Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 15, 2013 15:57:52 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2013 15:57:52 GMT -5
Martial - of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior Marshall (Plan) - in which the United States gave economic support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to prevent the spread of Soviet Communism. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again. [/pedantic] but prosperity, removing barriers, sounds like a good thingy ;-) how do we get there from here?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 15, 2013 19:38:26 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 15, 2013 19:38:26 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Ace was alluding to a specific point of comedy in Idiocracy. Joe Bauers (played by Luke Wilson) is Rip Van Winkled 500 years into the future because of an army experiment in suspended animation that got forgotten and lost. During that time, evolution took a turn toward producing dumber and dumber people. All the folks in 2507 think that Joe ... "talks like a f@g", because he speaks, for the most part, in complete and grammatically correct sentences ... I don't know anything about that. I just know I agree with Q for a change. Hehe.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 15, 2013 19:44:34 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 15, 2013 19:44:34 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Ace was alluding to a specific point of comedy in Idiocracy. Joe Bauers (played by Luke Wilson) is Rip Van Winkled 500 years into the future because of an army experiment in suspended animation that got forgotten and lost. During that time, evolution took a turn toward producing dumber and dumber people. All the folks in 2507 think that Joe ... "talks like a f@g", because he speaks, for the most part, in complete and grammatically correct sentences ... I don't know anything about that. I just know I agree with Q for a change. Hehe. I think I see where yer comin' from -- Q didn't ask for that (not directly anyways) and it was kinda' harsh.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 15, 2013 19:45:43 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 15, 2013 19:45:43 GMT -5
Martial - of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior Marshall (Plan) - in which the United States gave economic support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to prevent the spread of Soviet Communism. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again. [/pedantic] but prosperity, removing barriers, sounds like a good thingy ;-) how do we get there from here? Well, maybe learning to shpell is the beginning of peace and prosperity.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 15, 2013 21:03:15 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 15, 2013 21:03:15 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. You're right, you have this "cardboard cut-out" image of the world and of 'Tzu', and all you experience of that image is a self-referential feedback loop that reinforces your precious self-image as a 'superior being to be reckoned with'.. examine your phrase, "A profound sort of pity mixed with revulsion", that comes from a dark and hostile mindscape wanting to share some repressed emotional pain.. do you not see the difference between my intention of 'pointing at' a forum/philosophic inconsistency with a moderator biased and aligned with a select group and that group's agenda, and your personal 'Tzu' agenda?.. do you not see how you are not in control of your emotions, how easily you are inspired to express the "revulsion" you have for those you deem inferior.. you are living a Life unexamined, presuming your superiority to be its own authority.. Yes, there is no need to reply, but you demonstrate no control over that 'need'.. Be well.. Unlike you, I disclaimed making any assumptions about your internal state: I can't know your subjective state for a certainty but it sure seems to me as though the reason that you challenge is the same reason that mountaineers climb. What I mean by hostile, what I'm asking if you recognize, is the overt hostility, in terms of tone and in terms of the imagery suggested by your words: read the words, and stop manipulating the meaning to suit the message you want heard.. yes, 'enforcement', the ridiculing, intimidating, and provoking carried-out by a few members and emulated by a few more, under the guise of helping others intended to 'break' the victim's spirit described through propaganda and illusion enforced by allowing the rules to be exploited That was just in that one message alone. Now, are you going to claim that these words don't seem hostile? How about these? you are simply using their cause as a platform for the indulgence of your self-image at the expense of others.. your pseudo-intellectual mind-play Would you at least admit that these are insulting, if not downright hostile? Certainly quite a bit of condescension in what you write, no? During the last round of discussion where we actually had a few exchanges free of this nonsense, I had to simply ignore most of this ... it's what