|
|
Post by topology on Jun 21, 2013 7:32:20 GMT -5
I invite you to lead by example.  Hi topology, I don't know you or others here and this is not a supportive place to do as you ask. Not all here treat each other with care. It would be foolish to do as you ask under those circumstances. Is that why you are not doing it?My question was directed to those who don't care about those considerations and feel that it is useful to get personal. Lets see how many of them are willing when it is there character under the spotlight. Not many I suspect. amit Is that you talking about your defense pattern intentionally or just employing it to evade answering your own question? I'll point you to the second post on this thread where I contributed and then point to where you posted saying the contributions so far were not what you wanted. If you are not willing to lead by example or be the first to self-examine when you call for self-examination, then your request is hardly genuine or without an ulterior agenda. My defensiveness on the forum has mostly been denials of how I've held onto childhood issues and denials about making mistakes in perception or prejudgments. I'm still learning how to hear clearly and review my emotional reactions before posting from a reactive place. Beingist was actually pretty accurate in his summary of me. I am uncomfortable with conflict and working on some self acceptance issues, which plays out into wanting to be accepted by others and trying to be a peace maker and inserting myself into interactions to try to mitigate perceived conflict. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 21, 2013 7:40:57 GMT -5
Hi reefs, "The first question is a request for a personal reflection, your view of the sort of person you are. For example do you have any defenses? How would you describe them? What sort of experiences do you believe led to the construction of those defenses? The second question asks how the reply to the first affects your behaviour on this forum." amit Haha.....utterly brilliant approach to this Amit So many here go on and on answering these kind of questions about "other" people, usually quite unsolicited, and without any compassion or consideration, while absolutely refusing to answer the same questions about themselves. This is a very eloquent approach that you are taking in pointing out how useless these personal commentaries are, and how uncomfortable they may be making the other person feel when someone asnwers these question "about you" instead of about themselves......wonderful Amit...I'm truelly impressed... Whenever it gets ugly here Somebody will tell another exactly what kind of person they think the other is, by pointing out that they have defenses, then defining those defenses for the other person, then defining what they believe created those defenses in the other person, and then defining how the other persons defenses affect their behavior on the forum....then the person that was on the receiving end of all this turns around and does the same thing back....until this forum is no longer a place of exploration, but rather, a place where most folks are: Publically announcing their view of everyone else's character, defenses, and reasons for their forum behavior....and yet, those same people, that are so willing to point out other folks flaws, without compassion or consideration for that person, will not "reveal" the same "information" about themselves, that they are so willing to splatter all over the forum about others. Guys, and Gals, look at the questions that Amit asked, and earnestly look at how uncomfortable it would make you feel to answer those.....and then look how often you may be answering those same questions in an utterly discompassionate way about others here. Some even troll through thousands of posts to answer those questions about others and prove their points, but those same people run from the spotlight that they shine on others. Could it be possible to do some exploration around here that does not include these personal assessments, unless it is a personal assessment that we have made about ourselves and are offering for forum review and discussion? Bravo Steve, way to point the finger at those you don't like much and setting a wonderful example of what a double standard looks like. I noticed that you didn't answer Amit's question, but like he, are using it primarily to get at the people you don't like. Lead by example and stop using the question as a tool to attack others. The question was a request for public self-examination, but the questioner denied answering his own question, and like you, is intending to use the lack of answering the question as a tool to disparage others. Laughter read the situation correctly in his squirrel with a bazooka post. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 21, 2013 8:43:48 GMT -5
Agreed. Their way basically is "show me yours, but I won't show you mine, because I don't want you to get too excited", basic intuition already tells us to stay far away from such perverts. Who are youcalling a pervert, Bambi? See Max, temp bans don't work! I vote yes to banning Question permanently and keep him banned permanently. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 21, 2013 8:52:46 GMT -5
Okay, I see. Well, as I already said, it's in the chart. So if I would send you my chart and you would be able to read it, then you would know everything about my defenses and behavior. Hi reefs, A summary here would do so we all could read it. amit Sure. But that will be a longer post. Later maybe when you're back. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 21, 2013 22:45:03 GMT -5
I invite you to lead by example. Hi topology, I don't know you or others here and this is not a supportive place to do as you ask. Not all here treat each other with care. It would be foolish to do as you ask under those circumstances. Is that why you are not doing it? My question was directed to those who don't care about those considerations and feel that it is useful to get personal. Lets see how many of them are willing when it is there character under the spotlight. Not many I suspect. Questioning character is the need to challenge style and morality, which is what you're doing here in this thread. I wouldn't say it's useless, but it is a distraction. It's the result of one deriving all perceptions from a personal perspective and failing to recognize the impersonal. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 21, 2013 22:54:40 GMT -5
