|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 14:47:15 GMT -5
I see that I have the effect of stimulating resistance, but it's not done for my own entertainment. I don't enjoy the negativity. Could you explain in a nuthell what is the purpose for stimulating resistance? My apologies if I've asked this before. I don't have an intention of stimulating resistance. My intention is to talk about what in blazes is going on, and yes, I vaguely recall mentioning this before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2013 14:49:43 GMT -5
I see that I have the effect of stimulating resistance, but it's not done for my own entertainment. I don't enjoy the negativity. Load o' crap, here. Like hell you don't jerk chains. Mocking is your forte, and mocking is jerking chains. And if you don't enjoy the negativity, then quit jerking chains. You can start by recanting your belief that I am Mr. G. You know I'm not. One of E's self deceptions is that he doesn't enjoy mocking...
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 25, 2013 14:53:39 GMT -5
I have to agree with you as far as his mocking is concerned. We've all been witness to that. Um, I think that he/they were just joking about you being Mr. G. There's a difference between having an open mind and being a little naive. Been there, done that. Yes, I know they were joking about me being Mr. G. I joked back by playing along. Mutual chain jerking. And, I'm cool with that. What I'm not cool with is the hypocrisy it takes for a chain-jerker to say "I don't jerk chains", while simultaneously chanting how much he values sincerity. Because I'm not cool with it, he (and Reefs) call me 'Bengst bear', replete with the 'must be that time of the month' thing (which, btw, I've always thought was a sexist remark). I'm actually okay with that, as well, and so I play along with that, too. Again, more mutual chain-jerking. Now, he adds, 'and I don't enjoy the negativity', which is playing the victim card. Seriously, he's the 'Wedgie Kid'. Which, again, no problem with it, per se, just the lack of willingness on his part to admit it. Okay, then...I get that - blatantly jerking chains and then saying that he doesn't with a straight face. naughty froggy! wedgie kid - that one makes me chucckle.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 14:57:24 GMT -5
I see that I have the effect of stimulating resistance, but it's not done for my own entertainment. I don't enjoy the negativity. Load o' crap, here. Like hell you don't jerk chains. Mocking is your forte, and mocking is jerking chains. Mocking is not my 'forte'. I've admitted to doing that on occasion, though really it's your pejorative word for discussing what's going on with those who seem able to understand, and often doing so in a light-hearted, humorous manner. I don't do that nearly as often as I used to, though that might change because my compromise doesn't seem to have had any effect on the criticism. That implies to me that it's not about mocking at all, and that's just being used as a convenient hammer. How obvious is it that it was a joke? Have you completely lost your common sense along with your sense of humor?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 25, 2013 15:09:08 GMT -5
Load o' crap, here. Like hell you don't jerk chains. Mocking is your forte, and mocking is jerking chains. Mocking is not my 'forte'. I've admitted to doing that on occasion, though really it's your pejorative word for discussing what's going on with those who seem able to understand, and often doing so in a light-hearted, humorous manner. I don't do that nearly as often as I used to, though that might change because my compromise doesn't seem to have had any effect on the criticism. That implies to me that it's not about mocking at all, and that's just being used as a convenient hammer. As long as you make your points through mocking, I suspect that you're going to get hammered, and not just by me. [/quote] Yes, I know it was a joke, and, in fact, one that I found rather humorous, myself, which is why I played along. I took it as a comedy of the absurd thing--it's such an absurd idea, that it's actually funny. I'm just trying to get you to see your own stuff going on here, E. I don't want to hammer you. I'm really not the hammering type, despite appearances (though I'll admit that I can be disagreeable, as is the bear). And I respect much what you say that isn't mockery (even if I may disagree with it, or don't understand it--i.e., I can't ignore it). I'm rather only trying to get you to see what peeps are hammering you about, and arrogance and hypocrisy are hammer magnets.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 15:10:32 GMT -5