I'd refer to as "ego-bait" ... but you see, eventually the conversation with you always seems to break down to the point where that's all you're saying, is ego-bait -- it's no longer bait, it becomes this picture that gets painted -- more sort of vomited out -- based on all these thoughts and impressions and conclusions that you've drawn about me. If not those up there, how about these? are you so infatuated with boorish behavior the deeds are divisive and self-fulfilling, revealing his attachment to divisiveness and creating conflict.. Okay, now that you've had your hissy-fit about how you 'feel' about what i posted.. you will remain misinformed and unaware of the resonant similarities.. but, the Flat-Earth Society survives on the mentality that refuses to 'listen' and to pay attention, and see/experience what is actually happening, you will fit in nicely.. Why do you make absurd statements You seem to see yourself in a different light -- that's what I meant by the pity and the revulsion -- you really do have so much to offer but a high percentage of your correspondence are riddled with this ridiculous and wasteful sword-swinging. Now if I were to psychoanalyze you based on this the way that you have done with me, I'd start talking about fear and vulnerability and PTSD ... but I'm not qualified for any of that and it would only be based on your words, so it would be complete B.S. ... as I said, I can't know your internal state. But your words clearly denote hostility -- they are a call to battle ... and the condescension seems to indicate a projection on your part with respect to this supposed air of superiority that you think I carry. If nothing I've quoted so far is getting this point across, how about these? What I've included in this post is just the tip of an iceberg. Really? you're still attached to word-games? Okay, so you have some hangups about "fear and doubt", great, You're stuck in a 'word-game loop', good luck.. you will remain there until it stops serving your belief that it's cool.. your inability to stop thinking and just see.. but keep at it, kiddo.. you're doing a swell job, i'll wager it 'feels' like a carnival fun-house full of distorted mirrors, for you, LOL.. You are not fully present.. you are attached to ideas and meanings and beliefs, you see/experience through those beliefs, which distorts your 'awareness'.. You try to condition others to believe that "oneness is truth" The post was written in your imaginary language Even with your intentionally deluded misrepresentation, you can't make that illusion seem valid.. Now, go to your room, young man, and read what you just posted.. you're presuming much more that you can even understand.. you don't like what i post, great.. but, that's all your post says, you address nothing about your failure to see clearly.. The 'incentive' is in the hypocrisy of your actions relative to your speech about not having a problem with that understanding .. Thinking is all you do, Top.. think and chatter about what you think.. Excellent, then block me and STFU.. you're only interested in parading around your wannabe Native American ego.. pfft, scurry away into the forest of your beliefs, you're not interested in reality.. Well, you'll never know how wrong you are, but it's that way with folks like you, you place your faith in the belief that ignorance is bliss.. you play games, hiding not so clever snotty remarks in geek-font, passing judgment and patting yourself on the back for your worship of ideology and self-delusion.. read your last four posts to or about Tzu, you are arrogance incarnate. You will continue to display your juvenile self-indulgence, while worshiping E's abusive provocations, since that is the gang's binding force.. yep, Niz is the chief guru, because of his snotty ways, and he is emulated, not because he has any wisdom, but because the gang believes he validates their inclination for snotty abusive behavior.. LOL.. you're trying to hard, Steve.. you are so attached to oneness, that you cannot let it go, even for that instant that would reveal that it is no more than an idea, a belief.. yep, liberation means no attachments, none, but you can't deal with that, so.. you remain attached to mama's apron-strings, the safety of beliefs and illusions and support-groups like the forum's club of believers.. LOL.. ahh, it's Halloween and the little gang of juveniles wants their treats.. they want a 'victory', they want to win a 'battle'.. not so much, you are so predictable.. i had hoped, early in my visit to this forum, that you had the potential for reasoned adult discussion, you don't.. and i'm no longer interested in anything other than watching you do tricks like the post above.. you lost your rights when you chose to be petty and pretentious, and avoid open honest direct discussions.. you can't control yourself, you have to try to play passive aggressive cartoon video deputy giraffe gang-humping misrepresentations as if they had meaning.. ---- You're right, you have this "cardboard cut-out" image of the world and of 'Tzu' Uhm no ... I'm responding to the words on the page ... of course I can't know (apparently, unlike you), what's really