Hi reefs, "The first question is a request for a personal reflection, your view of the sort of person you are. For example do you have any defenses? How would you describe them? What sort of experiences do you believe led to the construction of those defenses? The second question asks how the reply to the first affects your behaviour on this forum." amit Haha.....utterly brilliant approach to this Amit So many here go on and on answering these kind of questions about "other" people, usually quite unsolicited, and without any compassion or consideration, while absolutely refusing to answer the same questions about themselves. This is a very eloquent approach that you are taking in pointing out how useless these personal commentaries are, and how uncomfortable they may be making the other person feel when someone asnwers these question "about you" instead of about themselves......wonderful Amit...I'm truelly impressed... Whenever it gets ugly here Somebody will tell another exactly what kind of person they think the other is, by pointing out that they have defenses, then defining those defenses for the other person, then defining what they believe created those defenses in the other person, and then defining how the other persons defenses affect their behavior on the forum....then the person that was on the receiving end of all this turns around and does the same thing back....until this forum is no longer a place of exploration, but rather, a place where most folks are: Publically announcing their view of everyone else's character, defenses, and reasons for their forum behavior....and yet, those same people, that are so willing to point out other folks flaws, without compassion or consideration for that person, will not "reveal" the same "information" about themselves, that they are so willing to splatter all over the forum about others. Guys, and Gals, look at the questions that Amit asked, and earnestly look at how uncomfortable it would make you feel to answer those.....and then look how often you may be answering those same questions in an utterly discompassionate way about others here. Some even troll through thousands of posts to answer those questions about others and prove their points, but those same people run from the spotlight that they shine on others. Could it be possible to do some exploration around here that does not include these personal assessments, unless it is a personal assessment that we have made about ourselves and are offering for forum review and discussion? So everyone has skeletons in the closet, it's just a matter of who's willing to open their door? How do you know this about others? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 21, 2013 23:09:59 GMT -5
Okay, I see. Well, as I already said, it's in the chart. So if I would send you my chart and you would be able to read it, then you would know everything about my defenses and behavior. More random trolling? I would normally never argue for someone to be banned from a forum, exclusion does not suite me....but it seems that you spend so much energy pointing out what you perceive to be other people's flaws, or, as in the case of this post, outright trolling people....that you make a strong case as to why a ban can be useful. You just spend too much time trying to provoke people instead of communicating with them....in a forum that has just gotten ugly with personal assessments and provocation, instead of collegial exploration, you are the worst offender, and usually instigator of the bad tone.....you intentionally provoke and provoke whomever you can, and then when you are successful you gloat and point a finger at the person that you had been provoking as if to say: AHA! You are caught! So unfortunately, as you seem to be the primary initiator, and supporter of most of the ugliness around here, I gotta say that I'd actually like to see you banned for a bit....you just to involved with every bit of ugliness that goes on in this forum, and by ugliness, I mean this crazy perfusion of personal assessment posts that get flung at each other like weapons here. Banning you would go a long way toward "deweaponizing" this place lol What you call random trolling, and which set off a rant, I see as a perfectly valid and useful response to Amit's inquiry. Reefs is saying that character is in the conditioning, and as such, perhaps it's not a particularly useful focus. It addresses moral codes and style preferences; what we sometimes call the personal perspective here, and I know Reefs has little interest in it. Amit (and you) are confused about what's happening here when folks are challenged. Belief systems and unconscious reactions are challenged so as to bring conscious awareness to these limited ways of being. The character discussions are initiated by the ones reacting to these challenges. those who you criticize the most don't have any particular interest in what kind of a person you are. That's not what is meant by the personal approach. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 21, 2013 23:26:34 GMT -5
Who are youcalling a pervert, Bambi? See Max, temp bans don't work! I vote yes to banning Question permanently and keep him banned permanently. I'm waiting to see if I report his post for name calling.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 21, 2013 23:35:38 GMT -5
See Max, temp bans don't work! I vote yes to banning Question permanently and keep him banned permanently. I'm waiting to see if I report his post for name calling. It's within the extended latitude range, said Peter. I asked him about his take on this. However, I don't know why Question chose a sexually loaded word like pervert as if we would have discussed sexual matters there. I rather think Question has some mental hick-ups around the subject of sexuality. Hetero got banned because he said 'jackass' but Question gets a free pass with saying 'pervert'. I'd say pervert is much more offensive than jackass. Maybe Max and Peter should rethink their decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 21, 2013 23:38:15 GMT -5
