Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2013 17:16:49 GMT -5
Why have you moved my post to the 'with mockery allowed' thread? There was nothing mocking in my thread. I don't watch videos as I'm sitting with my family, and a) I don't know if it's suitable, and b) they're watching TV. So I don't know if you have moved it in order to mock. Either way, I'm confused. Could you explain please. Didn't move your post just replied in a different thread. Well, you are the law. Was there a reason that you wanted to reply here, rather than in the no mocking version?
|
|
|
Post by silence on Nov 25, 2013 17:25:09 GMT -5
For me, its because if you can't already see it, then there is nothing I could show you that would convince you. It would be completely fruitless. Please put away your tape measure. It's cold outside. You should feel lucky Andrew hasn't given you homework yet.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 25, 2013 21:13:11 GMT -5
Intensity and passion do not equal negativity. Constant disagreement is, by definition, constant negativity. Ya' know ... the never-ending irony ... it like drips off of every word ... in these debate threads ... man it's great comedy. You see, I'm including my words in that assessment as well of course. It's the good fight, it's for more ease, peace, joy and love that we call others spiritual nazis. Don't lose sight of the big picture!
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 25, 2013 21:19:19 GMT -5
Greetings.. Didn't move your post just replied in a different thread. Well, you are the law. Was there a reason that you wanted to reply here, rather than in the no mocking version? I'm interested, too, in why the Sheriff would choose, of his own volition, to reply in thread that allows mocking.. it would have been more consistent with flow of conversation to reply in the thread where it was posted.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 26, 2013 5:17:29 GMT -5
Didn't move your post just replied in a different thread. Well, you are the law. Was there a reason that you wanted to reply here, rather than in the no mocking version?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 26, 2013 5:20:53 GMT -5
Please put away your tape measure. It's cold outside. You should feel lucky Andrew hasn't given you homework yet. Wow ... he does that?? Hey! Can I just copy yours?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 26, 2013 6:35:35 GMT -5
Constant disagreement is, by definition, constant negativity. Ya' know ... the never-ending irony ... it like drips off of every word ... in these debate threads ... man it's great comedy. You see, I'm including my words in that assessment as well of course. It's the good fight, it's for more ease, peace, joy and love that we call others spiritual nazis. Don't lose sight of the big picture! Remember, no mockery in that one! At the very least it can serve as an example of what happens when humor is forsaken in a thread ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 11:09:48 GMT -5
Well, you are the law. Was there a reason that you wanted to reply here, rather than in the no mocking version? Aww laughter, you can show me the way to quote better lol.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 27, 2013 6:43:28 GMT -5
That's Kubrick's case of you hearing someone calling themselves a Buddhist. He referred to that as a form of violence, remember? So isn't it all the more violent when the divisive label isn't self-spoken? There is a distinction between malevolence and violence. ==== < > Here's a trade secret about being an effective documentarian, or as the objectively challenged might say in self-defensive disparagement: a good "dumpster diver" -- Sometimes a conversation arrives at a certain point where making note of it is likely useful at some later time. There's no need to dive for what you can simply squirrel away. At this point, your current avy makes complete sense (for posterity's sake, a giraffe with it's tongue out): It's been obvious for awhile now that you've simply copied someone else's playbook -- make repetitive delirious accusations about an abusive gang, and then when confronted with your illusion, simply play it like you're above it all. Dude, I saw this comin' when you said you saw the introduction of that new character as a positive development months and months ago. </ > I think Krishnamuti said it first, so Kubrick might have got the idea from that. I sure do know people who identify as religious or a flag or a gang or something. I guess they both meant a similar sort of thing. Yes. It could be violent to assert that on someone. Sure, there's a difference, and violence and malevolence mean different things. The Giraffe started as that giraffe game on Facebook, but it's also one of the st.org thangs. I can't remember a new character or saying anything like that... I do forget a lot though. I know the game and I don't expect others to, but you can see for yourself who speaks the 'you' and who speaks for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 27, 2013 6:59:17 GMT -5
At this point, your current avy makes complete sense (for posterity's sake, a giraffe with it's tongue out): ------> -----> -----> Just another day here in Giraffic Park! Girrafic1. adj. The type of park the ST forum would be if it were a park. 2. noun. A period in history in which people said sh!t on the ST forum.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 27, 2013 7:22:42 GMT -5
oh! the humanity!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 27, 2013 9:27:36 GMT -5
People, individuals, life. < > The thing is that you were given ample opportunity to get specific about what said was abuse, bullying, persecution and manipulation. You re-interjecting yourself into the conversation at this point is exactly the same troll game that lolly's been busted at. This question of whether mocking ever injures anything other than an image was already discussed, so you're actually trolling in more ways than one at this point. </ > Re: trolling, I'd say Andrew is a pro.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 27, 2013 9:57:11 GMT -5
"In the end, anyone can say what they think, and another person can disagree or whatever, and say what they think, which might contradict the first speaker, but if there's a sincere attempt to understand different points of view and other perspectives, then it's pretty smooth sailing." Right but the context was that you post this on a page with a discussion with Andy that was an obvious display of insincerity on his part ... now you can pretend that you don't see that insincerity -- your play -- would that be mocking? I've been fully sincere in every message I have posted in this thread, and even if your next step is to now prove my insincerity, its still not going to change the fact that you acknowledged that words/ideas can mentally and emotionally harm.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 27, 2013 10:02:58 GMT -5
Right but the context was that you post this on a page with a discussion with Andy that was an obvious display of insincerity on his part ... now you can pretend that you don't see that insincerity -- your play -- would that be mocking? I've been fully sincere in every message I have posted in this thread, and even if your next step is to now prove my insincerity, its still not going to change the fact that you acknowledged that words/ideas can mentally and emotionally harm. Do you want me to do that? That agreement was contextually-bound to a conversation that you abandoned with your insincerity.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 27, 2013 20:14:03 GMT -5
|
|