behind them. It's just very very obvious that the words are condescending and hostile. As far as what you've said about me, you presume that I look down on everyone. Ridicule I'll certainly admit to, but provocation and intimidation are, just as your claim that I promote "oneness", entirely within your mind. I never ridicule anyone who hasn't gotten insulting with me first or someone I'm friendly enough with to have a good guess at how they'd take it. You talk an awful lot about still mind and clarity. It is all talk. In the past there has seemed to be some value in confrontations like this. They've seemed to lead to a cycle where you stick to the still-mind-clarity message without all the nastiness -- but that's always only temporary. At this point my goal is to have something to point back toward at those times when I want to illustrate why the conversation came to a dead-end. Toward that end. Please. Keep typing. LOL.. you are predictably attached to proving something about how you feel about 'Tzu', about your "revulsion" for 'Tzu'.. consider the effort you put forth, even if it were only five minutes, to assemble those quotes (out of context, i might add), that effort is the level of your intention to create the illusion that you are not equally complicit in the situation, it is the level of your attachment to your separation form those you 'loathe' (revulsion).. It is the ploy of you and the club, to poke and probe, and provoke others until the subject of your 'game' replies with a measure returned in kind, but which measure is not cloaked in self-righteous belief-scheming, then.. you and the club complain and ridicule the response you intended to create.. myself and a few others tell it like it is, and that is the actuality you want to turn into the illusion of 'hostility'.. i'm telling you that the quotes you cite are direct and open and honest, unlike the games you and the club run on other members and guests.. but, you did slip and show an 'honest' glimpse of 'the new Sheriff in town', how you are 'revulsed' and have no control, how the more i 'tell it like it is', the more you will spin the grander illusion, unable to control yourself.. Do you suppose that the 'ridicule' you admit to isn't provocative or intimidating? i'm reflecting back to you the energy you bring to the conversations with those you 'think' are 'insulting', but i'm reflecting it without the illusions of forum politics.. that's the problem with the forum's agenda, it becomes acceptable for the agenda advocates to claim 'insult' when others don't conform to the agenda, granting unto themselves, as you have done, the right to ridicule, provoke, and intimidate with the tacit and even overt sanction of the forum 'authorities'.. You took on the role of forum moderator, and to that end i was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you could function in a fair and balanced capacity, but.. you find yourself incapable of maintaining an impersonal relationship with members, you sling mud, ridicule, provoke, and intimidate while pretending that your 'Sheriff's' duties are not influenced by the 'revulsion' you've admitted to, and that's just with 'Tzu'.. You and your pack of frat-boys find it amusing to ridicule, provoke, and intimidate others while patting yourselves on the back for being all non-dually enlightened in your oneness 'us against them' non-separtion separation between the awakened no-persons living in their dream within a dream belief, while some of us are trying to remind you to STFU and just pay attention.. but, in true frat-boy style, you rage against those you haven't initiated into your club, against those that won't accept the club's beliefs as 'truth', and.. now, the club has a defender with power, an 'official' who makes it clear " I never ridicule anyone who hasn't gotten insulting with me first or someone I'm friendly enough with to have a good guess at how they'd take it".. that's your criteria, a 'good guess'? yep, that's good ol' Sheriff Bill, stickin up for his buddies.. down here in the south, that's known as "the good ol boy club".. And, so as to be clear, that is open, honest, and direct, and.. there's absolutely no hostility OR revulsion, it's an open minded observation of what's actually happening.. yes, it is blunt AND sharp, but sometimes sharp is necessary to cut the bonds of attachment to beliefs believed to be 'truth'.. you say i'm swinging a sword and combative, i'm swinging that sword trying to sever the attachments that blind you to the illusions of your own beliefs.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 15, 2013 21:43:20 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 15, 2013 21:43:20 GMT -5
