Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 7:56:31 GMT -5
You're claiming I sell it as my own words. I've never said they are. Now, all of a sudden, you're a paraphraser. Ridiculous. If you don't put them in quotes then they are your words if you don't indicate that otherwise like putting a name of someone at the end. Just ask the other peeps if they thought those were your words or if they knew they came from Deepak. I doubt it. It's obvious you have a lot of doubts, reefs. That's your choice. If it will fulfill your 'needs', I'll start puttimg quotes at the top and bottom of my posts, with a footnote explaining how we all relate our journey to viewpoints that have been around since the beginning of 'time.' But you have to do it, too. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 25, 2013 7:58:36 GMT -5
IMO there should be a forum rule against copy/pasting/integrating sages' phrases into ones own posts without attribution, pretty much verbatim.
Reported to moderator.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jan 25, 2013 7:59:25 GMT -5
That's your take on it. I didn't copy and paste a thing during the exchange. I've been reading him since 1992.
<cut historical record of H presenting various work of others without quote marks and without attribution>It's unfortunate, Heterodox, that you're in the middle of a bicker with Reefs because I think your shields are at maximum and you're just not going to be able to see what others are seeing in you. You apparently want people to see you in a certain way (intelligent, thoughtful, spiritually accomplished?) and you're willing to steal the work of other minds to do so. That's not to say that you're not any of these things - you might be - but in my book presenting other people's stuff as your own is not a sign of having "got your head on straight". For me, this really explains why you invariably fail to clarify any vague point you might make. Because - sometimes/often - it's not 'your' ideas that are being presented. You don't "own" and understand them inside and out. So you deflect with humour, irrelevance or trying to turn the tables on your confused readership. You have a golden opportunity here to see your facade and ego protections mechanisms at work. It's painful though - hard fought and hard won spritual progress. I predict you're going to brush me off on this point, so here's your alternative "take home": Please attribute all future quotes you make, to avoid accusations of pretending-to-be-something-you're-not from coming up in the future. Edit: I take your point that we all pick up ideas and word-combinations from other places, they flutter around in our minds and we make them our own. However in this case I think it's clear that you will have been consciously aware that you were quoting DC when you were making the post. That's where I'd draw the line, although of course it's impossible to prove. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 25, 2013 8:07:33 GMT -5
Personally, I've a hard time imagining any forum about anything (fashion, philosophy, politics, economics, etc etc) where this non-attribution behavior would be considered acceptable by mods or members.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 25, 2013 8:09:27 GMT -5
Reefs.....do you think are you being loving in this discussion? Are you demonstrating behaviour of 'one' that has fully embodied love and is done with intermediary? Do you think there may be a bit of ego playing itself out?
Coz here is the thing. You, and a couple of others, don't seem to ever self-monitor or question your behaviour, or look at where your choices are coming from. And in fact, you say that to do so, is deluded. So it seems you don't ask yourself...'is this love? Is this loving behaviour? Is this mutually beneficial behaviour? Who/what am I serving right now?' Now, no self-monitoring or questioning or uncertainty might be justified IF your actions were clearly absent of ego. But I think it is quite apparent that ego does still play a role in your life (and I am not claiming to be perfect either!).
I don't hear 'dox claiming to have embodied love fully, I don't hear him claiming to be without intermediary. I hear him acknowledging that he is exploring. I am willing to bet that he does self-monitor to some extent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 8:14:01 GMT -5
It's unfortunate, Heterodox, that you're in the middle of a bicker with Reefs because I think your shields are at maximum and you're just not going to be able to see what others are seeing in you. I think you're buying into the story that reefs is telling himself. But that's your business. You apparently want people to see you in a certain way (intelligent, thoughtful, spiritually accomplished?) and you're willing to steal the work of other minds to do so. That's not to say that you're not any of these things - you might be - but in my book presenting other people's stuff as your own is not a sign of having "got your head on straight". I'm participating in discussions when I'm here. For me, this really explains why you invariably fail to clarify any vague point you might make. Because - sometimes/often - it's not 'your' ideas that are being presented. You don't "own" and understand them inside and out. So you deflect with humour, irrelevance or trying to turn the tables on your confused readership. Ideas are ideas. They all come from the same source. In my experience, there are a few people here that are clear backwards and forwards, inside and out. Reefs, enigma, and yourself aren't on the short list. Physician heal thyself (not sure who said that, it was not originated by me) You have a golden opportunity here to see your facade and ego protections mechanisms at work. It's painful though - hard fought and hard won spritual progress. We all have lots of golden opportunities. I do my best to take advantage of them. You? I predict you're going to brush me off on this point, so here's your alternative "take home": Please attribute all future quotes you make, to avoid accusations of pretending-to-be-something-you're-not from coming up in the future. I'll do that. But I'm going to request you ask the same of enigma, and reefs, too. I asked for consistency on another thread, and it wasn't forthcoming. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 8:17:53 GMT -5
