|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 16:23:09 GMT -5
The issue is far less the mockery and more about where the mockery arises from, and its relationship to spirituality. If I was on a football forum, I wouldn't question people mocking each other at all. Where does the repetition come from? Where does the vector to constantly debate, to make another appear wrong, where does that come from? If you were on a football forum, it would indeed be appropriate to repeat "Everyone knows that United rules and Liverpool is a bunch of cripples!" ever other post. I have already acknowledged that I am talking here with some degree of ego. Where does your vector to constantly debate, to make another appear wrong, to mock, to paint negative pictures, and to repeat yourself come from?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 16:23:41 GMT -5
You say you are interested in clarity, but spend most of your energy in the conversation constructing elaborate images which you then assume as an objective basis for discussion, despite the objections to them and the arguments counter to them. This might sound condescending, but if you were to turn that intense interest inward you might gain some insight as to the source of the mockery. I would say the source of mockery is beliefs/understanding worth investigating/questioning. Now, so I'm clear, would you say that I am painting a negative picture there? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 16:25:29 GMT -5
So it is a self-contradiction still, right? Kind of like becoming what you are fighting against. I'm pretty sure that our conversation on this thread started with a picture that you painted of me, but if you want to try and have a spiritual based conversation with me that has no image creating at all, we could give that a go, though I suspect it would be difficult. Yes, technically you're right, that's the way that it started here. Pointing out an inherent self-contradiction based on content isn't the type image creation that I'm highlighted to you here which caused you to start this recursive-loop of a sub-dialog though. The distinction is that here you were starting the re-creation of an old image you've expressed before to introduce it into the thread. I brought that to your attention. For you then to say that this is just painting a picture of you is a recursive loop. The source of your perceived self-contradiction here is not me. Did you just find a way to say that you are not self-contradicting and I am? Can you see the self-contradiction in that?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 16:26:05 GMT -5
Where does the repetition come from? Where does the vector to constantly debate, to make another appear wrong, where does that come from? If you were on a football forum, it would indeed be appropriate to repeat "Everyone knows that United rules and Liverpool is a bunch of cripples!" ever other post. I have already acknowledged that I am talking here with some degree of ego. Where does your vector to constantly debate, to make another appear wrong, to mock, to paint negative pictures, and to repeat yourself come from? < > From meeting people where they are. </ > My individual conversations vary quite a bit. They're as different as the individuals who I'm corresponding with. Some folks like to debate.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 16:31:04 GMT -5
I have already acknowledged that I am talking here with some degree of ego. Where does your vector to constantly debate, to make another appear wrong, to mock, to paint negative pictures, and to repeat yourself come from? < > From meeting people where they are. </ > My individual conversations vary quite a bit. They're as different as the individuals who I'm corresponding with. Some folks like to debate. So are you saying that the mockery/belittlement/constant debate/painting negative pictures/making other appear wrong, that you engage in, is without ego involvement? If so, I would say that that is why the issue of mockery/belittlement is so interesting here, and not so interesting on a football forum.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 16:31:41 GMT -5
Yes, technically you're right, that's the way that it started here. Pointing out an inherent self-contradiction based on content isn't the type image creation that I'm highlighted to you here which caused you to start this recursive-loop of a sub-dialog though. The distinction is that here you were starting the re-creation of an old image you've expressed before to introduce it into the thread. I brought that to your attention. For you then to say that this is just painting a picture of you is a recursive loop. The source of your perceived self-contradiction here is not me. Did you just find a way to say that you are not self-contradicting and I am? Can you see the self-contradiction in that? I've highlighted several distinctions for you and they are distinctions with clear differences. < > Here's an example of the repetition that I've been calling you out on: While pointing out to one creating a negative image is in fact an act of image creation, it is distinct from the act of originally creating an image from scratch. </ >
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 16:33:42 GMT -5