Greetings.. Unlike you, I disclaimed making any assumptions about your internal state: What I mean by hostile, what I'm asking if you recognize, is the overt hostility, in terms of tone and in terms of the imagery suggested by your words: That was just in that one message alone. Now, are you going to claim that these words don't seem hostile? How about these? Would you at least admit that these are insulting, if not downright hostile? Certainly quite a bit of condescension in what you write, no? During the last round of discussion where we actually had a few exchanges free of this nonsense, I had to simply ignore most of this ... it's what I'd refer to as "ego-bait" ... but you see, eventually the conversation with you always seems to break down to the point where that's all you're saying, is ego-bait -- it's no longer bait, it becomes this picture that gets painted -- more sort of vomited out -- based on all these thoughts and impressions and conclusions that you've drawn about me. If not those up there, how about these? You seem to see yourself in a different light -- that's what I meant by the pity and the revulsion -- you really do have so much to offer but a high percentage of your correspondence are riddled with this ridiculous and wasteful sword-swinging. Now if I were to psychoanalyze you based on this the way that you have done with me, I'd start talking about fear and vulnerability and PTSD ... but I'm not qualified for any of that and it would only be based on your words, so it would be complete B.S. ... as I said, I can't know your internal state. But your words clearly denote hostility -- they are a call to battle ... and the condescension seems to indicate a projection on your part with respect to this supposed air of superiority that you think I carry. If nothing I've quoted so far is getting this point across, how about these? What I've included in this post is just the tip of an iceberg. ---- Uhm no ... I'm responding to the words on the page ... of course I can't know (apparently, unlike you), what's really behind them. It's just very very obvious that the words are condescending and hostile. As far as what you've said about me, you presume that I look down on everyone. Ridicule I'll certainly admit to, but provocation and intimidation are, just as your claim that I promote "oneness", entirely within your mind. I never ridicule anyone who hasn't gotten insulting with me first or someone I'm friendly enough with to have a good guess at how they'd take it. You talk an awful lot about still mind and clarity. It is all talk. In the past there has seemed to be some value in confrontations like this. They've seemed to lead to a cycle where you stick to the still-mind-clarity message without all the nastiness -- but that's always only temporary. At this point my goal is to have something to point back toward at those times when I want to illustrate why the conversation came to a dead-end. Toward that end. Please. Keep typing. LOL.. you are predictably attached to proving something about how you feel about 'Tzu', about your "revulsion" for 'Tzu'.. consider the effort you put forth, even if it were only five minutes, to assemble those quotes (out of context, i might add), that effort is the level of your intention to create the illusion that you are not equally complicit in the situation, it is the level of your attachment to your separation form those you 'loathe' (revulsion).. It is the ploy of you and the club, to poke and probe, and provoke others until the subject of your 'game' replies with a measure returned in kind, but which measure is not cloaked in self-righteous belief-scheming, then.. you and the club complain and ridicule the response you intended to create.. myself and a few others tell it like it is, and that is the actuality you want to turn into the illusion of 'hostility'.. i'm telling you that the quotes you cite are direct and open and honest, unlike the games you and the club run on other members and guests.. but, you did slip and show an 'honest' glimpse of 'the new Sheriff in town', how you are 'revulsed' and have no control, how the more i 'tell it like it is', the more you will spin the grander illusion, unable to control yourself.. Do you suppose that the 'ridicule' you admit to isn't provocative or intimidating? i'm reflecting back to you the energy you bring to the conversations with those you 'think' are 'insulting', but i'm reflecting it without the illusions of forum politics.. that's the problem with the forum's agenda, it becomes acceptable for the agenda advocates to claim 'insult' when others don't conform to the agenda, granting unto themselves, as you have done, the right to ridicule, provoke, and intimidate with the tacit and even overt sanction of the forum 'authorities'.. riiiiighhht ... so your answer to my simple question: Do you realize the level of hostility in what you've written there? is "no". Lots of words to say no Tzu' ... seems to me to be indicative a bit of internal resistance, but I could be wrong, only you can say for sure. Bottom line is people can read that question, and they can read your answer, and they can decide for themselves whether or not there is any condescension or hostility in what you write. And they can decide for themselves what your denying it means as well. I take it to mean that you're looking at your own words through a really thick conceptual screen which you disclaim. They can also weigh your denial in the context of my admission to sometimes resorting to ridicule, and form an opinion as to which of us is the more open and honest accordingly. You took on the role of forum moderator, and to