived you before, why are you suddenly so confident about them now that you see there is 'actually' sand or rope there and not what you thought was there before?".. i am confident because the senses and mind reveal the illusions for what they are, in this case speculation about metaphors.. which, among other of your statements, inspired me to ask, " why do you seek to use mind to defeat mind?".. i am very much a skeptic of appearances, but i am confident of the mind's capacity to understand its relationship with we/us/Life and 'what IS'.. i am more interested in understanding the mind's functionality than discrediting it, being 'mindful' of the 'baby and the bathwater' metaphor.. Be well.. What you see happening 'out there' is sensed inside. No matter how intently you pay attention to your senses, you can't know that anything at all is happening 'out there' or if there even is an 'out there'. In your nightly dreams you likely think there is an 'out there' also, but in fact there isn't and you know it. The only possible purpose of this discussion is to introduce doubt into your certainty. There can be no proof of what I'm saying in exploring your senses, and so I don't offer it as proof. Ironically, what you would need to do is still the mind and look inside instead of outside and notice what's really happening and where it's actually happening. Your mind is not equipped to logically analyze this from your sense data. There is no 'certainty' on my part, i am reporting what actually works, and if new information compels me to revise my understandings of what actually works, i will.. but, unless there is equal opportunity "to introduce doubt into your certainty", we can conclude this discussion.. it appears that you refuse to acknowledge that i have had the same experiences, understandings, conclusions, and beliefs that you are currently advocating, and i realized the inherent flaw, the attachment that prevents openness and liberation.. but, i am still open and listening to what you are expressing, in the event that you have information that could compel me to return to those beliefs.. What you continually express as your understanding, is that anyone that has had the same experiences of 'looking inward' as you, must also arrive at the same conclusions as you, or.. you feel justified in judging the claimant's claims and conclusions as deficient by comparison to yours.. no, you do not use those exact words, but your actions reveal that to be your belief.. So, if your purpose is to change me, rather than explore what 'is', and allow change to happen IF it is warranted, we can return to previously scheduled chaos.. the choice is yours. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 22:51:31 GMT -5
Anger can also be clearly and directly, linked to diet. Having eaten well, if anger is still present, respect for it as intelligence is necessary. It's precision and weighted announcement, can be totally regarded. I agree. I have come to see that my physical self is deeply interconnected with both my soul and spirit aspects of myself. That all three are part of a whole, so it seems logical to me that they are going to be connected and affecting each other, either positively or negatively.
If i am physically tired, i veer off from my inner balance and i increase in impatience and grumpiness. If i haven't replenished energy by eating and eating well, i will go off balance later on.
If i am having a powerful inner zen day, my physical energy increases and i can go without food for a day or two, as an experiment.
If i am feeling sad, my physical energy is low. If i am worried or anxious, i drain my energy and if i am feeling this way i tend to not eat so that increases the energy drain.
A friend from SF a while back was amazed to discover her physical ailment, constant lethargy and low inner enthusiasm was caused by a B12 deficiency. It wasn't the total source of her conditions but she increased dramatically after getting her some yummy B12.
EDIT: fixed a coupla small things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 23:12:35 GMT -5
It just seems a bit of this to be fatalistic and end all communication as opposed to simply picking and choosing the engagements which may be productive. If that's what it seems to you, then that's what it seems to you. Just like i have expressed to laughter, i remain open to communication, of which laughter and i have been doing.
Personally, i don't consider ending a cyclic conversation that goes nowhere, as fatalistic. Seems a bit of an over dramatization to me, lots of that going on in ST. And i choose my engagements all the time, i have chosen to not engage with enigma. He has not shared anything i find valuable to me yet, and as i read his conversations with others, i maintain that judgement. Can things change, of course they can. They did with me and laughter. I ended our lengthy discussion because of the distance between our perceptions, but we still communicate.
If you think there is value in enigma's theories, then that is how it is for you, not for me thus far, but i keep looking.
