|
Post by laughter on Mar 7, 2013 1:55:38 GMT -5
Now I know that the nature of the interwebs is international and that is also a prominent characteristic of this forum, and I respect that. But this: Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Just makes me want to run right out and find the first monothiestic house of worship that I can find to be baptized, normalized, confirmed and communionized so that I can then, as a bode fide, card-carrying member of the congregation drop to my knees, clasp my hands together stare up at the sky and THANK GOD I'M AN AMERICAN!!!... of course, this forum being the digital equivalent of a private space rules can be made ... just couldn't resist saying that! To our international friends here please take the American embodiment of the right of free speech in compensation for our export of McDonalds. Thank you, and God Bless America.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 7, 2013 2:07:41 GMT -5
To our international friends here please take the American embodiment of the right of free speech in compensation for our export of McDonalds.. No McD means no ZD. ;D
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 7, 2013 11:49:26 GMT -5
Hear ye! Hear ye!
PROPOSED FORUM LAW §69.314.271
"There shall be no product placements"
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 7, 2013 11:51:53 GMT -5
There's nothing more truthin' than the smell of ice cubes in the morning at McD. ;D
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 7, 2013 12:03:39 GMT -5
Oy ya! Oy ya!
PROPOSED FORUM LAW § 1.655
"The word 'truth' shall be defined as the opposite of the word 'false'"
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 7, 2013 12:15:05 GMT -5
There's nothing more truthin' than the smell of ice cubes in the morning at McD. ;D Your attention please! PROPOSED FORUM LAW § 666.2 "Use of ice cubes with discernable scent shall be limited to milk-based beverages"
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 8, 2013 1:34:22 GMT -5
I had an idea, but you'd probly think it was dumb.
I - i thought that making the title Freedom of Peach would be much better - sir.
Hmm. I wonder if McD's makes peach shakes - in Georgia, maybe?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 8, 2013 7:44:32 GMT -5
awwww ... that's a sweet idea hun'!
... here, I know that you're a fan of Tom and this fits quite well into the thread:
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 8, 2013 14:45:53 GMT -5
To our international friends here please take the American embodiment of the right of free speech in compensation for our export of McDonalds.. No McD means no ZD. ;D That's right, and I need my two fixes (cups) per day to keep the gray matter revved up! ;D
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 8, 2013 17:22:01 GMT -5
That's right, and I need my two fixes (cups) per day to keep the gray matter revved up! ;D PROPOSED FORUM LAW 0.00 "there is nothing wrong with confusion about the two that is not-two"
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 3:11:10 GMT -5
Then there are two different notions of censure. The first notion of censure is being banned from the park. The second notion of censure is being asked to stay out of an aspect of the park. If there is a group of peeps who are wanting to talk to each other and the E and R peeps keep inserting themselves in the group, being asked to stay out of the group is the second kind of censure. Limiting speech is limiting speech. My understanding of the current limitation here is a prohibition on overt and insulting personal attacks not rooted in the content of the conversation. Anyway the analogy is getting convoluted because I'm trying to wrestle with your black and white perception of it being about censure and I'm trying to point out more of a grey scale or it being of a different color completely. I can see things from the opposing point of view and I understand it. Not that I necessarily agree with it. If anything my nature as peace maker has me trying to get the two sides to understand each other and I'm in the middle trying to translate. I don't see what they are asking for as complete censure. What they want is to feel like there is room to have a conversation with each other because they can't help themselves devolving into personal reactivity when you and Reefs engage from your perspectives. It's not saying they want to completely cut you out, I see there is still openness to interact with you, but they want space to be away from you while being here on the forum at the same time. I have two young kids, I completely get the idea of wanting space and room for other things while not wanting to completely cut my kids out of my life. A clear value-based choice is presented. The tradeoff is between the opportunity for taking responsibility for what one types here and the opportunity to interact in a mode rooted in the overt exclusion of some perspectives. It's a no-brainer.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 3:16:54 GMT -5
You don't have to understand everyone. I even dare to say that it isn't even possible nor desirable to understand everyone. However, the main focus here is on non-duality. So there's not much to say about understanding/not understanding positions, because it's not about positions. Do you think I've lost my focus on non-duality? The whole argument between the impersonal peeps and the personal peeps is at the heart of non-duality. What you call unnecessary drama is where the waking up happens. You'd rather be free of the things that irritate you. In your own way, Reefs, you're just wanting your own comfortable environment to be in. You're no different from the people you complain about in that regard. Yes, the realizinghappiness forum could be characterized as one of those modes of exclusion referenced in the post directly preceeding.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jun 25, 2013 4:14:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 4:22:16 GMT -5
Ironically the link returns: "Forbidden You don't have permission to access /news/comments/32145/ on this server." Yes, the First Amendment is an ideal and the reference to the memes of the red white and blue were similarly ironic.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jun 25, 2013 5:36:26 GMT -5
|
|