that end i was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you could function in a fair and balanced capacity, but.. you find yourself incapable of maintaining an impersonal relationship with members, you sling mud, ridicule, provoke, and intimidate while pretending that your 'Sheriff's' duties are not influenced by the 'revulsion' you've admitted to, and that's just with 'Tzu'.. You and your pack of frat-boys find it amusing to ridicule, provoke, and intimidate others while patting yourselves on the back for being all non-dually enlightened in your oneness 'us against them' non-separtion separation between the awakened no-persons living in their dream within a dream belief, while some of us are trying to remind you to STFU and just pay attention.. but, in true frat-boy style, you rage against those you haven't initiated into your club, against those that won't accept the club's beliefs as 'truth', and.. now, the club has a defender with power, an 'official' who makes it clear " I never ridicule anyone who hasn't gotten insulting with me first or someone I'm friendly enough with to have a good guess at how they'd take it".. that's your criteria, a 'good guess'? yep, that's good ol' Sheriff Bill, stickin up for his buddies.. down here in the south, that's known as "the good ol boy club".. And, so as to be clear, that is open, honest, and direct, and.. there's absolutely no hostility OR revulsion, it's an open minded observation of what's actually happening.. yes, it is blunt AND sharp, but sometimes sharp is necessary to cut the bonds of attachment to beliefs believed to be 'truth'.. you say i'm swinging a sword and combative, i'm swinging that sword trying to sever the attachments that blind you to the illusions of your own beliefs.. Be well.. As for your repeated and highlighted denial: As if I haven't admitted to my personal biases over and over again in discussing the moderator role and even specific acts of moderation? If you could point out even one instance of my being uneven-handed in moderating the NAT's that might lend a bit of credibility to the picture you're trying to paint, but you can't. You consistently paint the picture (and here I'm eliding much of your hostility and self-aggrandizement) of this website as a frat with a particular set of beliefs and an agenda to promote them and paint yourself as an outsider who feels a responsibility to bring balance ... in my estimation, which is, of course, biased, this is the definition of what Shawn referred to as a "crusade" in his original guidelines. If I wasn't aware of my own partiality, I'd have acted on that and banned you by now. Do rest assured though, that I won't fail to act if necessary -- for example, what you said in response to Ishy in retaliation for him calling you a "jerk" was over-the-top, and would earn you a vacation on my watch. Greetings.. You know that you are a jerk, and that is why I blocked you the first day I was on this forum. This is me being polite and telling you to mind your own business and stay the hell out of mine. Excellent, then block me and STFU.. you're only interested in parading around your wannabe Native American ego.. pfft, scurry away into the forest of your beliefs, you're not interested in reality.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 15, 2013 22:06:29 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 15, 2013 22:06:29 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. LOL.. you are predictably attached to proving something about how you feel about 'Tzu', about your "revulsion" for 'Tzu'.. consider the effort you put forth, even if it were only five minutes, to assemble those quotes (out of context, i might add), that effort is the level of your intention to create the illusion that you are not equally complicit in the situation, it is the level of your attachment to your separation form those you 'loathe' (revulsion).. It is the ploy of you and the club, to poke and probe, and provoke others until the subject of your 'game' replies with a measure returned in kind, but which measure is not cloaked in self-righteous belief-scheming, then.. you and the club complain and ridicule the response you intended to create.. myself and a few others tell it like it is, and that is the actuality you want to turn into the illusion of 'hostility'.. i'm telling you that the quotes you cite are direct and open and honest, unlike the games you and the club run on other members and guests.. but, you did slip and show an 'honest' glimpse of 'the new Sheriff in town', how you are 'revulsed' and have no control, how the more i 'tell it like it is', the more you will spin the grander illusion, unable to control yourself.. Do you suppose that the 'ridicule' you admit to isn't provocative or intimidating? i'm reflecting back to you the energy you bring to the conversations with those you 'think' are 'insulting', but i'm reflecting it without the illusions of forum politics.. that's the problem with the forum's agenda, it becomes acceptable for the agenda advocates to claim 'insult' when others don't conform to the agenda, granting unto themselves, as you have done, the right to ridicule, provoke, and