But when i am in conversation with someone and the majority of it has to be assigned to clearing up constant interpretation differences, and the differences remain or get worse after the effort to clear them up, i choose to walk away from such unproductivity.EDIT: layout n slight clarification n spelling
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2013 23:23:32 GMT -5
What you see happening 'out there' is sensed inside. No matter how intently you pay attention to your senses, you can't know that anything at all is happening 'out there' or if there even is an 'out there'. In your nightly dreams you likely think there is an 'out there' also, but in fact there isn't and you know it. The only possible purpose of this discussion is to introduce doubt into your certainty. There can be no proof of what I'm saying in exploring your senses, and so I don't offer it as proof. Ironically, what you would need to do is still the mind and look inside instead of outside and notice what's really happening and where it's actually happening. Your mind is not equipped to logically analyze this from your sense data. There is no 'certainty' on my part, i am reporting what actually works, and if new information compels me to revise my understandings of what actually works, i will.. but, unless there is equal opportunity "to introduce doubt into your certainty", we can conclude this discussion.. it appears that you refuse to acknowledge that i have had the same experiences, understandings, conclusions, and beliefs that you are currently advocating, and i realized the inherent flaw, the attachment that prevents openness and liberation.. but, i am still open and listening to what you are expressing, in the event that you have information that could compel me to return to those beliefs.. What you continually express as your understanding, is that anyone that has had the same experiences of 'looking inward' as you, must also arrive at the same conclusions as you, or.. you feel justified in judging the claimant's claims and conclusions as deficient by comparison to yours.. no, you do not use those exact words, but your actions reveal that to be your belief.. So, if your purpose is to change me, rather than explore what 'is', and allow change to happen IF it is warranted, we can return to previously scheduled chaos.. the choice is yours. Be well.. Not experiences, not conclusions, not belief. And this is where we come to an impasse becawze I see no reason to discuss any of those things. However, I do acknowledge and appreciate your efforts in the conversation. Bee well.
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Feb 16, 2013 23:55:10 GMT -5
Enigma, when I tried to be specific and tried to discuss some particular giraffes of yours you NEVER responded, just IGNORED all my posts which were specific. You disliked that opportunity which made it possible look and see your giraffes. You didn't want them to be seen and discussed. Ok, I stopped being specific as it was useless, you didn't want to see your own giraffes, and only wanted to point to others' giraffes. Now you started to respond with calling me a person who intends to cause harm as my comments are general. I see it as an insult. Saying that I want to cause harm after I told you that I don't, means you ignore what is said to you, and you either keep on to be deluded, or you try intentionally to insult. When I said you are BASICALLY a deluded person I use the word "basically " in order to point out that my statements are not about some particular giraffes of yours any more, but about my viewing you as a deluded person as such - because you even don't want to notice what was told you, as you prefer to not take into account those statements which don't please you. You do it on a regular basis, that is why I use statements of a general type. You've lost the opportunity to respond to the specific statements, and become deluded permanently. (Now he will be saying that he doesn't remember about my being specific, or that there wasn't anything worth noticing, etc. But there was. It was about his primary ideas which he was not able to present in a truthworthy and logical way, - as it had happened before with his definition of Oneness which he didn't have.) Oh, yes, Ma'am, I remember when you were quite specific. I remember you going on for weeks about how some of us were NLP'ing all over the forum when none of us really knew anything about NLP. I remember you declaring how obsessed I was with oneness when nobody was talking about it but you, starting thread after thread to get to the bottom of your imaginary oneness issue. I know why you don't get specific anymore, but making gratuitous general attacks that can't be addressed is cowardly. Have a little pride and stop sniping from the bushes. Oh, no, I say about different cases when I was specific, not the ones you mention here. Saying that I am a coward is one more lie of yours. I am not going to be specific in my statements about you. Enough. Only generalizations. So that the type of people you belong to can be seen with clarity by everybody.
|
|