IMO there should be a forum rule against copy/pasting/integrating sages' phrases into ones own posts without attribution, pretty much verbatim.[/quote} Agreed. But it should apply to all. Just another day in Paradise. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jan 25, 2013 8:25:06 GMT -5
We all have lots of golden opportunities. I do my best to take advantage of them. You? Deflection, of course, but I'll take it: You'll have noticed that I'm open to discussion about how I post on this board and I welcome any insight into "me" that I'm not already aware of. One of the things I've been criticised for is second-guessing myself, checking back to see if what I'm doing is right. Reefs says I should just act from the gut and not look back, not listen to other people's opinions. I think that's a very dangerous way to approach any endevour and doesn't allow one to look at one's own faults. I'll do that. But I'm going to request you ask the same of enigma, and reefs, too. I asked for consistency on another thread, and it wasn't forthcoming. First off, thank you for offering to attribute your quotes. If you'd like to provide a link to where you asked for consistency I'll take another look at it. The thing about quoting material you take from other places is that it's sort of a "given" so I didn't think a rule was specifically needed. If you can find examples of members presenting other people's work as their own then I'll be happy to address that. And I mean the sort of word for word paraphrasing that you've had mirrored back to you, not a general alignment of philosophy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 8:27:16 GMT -5
Reefs.....do you think are you being loving in this discussion? Are you demonstrating behaviour of 'one' that has fully embodied love and is done with intermediary? Do you think there may be a bit of ego playing itself out? Coz here is the thing. You, and a couple of others, don't seem to ever self-monitor or question your behaviour, or look at where your choices are coming from. And in fact, you say that to do so, is deluded. So it seems you don't ask yourself...'is this love? Is this loving behaviour? Is this mutually beneficial behaviour? Who/what am I serving right now?' Now, no self-monitoring or questioning or uncertainty might be justified IF your actions were clearly absent of ego. But I think it is quite apparent that ego does still play a role in your life (and I am not claiming to be perfect either!). I don't hear 'dox claiming to have embodied love fully, I don't hear him claiming to be without intermediary. I hear him acknowledging that he is exploring. I am willing to bet that he does self-monitor to some extent. It's ok, andrew. They've had their say about me and others for a long time, here. It's clear they don't measure up to their own criteria for others. I wish them well, anyway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 8:37:29 GMT -5
The thing about quoting material you take from other places is that it's sort of a "given" so I didn't think a rule was specifically needed. If you can find examples of members presenting other people's work as their own then I'll be happy to address that. And I mean the sort of word for word paraphrasing that you've had mirrored back to you, not a general alignment of philosophy. As I said in the thread, there's nothing new under the sun. We're all expressing ourselves through the common ground of expressions of those that came before us. I didn't see reefs mirroring back anything worthwhile in the exchange. His appeal has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It's time-bound. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 25, 2013 8:39:58 GMT -5
Cheesy video to watch. To someone heavy into non-dualism, I guess it would fall under the umbrella of 'delusion' but IMO there is something to be said for the simple message which is stated at the end as ''Love your neighbour as yourself'' (Matthew quoting Jesus apparently). www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID0kgP9IVhs |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Jan 25, 2013 8:57:05 GMT -5
Those without love (as e&r claim there is no love) have demonstrated what it means to be without love. A good example has been adduced. "All we need is to support our egos" - this is their true core.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 9:16:23 GMT -5
We all have lots of golden opportunities. I do my best to take advantage of them. You? Deflection, of course, but I'll take it:. Deflection is another story you're telling yourself. It goes something like this- Nobody is as healed and whole as myself. I read the exchanges between you and reefs. No common ground. I'm right and you're wrong was the viewpoint you both held firm to. These are restrictive viewpoints, and they have nothing to do with unity. Like it or not, we're all in this together. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 25, 2013 9:24:29 GMT -5
according to webster:
to plagiarize
1) to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
2) to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 9:30:51 GMT -5
according to webster: to plagiarize 1) to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source 2) to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source I already agreed to attribute quotes. I don't see anyone attributing quotes to freud's viewpoints. Its just a given. And it's spoken of a lot here. All you're doing on a daily basis is carving up wholeness. Deepak points at awareness all the time. Aja and Candice O' Denver liken it to resting in awareness. Nisargadatta and Ramana point to awareness as the gold standard for freedom. It isn't some big secret. |
|