intimidate with the tacit and even overt sanction of the forum 'authorities'.. riiiiighhht ... so your answer to my simple question: Do you realize the level of hostility in what you've written there? is "no". Lots of words to say no Tzu' ... seems to me to be indicative a bit of internal resistance, but I could be wrong, only you can say for sure. Bottom line is people can read that question, and they can read your answer, and they can decide for themselves whether or not there is any condescension or hostility in what you write. And they can decide for themselves what your denying it means as well. I take it to mean that you're looking at your own words through a really thick conceptual screen which you disclaim. They can also weigh your denial in the context of my admission to sometimes resorting to ridicule, and form an opinion as to which of us is the more open and honest accordingly. You took on the role of forum moderator, and to that end i was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you could function in a fair and balanced capacity, but.. you find yourself incapable of maintaining an impersonal relationship with members, you sling mud, ridicule, provoke, and intimidate while pretending that your 'Sheriff's' duties are not influenced by the 'revulsion' you've admitted to, and that's just with 'Tzu'.. You and your pack of frat-boys find it amusing to ridicule, provoke, and intimidate others while patting yourselves on the back for being all non-dually enlightened in your oneness 'us against them' non-separtion separation between the awakened no-persons living in their dream within a dream belief, while some of us are trying to remind you to STFU and just pay attention.. but, in true frat-boy style, you rage against those you haven't initiated into your club, against those that won't accept the club's beliefs as 'truth', and.. now, the club has a defender with power, an 'official' who makes it clear " I never ridicule anyone who hasn't gotten insulting with me first or someone I'm friendly enough with to have a good guess at how they'd take it".. that's your criteria, a 'good guess'? yep, that's good ol' Sheriff Bill, stickin up for his buddies.. down here in the south, that's known as "the good ol boy club".. And, so as to be clear, that is open, honest, and direct, and.. there's absolutely no hostility OR revulsion, it's an open minded observation of what's actually happening.. yes, it is blunt AND sharp, but sometimes sharp is necessary to cut the bonds of attachment to beliefs believed to be 'truth'.. you say i'm swinging a sword and combative, i'm swinging that sword trying to sever the attachments that blind you to the illusions of your own beliefs.. Be well.. As for your repeated and highlighted denial: As if I haven't admitted to my personal biases over and over again in discussing the moderator role and even specific acts of moderation? If you could point out even one instance of my being uneven-handed in moderating the NAT's that might lend a bit of credibility to the picture you're trying to paint, but you can't. You consistently paint the picture (and here I'm eliding much of your hostility and self-aggrandizement) of this website as a frat with a particular set of beliefs and an agenda to promote them and paint yourself as an outsider who feels a responsibility to bring balance ... in my estimation, which is, of course, biased, this is the definition of what Shawn referred to as a "crusade" in his original guidelines. If I wasn't aware of my own partiality, I'd have acted on that and banned you by now. Do rest assured though, that I won't fail to act if necessary -- for example, what you said in response to Ishy in retaliation for him calling you a "jerk" was over-the-top, and would earn you a vacation on my watch.Thanks for the warning, this IS the 'unmoderated' section, right?.. but, will you also examine the "crusade" of those that insist that a certain set of beliefs are the 'truth' and those that do not agree with that 'truth' are asleep/unconscious.. will you examine those "crusades", where groups of members focus on another member with ridicule, intimidation, and provocation for that member's different understanding of the same experience.. will you examine the bragging of those that 'caused someone to have a 'meltdown'', or that 'caused someone to leave'.. or, are your biases too deeply conditioned? or, is the fraternity too powerfully integrated with the forum politics.. Who comes empty to the discussions interested in seeing/experiencing what 'is', rather than demonstrating their beliefs about what 'is', is.. will it be 'you', Bill? Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 15, 2013 22:36:45 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 15, 2013 22:36:45 GMT -5
