|
Post by andrew on Dec 3, 2013 14:02:55 GMT -5
You like Farmer's post Silver. I take that to mean that you agree that Andrew, Tzu and I are in an 'absolute panic' over the discussion we've been having? I'm fairly certain that farmer is saying that as in a manner of speaking -- it's just shorthand for they's a mess a'goin' on, heh. Obviously he's not just saying that, and I don't think you think he is either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2013 14:06:41 GMT -5
You like Farmer's post Silver. I take that to mean that you agree that Andrew, Tzu and I are in an 'absolute panic' over the discussion we've been having? I'm fairly certain that farmer is saying that as in a manner of speaking -- it's just shorthand for they's a mess a'goin' on, heh. I can only say that I look back at when the BP thread was unfolding, and as I said previously, I saw all that righteous indignation going on within me, and unable to see that it was clouding my view of what they were trying to get me to see. I felt I had a right -- an entitlement to my thread -- but I was holding fast to something that needn't have. What they were trying to get at was far more important, because I could always come back to what I'd started. I was defending a position that I now see as not important at all. I understand Silver that you are looking at this conversation Andrew and I are having, and you are comparing it to your upset over the BP thread and your arrival at a place now, where you see that all differently. The difference is Silver,that you were very, very upset and hurt by what was happening at that time. contrary to what I think some are seeing here, Andrew and I are not very, very upset, or panicked or hurt by any of this, but rather we have an interest in putting forth the idea that divergent opinion need not incite ugliness. We're trying to get those who take things down to the lowest possible denominator here, to look within and to ask themselves, why? I get the sense you want Andrew and I to also look within to ask 'why' we are interested in pursuing this....and I can very honestly say, on my end there's all sorts of looking within and clarity about that, as I imagine there is on Andrew's end. It's important to me because of my values. I value calmness, peace and civility, even when I disagree with another. I think the ability to not get caught up in negative emotion is an important aspect of 'seeing clearly'...and most importantly, of 'being free.' The bottom line is this; It is possible to disagree with someone without mocking them or belittling them. If the urge to be nasty arises, it's could serve as a powerful reminder to 'check oneself.' (hehe...that term is kinda growing on me )
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 3, 2013 14:07:56 GMT -5
I'm fairly certain that farmer is saying that as in a manner of speaking -- it's just shorthand for they's a mess a'goin' on, heh. Obviously he's not just saying that, and I don't think you think he is either. You're ultra paranoid.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 3, 2013 14:14:36 GMT -5
I'm fairly certain that farmer is saying that as in a manner of speaking -- it's just shorthand for they's a mess a'goin' on, heh. I can only say that I look back at when the BP thread was unfolding, and as I said previously, I saw all that righteous indignation going on within me, and unable to see that it was clouding my view of what they were trying to get me to see. I felt I had a right -- an entitlement to my thread -- but I was holding fast to something that needn't have. What they were trying to get at was far more important, because I could always come back to what I'd started. I was defending a position that I now see as not important at all. I understand Silver that you are looking at this conversation Andrew and I are having, and you are comparing it to your upset over the BP thread and your arrival at a place now, where you see that all differently. The difference is Silver,that you were very, very upset and hurt by what was happening at that time. contrary to what I think some are seeing here, Andrew and I are not very, very upset, or panicked or hurt by any of this, but rather we have an interest in putting forth the idea that divergent opinion need not incite ugliness. We're trying to get those who take things down to the lowest possible denominator here, to look within and to ask themselves, why? I get the sense you want Andrew and I to also look within to ask 'why' we are interested in pursuing this....and I can very honestly say, on my end there's all sorts of looking within and clarity about that, as I imagine there is on Andrew's end. It's important to me because of my values. I value calmness, peace and civility, even when I disagree with another. I think the ability to not get caught up in negative emotion is an important aspect of 'seeing clearly'...and most importantly, of 'being free.' The bottom line is this; It is possible to disagree with someone without mocking them or belittling them. If the urge to be nasty arises, it's could serve as a powerful reminder to 'check oneself.' ( hehe...that term is kinda growing on me ) It is a good one, yeah. I see what you're saying -- It's all been very interesting conversation -- it wouldn't have taken place if Laughter hadn't gone off the deep end, so to speak and gotten reactions from you. The thing about some valuing calmness, peace and civility, is I think everybody here, bar none, would agree with that, BUT to have the ability -- the talent to speak their minds - their truth -- to roar like a lion if they feel the compunction, is what makes this a beautiful jungle. By golly, I know I'm looking at things in a whole 'nother way these days, that is how it is for me, until further notice.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 3, 2013 14:17:13 GMT -5
Obviously he's not just saying that, and I don't think you think he is either. You're ultra paranoid. No, you're just not being honest in this instance.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 3, 2013 14:22:06 GMT -5
You're ultra paranoid. No, you're just not being honest in this instance. So, now you're so p*ssed at me, you're calling me a liar. Nice.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 3, 2013 14:23:01 GMT -5
No, you're just not being honest in this instance. So, now you're so p*ssed at me, you're calling me a liar. Nice. You would be surprised at how UN-pissed I am at you. I'm just calling you out on what I see as a bit of dishonesty there.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 3, 2013 14:25:02 GMT -5