< > From meeting people where they are. </ > My individual conversations vary quite a bit. They're as different as the individuals who I'm corresponding with. Some folks like to debate. So are you saying that the mockery/belittlement/constant debate/painting negative pictures/making other appear wrong, that you engage in, is without ego involvement? If so, I would say that that is why the issue of mockery/belittlement is so interesting here, and not so interesting on a football forum.No, and I said as much to figgles when she asked me the question of whether or not seeing my own disrespect was enough or not. Of course it's enough. Is it enough for you to acknowledge your own ego involvement? Apparently not, right?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 16:34:01 GMT -5
Did you just find a way to say that you are not self-contradicting and I am? Can you see the self-contradiction in that? I've highlighted several distinctions for you and they are distinctions with clear differences. < > Here's an example of the repetition that I've been calling you out on: While pointing out to one creating a negative image is in fact an act of image creation, it is distinct from the act of originally creating an image from scratch. </ > You are being repetitive in saying I am repetitive. Can you see the self-contradiction in that? Sounds like your argument is...'well, you painted the first picture'. I couldn't argue that without going back to when you first arrived here, but certainly in this thread, you painted the first picture.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 16:37:52 GMT -5
So are you saying that the mockery/belittlement/constant debate/painting negative pictures/making other appear wrong, that you engage in, is without ego involvement? If so, I would say that that is why the issue of mockery/belittlement is so interesting here, and not so interesting on a football forum.No, and I said as much to figgles when she asked me the question of whether or not seeing my own disrespect was enough or not. Of course it's enough. Is it enough for you to acknowledge your own ego involvement? Apparently not, right? So you acknowledge ego involvement? That's not as interesting. A 'spiritual philosophy' in which there is a lot of mocking, belittling, making others wrong, painting negative images...that says that that is NOT ego involvement, I would say is a spirituality worth questioning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 16:58:28 GMT -5
As my name is mentioned here. When I arrived I entered into general discussion with no reference to forum dynamics. It was the admin here that moved my post to this board under a title about accusation of sock puppetry. Since then I have created posts in the general section, for general discussion, which have again been moved by admin to the un-moderated section and had subjective accusations and pictures of trolls attached to them. I originally came here because I saw an interesting discussion. I have shared contemplations that I find interesting. To that end, I am creating a new site that I hope will bring interesting discussion. It is the admins here that brought my words over to the unmoderated forum and brought me into the crap that was here long before I came, by accusing me of being someone else. As I recall, your complaint of the content being moved, other than one specific instance in which a thread was re-designated NAT mid-stream, was on one or more occasions where it was left in place and simply quoted outside of GD on the UM side. I can't recall with certainty at the moment whether or not any of your content was actually ever moved, and without looking back, my recollection is that none of your stuff was ever moved. If you've got a specific example that contradicts that recollection then please link to it, but if not, then you're basing your statement on something that never happened. As far as the admins accusing you of being someone else is concerned, you're going back on your previous statements to the effect that you've let that conversation go. The fact is that no admin ever out-and-out accused you of that. The best you'll be able to find is one oblique reference to kabuki theater on my part. You have missed the point entirely. I was speaking to reefs regarding the assertion that "... Silver, Top, Lolly and Autumn who are mostly (or only?) interested in discussions about forum dynamics." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3367/response-laughters-offer-thread?page=2#ixzz2qsnJt9IEThe point being, that as a new member I was never given the opportunity for my participation to be where I chose for it to be = in general discussion. So Reefs suggestion that I find the forum dynamics here, somehow attractive is wrong. The effect of being a member here and having my sincere interest in participating in discussion consistently disrupted by ridiculous campaigns to try to make me look like a troll etc, has not made me interested in forum dynamics here. My participation in such threads is momentary, to create the opportunity for a change in your behaviour. Without that change, I'm simply not interested in being here at all. I enjoy the pespectives that I have seen here, and without your disruption, it could be a really interesteing place to be. To that end, I've created an open discussion forum, that allows for freedom of speech in discussion. there is a link to it on the marketing board here, for those who are genuinely interested in discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 17:16:03 GMT -5