Greetings.. riiiiighhht ... so your answer to my simple question: is "no". Lots of words to say no Tzu' ... seems to me to be indicative a bit of internal resistance, but I could be wrong, only you can say for sure. Bottom line is people can read that question, and they can read your answer, and they can decide for themselves whether or not there is any condescension or hostility in what you write. And they can decide for themselves what your denying it means as well. I take it to mean that you're looking at your own words through a really thick conceptual screen which you disclaim. They can also weigh your denial in the context of my admission to sometimes resorting to ridicule, and form an opinion as to which of us is the more open and honest accordingly. As for your repeated and highlighted denial: As if I haven't admitted to my personal biases over and over again in discussing the moderator role and even specific acts of moderation? If you could point out even one instance of my being uneven-handed in moderating the NAT's that might lend a bit of credibility to the picture you're trying to paint, but you can't. You consistently paint the picture (and here I'm eliding much of your hostility and self-aggrandizement) of this website as a frat with a particular set of beliefs and an agenda to promote them and paint yourself as an outsider who feels a responsibility to bring balance ... in my estimation, which is, of course, biased, this is the definition of what Shawn referred to as a "crusade" in his original guidelines. If I wasn't aware of my own partiality, I'd have acted on that and banned you by now. Do rest assured though, that I won't fail to act if necessary -- for example, what you said in response to Ishy in retaliation for him calling you a "jerk" was over-the-top, and would earn you a vacation on my watch.Thanks for the warning, this IS the 'unmoderated' section, right?.. Well, yes it is. Have you gone so daft as to mistake the location of what the warning was about? but, will you also examine the "crusade" of those that insist that a certain set of beliefs are the 'truth' and those that do not agree with that 'truth' are asleep/unconscious.. will you examine those "crusades", where groups of members focus on another member with ridicule, intimidation, and provocation for that member's different understanding of the same experience.. will you examine the bragging of those that 'caused someone to have a 'meltdown'', or that 'caused someone to leave'.. or, are your biases too deeply conditioned? or, is the fraternity too powerfully integrated with the forum politics.. Who comes empty to the discussions interested in seeing/experiencing what 'is', rather than demonstrating their beliefs about what 'is', is.. will it be 'you', Bill? Be well.. You talk of still mind and clarity. It is just talk.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 15, 2013 22:55:08 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 15, 2013 22:55:08 GMT -5
Unlike you, I disclaimed making any assumptions about your internal state: What I mean by hostile, what I'm asking if you recognize, is the overt hostility, in terms of tone and in terms of the imagery suggested by your words: That was just in that one message alone. Now, are you going to claim that these words don't seem hostile? [psychoanalysis]I speculate that Tzu believes his comments to be incontrovertibly true, and therefore sees himself as simply being open, honest and direct in bringing these truths to everyone's attention. As such, I doubt that he sees himself as belligerent, condescending or hostile.[/psychoanalysis] Funny thing, while reading his quotes, the thought flashed that he might benefit from the mental discipline and equanimity associated with the marshal arts. (That thought passed quickly) Yeah, hey, you called it. You's bearboyuant I tells ya'!
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 15, 2013 23:43:10 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 15, 2013 23:43:10 GMT -5
Greetings.. [psychoanalysis]I speculate that Tzu believes his comments to be incontrovertibly true, and therefore sees himself as simply being open, honest and direct in bringing these truths to everyone's attention. As such, I doubt that he sees himself as belligerent, condescending or hostile.[/psychoanalysis] Funny thing, while reading his quotes, the thought flashed that he might benefit from the mental discipline and equanimity associated with the marshal arts. (That thought passed quickly) Yeah, hey, you called it. You's bearboyuant I tells ya'! <Begin poignant Sarcasm> Yeah, hey.. <secret frat-boy hand shake>.. let's make fun of 'Tzu' he's so not like 'us'.. we're like all down wit da 'd!ck vids', and groovin on da Sheriff's new clothes.. <end Sarcasm> Wait.. what.. you're gonna remark about 'mental discipline'? LOL.. you're drowning in the ocean of your belief illusions, and when someone offers you the Life-preserver of stillness you ridicule them? "Equanimity"? that's laughable, coming from those than cannot let go of their beliefs without the drama of ridicule and intimidation as a diversion from their obvious avoidance of open honest discussions.. I am neither belligerent nor hostile.. yes, what you see as condescending is the return volley of ridicule revulsion and intolerance the fraternity serves with its agenda.. I remain ever willing to come empty for discussions about oneness, non-duality, duality, separation, etc.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 0:00:47 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 16, 2013 0:00:47 GMT -5