So, now you're so p*ssed at me, you're calling me a liar. Nice. You would be surprised at how UN-pissed I am at you. I'm just calling you out on what I see as a bit of dishonesty there. I really meant what I said. I wasn't being dishonest, and you'll want to just go back and forth like you think I'm going to engage you and it'll be like two kids -- did too - -did not -- did too - did not and so on. At least now, I'm seeing how you really are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2013 14:28:09 GMT -5
It is a good one, yeah. I see what you're saying -- It's all been very interesting conversation -- it wouldn't have taken place if Laughter hadn't gone off the deep end, so to speak and gotten reactions from you. Yes, both of those things played into the fact that the convo took place....& is still taking place. I'd replace 'reactions' with 'responses' though. "reaction" seems to denote a lack of consciousness about what's happening...response works better. I'm not so sure about that actually. I agree....it's really great that you are seeing things in new and different ways. Sometimes just seeing that we can see things differently by shifting our position slightly can be incredibly empowering. And I see what you are saying; That there is a certain 'freedom' in being able to speak without the need to censor or reel things in. The sense of 'being free' though, to fulfill my urge to treat others like crap if I want to, is actually based upon attachment and need, and is therefore, the antithesis of freedom.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 3, 2013 14:33:04 GMT -5
You would be surprised at how UN-pissed I am at you. I'm just calling you out on what I see as a bit of dishonesty there. I really meant what I said. I wasn't being dishonest, and you'll want to just go back and forth like you think I'm going to engage you and it'll be like two kids -- did too - -did not -- did too - did not and so on. At least now, I'm seeing how you really are. You're not stupid at all, there's no way that you thought that that is what farmer was jes' sayin'. Not only that, the whole 'blind' comment just reinforces what I am saying.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 3, 2013 14:37:59 GMT -5
It is a good one, yeah. I see what you're saying -- It's all been very interesting conversation -- it wouldn't have taken place if Laughter hadn't gone off the deep end, so to speak and gotten reactions from you. Yes, both of those things played into the fact that the convo took place....& is still taking place. I'd replace 'reactions' with 'responses' though. "reaction" seems to denote a lack of consciousness about what's happening...response works better. I'm not so sure about that actually. I agree....it's really great that you are seeing things in new and different ways. Sometimes just seeing that we can see things differently by shifting our position slightly can be incredibly empowering. And I see what you are saying; That there is a certain 'freedom' in being able to speak without the need to censor or reel things in. The sense of 'being free' though, to fulfill my urge to treat others like crap if I want to, is actually based upon attachment and need, and is therefore, the antithesis of freedom. Well, from your reaction to his 'response' and my own figurin's in his telling you to f'off is that he actually did react within that response, right? I wouldn't see anybody's call for that - it's not crossing any lines here or with me when he said it was f'ed up... Yeah, I'm not sure about that, either -- it is an assumption. It does feel amazing to see things that I didn't see before, yes. Yeah, that 'urge' may arise but only in the context of a tussle.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 3, 2013 14:41:15 GMT -5
I really meant what I said. I wasn't being dishonest, and you'll want to just go back and forth like you think I'm going to engage you and it'll be like two kids -- did too - -did not -- did too - did not and so on. At least now, I'm seeing how you really are. You're not stupid at all, there's no way that you thought that that is what farmer was jes' sayin'. Not only that, the whole 'blind' comment just reinforces what I am saying. No, that's only because you're reading 'hostility' into what I've been saying to you this morning. I honestly thought it was a true exaggeration, and what I said is what I thought and it's what I meant then and mean now, so continuing to call me a liar on it is your ball o' wax. I can see no reason for your observation which is faulty btw, that my 'blind' comment reinforces your claim that I'm lying. In any case, I'm not going to belabor this discussion because I've told you how it IS.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 3, 2013 14:46:48 GMT -5
You're not stupid at all, there's no way that you thought that that is what farmer was jes' sayin'. Not only that, the whole 'blind' comment just reinforces what I am saying. No, that's only because you're reading 'hostility' into what I've been saying to you this morning. I honestly thought it was a true exaggeration, and what I said is what I thought and it's what I meant then and mean now, so continuing to call me a liar on it is your ball o' wax. I can see no reason for your observation which is faulty btw, that my 'blind' comment reinforces your claim that I'm lying. In any case, I'm not going to belabor this discussion because I've told you how it IS. I do understand why you said what you said to Fig, but its an obvious cop out and not really what you thought it meant. You basically put yourself in quite an awkward situation back there.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 3, 2013 14:51:40 GMT -5
No, that's only because you're reading 'hostility' into what I've been saying to you this morning. I honestly thought it was a true exaggeration, and what I said is what I thought and it's what I meant then and mean now, so continuing to call me a liar on it is your ball o' wax. I can see no reason for your observation which is faulty btw, that my 'blind' comment reinforces your claim that I'm lying. In any case, I'm not going to belabor this discussion because I've told you how it IS. I do understand why you said what you said to Fig, but its an obvious cop out and not really what you thought it meant. You basically put yourself in quite an awkward situation back there. I have no idea what part you're referring to -- that would help -- but you want to help yourself to win an argument with me by not quoting which part you're actually talking about. Talk about a cheater.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 3, 2013 14:56:41 GMT -5
Some people are some times blind in one eye and can't see outta the other! (Can't help the Emperor w/no clothes on. ) You like Farmer's post Silver. I take that to mean that you agree that Andrew, Tzu and I are in an 'absolute panic' over the discussion we've been having? ... wow ... if you start interrogating folks about the posts they like yer likely to flood the litigation dockets counselor.
|
|