I have to agree with you as far as his mocking is concerned. We've all been witness to that. Um, I think that he/they were just joking about you being Mr. G. There's a difference between having an open mind and being a little naive. Been there, done that. Yes, I know they were joking about me being Mr. G. I joked back by playing along. Mutual chain jerking. And, I'm cool with that. What I'm not cool with is the hypocrisy it takes for a chain-jerker to say "I don't jerk chains", while simultaneously chanting how much he values sincerity. Because I'm not cool with it, he (and Reefs) call me 'Bengst bear', replete with the 'must be that time of the month' thing (which, btw, I've always thought was a sexist remark). I'm actually okay with that, as well, and so I play along with that, too. Again, more mutual chain-jerking. Now, he adds, 'and I don't enjoy the negativity', which is playing the victim card. Seriously, he's the 'Wedgie Kid'. Which, again, no problem with it, per se, just the lack of willingness on his part to admit it. You seem to have a few problems with it and you're just lying to yourself. There's a cycle you go through, which often seems to approximate a monthly cycle, and as such I've been curious as to what that's about, but it's not meant to imply a relationship to the feminine menstrual cycle. The sexist implications are just in your head. Another convenient hammer.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 25, 2013 15:13:40 GMT -5
Yes, I know they were joking about me being Mr. G. I joked back by playing along. Mutual chain jerking. And, I'm cool with that. What I'm not cool with is the hypocrisy it takes for a chain-jerker to say "I don't jerk chains", while simultaneously chanting how much he values sincerity. Because I'm not cool with it, he (and Reefs) call me 'Bengst bear', replete with the 'must be that time of the month' thing (which, btw, I've always thought was a sexist remark). I'm actually okay with that, as well, and so I play along with that, too. Again, more mutual chain-jerking. Now, he adds, 'and I don't enjoy the negativity', which is playing the victim card. Seriously, he's the 'Wedgie Kid'. Which, again, no problem with it, per se, just the lack of willingness on his part to admit it. You seem to have a few problems with it and you're just lying to yourself. There's a cycle you go through, which often seems to approximate a monthly cycle, and as such I've been curious as to what that's about, but it's not meant to imply a relationship to the feminine menstrual cycle. The sexist implications are just in your head. Another convenient hammer. Now, that is pure, unadulterated bull to say you weren't making a joke about the monthly thing! A person would have to be completely brain dead not to see that. It doesn't bother me - because you weren't joking about me. It's a snarky thing to say and you know it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 15:13:49 GMT -5
Load o' crap, here. Like hell you don't jerk chains. Mocking is your forte, and mocking is jerking chains. And if you don't enjoy the negativity, then quit jerking chains. You can start by recanting your belief that I am Mr. G. You know I'm not. One of E's self deceptions is that he doesn't enjoy mocking... No, I DO enjoy it to the extent that some humor is involved. I never said I didn't. Everybody here enjoys mocking me too. Don't be so hypocritical.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 15:15:39 GMT -5
Yes, I know they were joking about me being Mr. G. I joked back by playing along. Mutual chain jerking. And, I'm cool with that. What I'm not cool with is the hypocrisy it takes for a chain-jerker to say "I don't jerk chains", while simultaneously chanting how much he values sincerity. Because I'm not cool with it, he (and Reefs) call me 'Bengst bear', replete with the 'must be that time of the month' thing (which, btw, I've always thought was a sexist remark). I'm actually okay with that, as well, and so I play along with that, too. Again, more mutual chain-jerking. Now, he adds, 'and I don't enjoy the negativity', which is playing the victim card. Seriously, he's the 'Wedgie Kid'. Which, again, no problem with it, per se, just the lack of willingness on his part to admit it. Okay, then...I get that - blatantly jerking chains and then saying that he doesn't with a straight face. naughty froggy! wedgie kid - that one makes me chucckle. Think..For..Your...Self.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2013 15:23:38 GMT -5
"weaseling" indicated he understood the obvious but that he answered yes indicated he didn't The very concept of wealth itself is a limitation so unlimited wealth is, in that sense, an oxymoron. In this I can see why FJ would call it a trick question but it's an excellent koan, and his preoccupation with the "wealth of the enlightened ones" suggests he would profit from contemplating it. ... any statement of wealth states a limitation and yet there is noone without unlimited wealth ... With at least 50 billion USD in your account it should basically feel unlimited. I'd say most folks would just run out of ideas on how to spend that kind of money sooner or later. Let's say you have 50 billion USD at your disposal per year, would you know how to spend it all? Every year? How long will it take until you run out of ideas about how to spend it? That some limitations are, for practical purposes, not really limitations at all is an interesting general abstract point. Considering the idea of the temperature of absolute zero or the speed of light and what happens or would happen close to these limits leads to some interesting philosophical exploration, along with the conclusion that the notion of "practical", is eventually a contrivance. In terms of the psychology of wealth and the nature of absolutes, 50 billion USD is still a number, a limit, a finite amount of money. The question is, what is this number for a given person? How do they perceive this limit? How much money do they have to have to not perceive it as a limit for practical purposes? For most people