Hi reefs, "The first question is a request for a personal reflection, your view of the sort of person you are. For example do you have any defenses? How would you describe them? What sort of experiences do you believe led to the construction of those defenses? The second question asks how the reply to the first affects your behaviour on this forum." amit Haha.....utterly brilliant approach to this Amit So many here go on and on answering these kind of questions about "other" people, usually quite unsolicited, and without any compassion or consideration, while absolutely refusing to answer the same questions about themselves. This is a very eloquent approach that you are taking in pointing out how useless these personal commentaries are, and how uncomfortable they may be making the other person feel when someone asnwers these question "about you" instead of about themselves......wonderful Amit...I'm truelly impressed... Whenever it gets ugly here Somebody will tell another exactly what kind of person they think the other is, by pointing out that they have defenses, then defining those defenses for the other person, then defining what they believe created those defenses in the other person, and then defining how the other persons defenses affect their behavior on the forum....then the person that was on the receiving end of all this turns around and does the same thing back....until this forum is no longer a place of exploration, but rather, a place where most folks are: Publically announcing their view of everyone else's character, defenses, and reasons for their forum behavior....and yet, those same people, that are so willing to point out other folks flaws, without compassion or consideration for that person, will not "reveal" the same "information" about themselves, that they are so willing to splatter all over the forum about others. Guys, and Gals, look at the questions that Amit asked, and earnestly look at how uncomfortable it would make you feel to answer those.....and then look how often you may be answering those same questions in an utterly discompassionate way about others here. Some even troll through thousands of posts to answer those questions about others and prove their points, but those same people run from the spotlight that they shine on others. Could it be possible to do some exploration around here that does not include these personal assessments, unless it is a personal assessment that we have made about ourselves and are offering for forum review and discussion? Just give Amit a hug and stop derailing threads.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 21, 2013 23:40:06 GMT -5
Okay, I see. Well, as I already said, it's in the chart. So if I would send you my chart and you would be able to read it, then you would know everything about my defenses and behavior. More random trolling? I would normally never argue for someone to be banned from a forum, exclusion does not suite me....but it seems that you spend so much energy pointing out what you perceive to be other people's flaws, or, as in the case of this post, outright trolling people....that you make a strong case as to why a ban can be useful. You just spend too much time trying to provoke people instead of communicating with them....in a forum that has just gotten ugly with personal assessments and provocation, instead of collegial exploration, you are the worst offender, and usually instigator of the bad tone.....you intentionally provoke and provoke whomever you can, and then when you are successful you gloat and point a finger at the person that you had been provoking as if to say: AHA! You are caught! So unfortunately, as you seem to be the primary initiator, and supporter of most of the ugliness around here, I gotta say that I'd actually like to see you banned for a bit....you just to involved with every bit of ugliness that goes on in this forum, and by ugliness, I mean this crazy perfusion of personal assessment posts that get flung at each other like weapons here. Banning you would go a long way toward "deweaponizing" this place lol Yes, it's all personal again for you and your trolling is picking up momentum again. What happened to the air of serene peace that was oozing from the Son of God (Sog) account? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 21, 2013 23:42:19 GMT -5
Hi topology, I don't know you or others here and this is not a supportive place to do as you ask. Not all here treat each other with care. It would be foolish to do as you ask under those circumstances. Is that why you are not doing it? My question was directed to those who don't care about those considerations and feel that it is useful to get personal. Lets see how many of them are willing when it is there character under the spotlight. Not many I suspect. Questioning character is the need to challenge style and morality, which is what you're doing here in this thread. I wouldn't say it's useless, but it is a distraction. It's the result of one deriving all perceptions from a personal perspective and failing to recognize the impersonal. Yes, it's a distraction. These character/style/morality discussions only arise because folks just can't stay focused on content long enough and always tend to bring their offline trouble to the table. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 22, 2013 2:31:39 GMT -5
I'm waiting to see if I report his post for name calling. It's within the extended latitude range, said Peter. I asked him about his take on this. However, I don't know why Question chose a sexually loaded word like pervert as if we would have discussed sexual matters there. I rather think Question has some mental hick-ups around the subject of sexuality. Hetero got banned because he said 'jackass' but Question gets a free pass with saying 'pervert'. I'd say pervert is much more offensive than jackass. Maybe Max and Peter should rethink their decisions. I didn't quite understand the free pass extended latitude. Is this going to be standard procedure for all permanently banned members who return in disguise? Q has no special insight, nor a particularly noble temperament. A constricted latitude (and even longitude as well) seems more appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 22, 2013 2:35:07 GMT -5
Questioning character is the need to challenge style and morality, which is what you're doing here in this thread. I wouldn't say it's useless, but it is a distraction. It's the result of one deriving all perceptions from a personal perspective and failing to recognize the impersonal. Yes, it's a distraction. These character/style/morality discussions only arise because folks just can't stay focused on content long enough and always tend to bring their offline trouble to the table. Yes, and then blame those who point out the nonsense for causing the problems. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 22, 2013 2:44:27 GMT -5
It's within the extended latitude range, said Peter. I asked him about his take on this. However, I don't know why Question chose a sexually loaded word like pervert as if we would have discussed sexual matters there. I rather think Question has some mental hick-ups around the subject of sexuality. Hetero got banned because he said 'jackass' but Question gets a free pass with saying 'pervert'. I'd say pervert is much more offensive than jackass. Maybe Max and Peter should rethink their decisions. I didn't quite understand the free pass extended latitude. Is this going to be standard procedure for all permanently banned members who return in disguise? Q has no special insight, nor a particularly noble temperament. A constricted latitude (and even longitude as well) seems more appropriate. Yes, it's a nonsense. Maybe we should vote again. I'll start a poll. |
|