Greetings.. Yeah, hey, you called it. You's bearboyuant I tells ya'! <Begin poignant Sarcasm> Yeah, hey.. <secret frat-boy hand shake>.. let's make fun of 'Tzu' he's so not like 'us'.. we're like all down wit da 'd!ck vids', and groovin on da Sheriff's new clothes.. <end Sarcasm> Wait.. what.. you're gonna remark about 'mental discipline'? LOL.. you're drowning in the ocean of your belief illusions, and when someone offers you the Life-preserver of stillness you ridicule them? "Equanimity"? that's laughable, coming from those than cannot let go of their beliefs without the drama of ridicule and intimidation as a diversion from their obvious avoidance of open honest discussions.. I am neither belligerent nor hostile.. yes, what you see as condescending is the return volley of ridicule revulsion and intolerance the fraternity serves with its agenda.. I remain ever willing to come empty for discussions about oneness, non-duality, duality, separation, etc.. Be well.. Truth is a defense against slander or libel. you talk of still mind and clarity. it is all talk.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 0:10:03 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 16, 2013 0:10:03 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. <Begin poignant Sarcasm> Yeah, hey.. <secret frat-boy hand shake>.. let's make fun of 'Tzu' he's so not like 'us'.. we're like all down wit da 'd!ck vids', and groovin on da Sheriff's new clothes.. <end Sarcasm> Wait.. what.. you're gonna remark about 'mental discipline'? LOL.. you're drowning in the ocean of your belief illusions, and when someone offers you the Life-preserver of stillness you ridicule them? "Equanimity"? that's laughable, coming from those than cannot let go of their beliefs without the drama of ridicule and intimidation as a diversion from their obvious avoidance of open honest discussions.. I am neither belligerent nor hostile.. yes, what you see as condescending is the return volley of ridicule revulsion and intolerance the fraternity serves with its agenda.. I remain ever willing to come empty for discussions about oneness, non-duality, duality, separation, etc.. Be well.. Truth is a defense against slander or libel. you talk of still mind and clarity. it is all talk. So you say, Bill.. engage in open honest and unconditionally sincere discussion about reality rather than personality, or.. shrink away from your 'defense'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 0:19:42 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 16, 2013 0:19:42 GMT -5
Greetings.. Truth is a defense against slander or libel. you talk of still mind and clarity. it is all talk. So you say, Bill.. engage in open honest and unconditionally sincere discussion about reality rather than personality, or.. shrink away from your 'defense'.. Be well.. No, I won't shrink away from it E' made a prediction as to how you'd react to my confronting you with your own words, and you bore his prediction out, almost to the letter. Do you need links and quotes? ... I don't do giraffes ...
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 0:39:40 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 16, 2013 0:39:40 GMT -5
Greetings.. engage in open honest and unconditionally sincere discussion about reality Be well.. Reality is a word. An idea. Greetings.. I remain ever willing to come empty for discussions about oneness, non-duality, duality, separation, etc.. Be well.. Do you have any specific point that you'd like to discuss?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 6:56:20 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 16, 2013 6:56:20 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. engage in open honest and unconditionally sincere discussion about reality Be well.. Reality is a word. An idea. Greetings.. I remain ever willing to come empty for discussions about oneness, non-duality, duality, separation, etc.. Be well.. Do you have any specific point that you'd like to discuss? Let's start with 'reality', from which we can examine other matters considered to be of a spiritual nature.. from Wikipedia: I accept the first sentence of Wiki's definition, in italics, as most closely approximating my own understanding.. the following sentences include conditions that allow a level of ambiguity and imagined speculation that sets people apart from each other in conflicts of ideologies.. it allows for anyone or any group to make unverifiable claims as a basis for their actions 'in reality', but.. the desire to imagine Pink Unicorns then assign magical powers to them, and claim they are the 'Gurus of Truth', can be justified by that portion of Wiki's quoted definition not italicized, but.. it fails the simple test of actuality/reality.. My interest in the phenomenon i described above which i sometimes refer to as the 'Spiritual Circus' and the 'Pink Unicorn' syndrome, is that it sets people apart from and in opposition with each other, while claiming inclusion and oneness, as long as there is agreement with one 'imagined belief' or another.. people seem blind to the contradiction of their imagined beliefs.. Be well..
|
|