this number would be alot lower, but for some the practical purpose becomes a yardstick for where they stand relative to others: who is richer than 50 billion USD? Is there someone with more money than me? Wealth is always operative as a limit when the equivalence between wealth and power and control is drawn in the mind of the one so limited. Seems to me that to someone in this position, it's possible for the dynamic nature of material valuation to become acute, and they might become aware that no matter where they stand today, given enough time and change there could be enough people on top of them to make their current wealth an intolerable limit. In some of the extreme cases in modern history (Gates, Carnegie, Rockefeller) what seems to have happened is that at some point they saw that conditions had changed sufficiently to render their struggle for power, in some sense, over, and they then embarked on great works of philanthropy. For each of these historical figures there are dozens if not hundreds of others of lesser but still substantial wealth who saw the practically unlimited nature of their fortunes and took up leisure and another group similarly situated who simply worked until they dropped.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 25, 2013 15:29:09 GMT -5
Yes, I know they were joking about me being Mr. G. I joked back by playing along. Mutual chain jerking. And, I'm cool with that. What I'm not cool with is the hypocrisy it takes for a chain-jerker to say "I don't jerk chains", while simultaneously chanting how much he values sincerity. Because I'm not cool with it, he (and Reefs) call me 'Bengst bear', replete with the 'must be that time of the month' thing (which, btw, I've always thought was a sexist remark). I'm actually okay with that, as well, and so I play along with that, too. Again, more mutual chain-jerking. Now, he adds, 'and I don't enjoy the negativity', which is playing the victim card. Seriously, he's the 'Wedgie Kid'. Which, again, no problem with it, per se, just the lack of willingness on his part to admit it. You seem to have a few problems with it and you're just lying to yourself. There's a cycle you go through, which often seems to approximate a monthly cycle, and as such I've been curious as to what that's about, but it's not meant to imply a relationship to the feminine menstrual cycle. The sexist implications are just in your head. Another convenient hammer. This reminds me that you're completely incorrigible, believing yourself to be irreproachable. As long as you play it that way, then don't be surprised if 'that time of the month' for the bear happens on a daily basis.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 15:29:39 GMT -5
You seem to have a few problems with it and you're just lying to yourself. There's a cycle you go through, which often seems to approximate a monthly cycle, and as such I've been curious as to what that's about, but it's not meant to imply a relationship to the feminine menstrual cycle. The sexist implications are just in your head. Another convenient hammer. Now, that is pure, unadulterated bull to say you weren't making a joke about the monthly thing! A person would have to be completely brain dead not to see that. It doesn't bother me - because you weren't joking about me. It's a snarky thing to say and you know it. I've never in my life made a joke about the feminine menstrual cycle. There's nothing funny about it.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 25, 2013 15:29:40 GMT -5
Okay, then...I get that - blatantly jerking chains and then saying that he doesn't with a straight face. naughty froggy! wedgie kid - that one makes me chucckle. Think..For..Your...Self. I....am.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 25, 2013 15:32:39 GMT -5
Now, that is pure, unadulterated bull to say you weren't making a joke about the monthly thing! A person would have to be completely brain dead not to see that. It doesn't bother me - because you weren't joking about me. It's a snarky thing to say and you know it. I've never in my life made a joke about the feminine menstrual cycle. There's nothing funny about it. You know you did - you played along with the others who said about 'that monthly' thing. Jokes are funny - a joke pretty much is making a witticism at someone else's expense. Sometimes it's ill-advised depending on the timing and the situation and the individual(s). You didn't just fall off the proverbial turnip truck.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 15:37:16 GMT -5
You seem to have a few problems with it and you're just lying to yourself. There's a cycle you go through, which often seems to approximate a monthly cycle, and as such I've been curious as to what that's about, but it's not meant to imply a relationship to the feminine menstrual cycle. The sexist implications are just in your head. Another convenient hammer. This reminds me that you're completely incorrigible, believing yourself to be irreproachable. As long as you play it that way, then don't be surprised if 'that time of the month' for the bear happens on a daily basis. You want me to agree with your self deception and giraffes, and then you won't see me as arrogant, mocking, self deceiving, incorrigible or hypocritical. I can't do that because it's against everything I'm doing here, so I guess it will be ongoing conflict or ignoring.
|
|