No, and I said as much to figgles when she asked me the question of whether or not seeing my own disrespect was enough or not. Of course it's enough. If it was really enough, then why are we still having this conversation?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 22:13:15 GMT -5
I've highlighted several distinctions for you and they are distinctions with clear differences. < > Here's an example of the repetition that I've been calling you out on: While pointing out to one creating a negative image is in fact an act of image creation, it is distinct from the act of originally creating an image from scratch. </ > You are being repetitive in saying I am repetitive. Can you see the self-contradiction in that? didn't you see the swordsman? Sounds like your argument is...'well, you painted the first picture'. I couldn't argue that without going back to when you first arrived here, but certainly in this thread, you painted the first picture. If that's what it sounds like to you, you're ignoring most of what was written.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 22:14:06 GMT -5
No, and I said as much to figgles when she asked me the question of whether or not seeing my own disrespect was enough or not. Of course it's enough. If it was really enough, then why are we still having this conversation? You're asking the wrong person. Direct that kind of inquiry inward.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 22:20:46 GMT -5
As I recall, your complaint of the content being moved, other than one specific instance in which a thread was re-designated NAT mid-stream, was on one or more occasions where it was left in place and simply quoted outside of GD on the UM side. I can't recall with certainty at the moment whether or not any of your content was actually ever moved, and without looking back, my recollection is that none of your stuff was ever moved. If you've got a specific example that contradicts that recollection then please link to it, but if not, then you're basing your statement on something that never happened. As far as the admins accusing you of being someone else is concerned, you're going back on your previous statements to the effect that you've let that conversation go. The fact is that no admin ever out-and-out accused you of that. The best you'll be able to find is one oblique reference to kabuki theater on my part. You have missed the point entirely. I was speaking to reefs regarding the assertion that "... Silver, Top, Lolly and Autumn who are mostly (or only?) interested in discussions about forum dynamics." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3367/response-laughters-offer-thread?page=2#ixzz2qsnJt9IEThe point being, that as a new member I was never given the opportunity for my participation to be where I chose for it to be = in general discussion. Sure you were. Peter moved part of your discussion out of the Meta-Awareness thread after Steve asked that it be designated NAT, and there were a few occasions that I quoted you from GD in UM. Other than that, the best that I can recollect is that there may have been a few of your posts moved out of one or more NAT's as part of moving out an argumentative sub-dialog -- I don't recall at the moment any incident of having directly moderated your content for NAT ... but to say that you didn't have a choice isn't true. You've got plenty of content sitting over in the GD archives and noone's stopping you from posting there now. To make the claim that "you didn't have a choice", especially after you've started several threads over here in the Unmoderated section, is simply, factually, untrue. So Reefs suggestion that I find the forum dynamics here, somehow attractive is wrong. The effect of being a member here and having my sincere interest in participating in discussion consistently disrupted by ridiculous campaigns to try to make me look like a troll etc, has not made me interested in forum dynamics here. My participation in such threads is momentary, to create the opportunity for a change in your behaviour. Without that change, I'm simply not interested in being here at all. I enjoy the pespectives that I have seen here, and without your disruption, it could be a really interesteing place to be. To that end, I've created an open discussion forum, that allows for freedom of speech in discussion. there is a link to it on the marketing board here, for those who are genuinely interested in discussion. Best of luck with that!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 22:24:39 GMT -5
No, and I said as much to figgles when she asked me the question of whether or not seeing my own disrespect was enough or not. Of course it's enough. Is it enough for you to acknowledge your own ego involvement? Apparently not, right? So you acknowledge ego involvement? That's not as interesting. A 'spiritual philosophy' in which there is a lot of mocking, belittling, making others wrong, painting negative images...that says that that is NOT ego involvement, I would say is a spirituality worth questioning. Have I mocked you in this thread? As I promised, I'm refraining from anything other than ordinary conversation with you for the time being, and as I've promised, that's likely to result in some new opportunities. The next time the humor emerges (not from me) and you complain about it I'll be able to explain to you exactly what led up to it.
|
|