|
|
Post by silver on Mar 24, 2013 2:30:04 GMT -5
D'oh! When Reefs said that, I thought he ment 'me' as in him. I was not reading that right. No, I'm still buds with Top - everything's copesetic. What I don't get about you guys is that if someone disagrees with you, seems they automatically get to wear the enemy lable. You two manage to read an awful lot into things that aren't there. The same way you see things that aren't there, you also don't see things that are there. I know this isn't obvious to just me.......you only address the portions of people's posts that support your slant on things. You didn't say anything about "...if someone disagrees with you, seems they automatically get to wear the enemy lable." Of course, that would mean you'd have to admit it's true, and you wouldn't want that now, would you. And as for "The same way you see things that aren't there, you also don't see things that are there," welcome to the human race cuz we all do it sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 24, 2013 2:56:45 GMT -5
D'oh! When Reefs said that, I thought he ment 'me' as in him. I was not reading that right. No, I'm still buds with Top - everything's copesetic. What I don't get about you guys is that if someone disagrees with you, seems they automatically get to wear the enemy lable. You two manage to read an awful lot into things that aren't there. The same way you see things that aren't there, you also don't see things that are there. I just wanted to say about this>>>"When Reefs said that, I thought he ment 'me' as in him. I was not reading that right," I took it that way immediately because I couldn't relate to it the other way at all! |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 24, 2013 7:35:17 GMT -5
Mocking. What value do you place in this behavior Reefs?
Mocking - abusing vocally; expressing contempt or ridicule,derisive, gibelike, jeering, taunting
disrespectful - exhibiting lack of respect; rude and discourteous.
So i theorise the practice is to lower Andrew's value or raise his own.Saying something once is good. Saying it twice just to make sure it is heard is fine. Saying it over and over and over and over and over and over and over again... Not so much. My point was that saying something over and over and over and over and over again becomes crusadish.
- a vigorous and dedicated action or movement in favour of a cause
- to campaign vigorously for something
Why do you value some of enigma's behavior over other's complaints about them?I value not relating through emotional wounds. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 24, 2013 11:50:09 GMT -5
The same way you see things that aren't there, you also don't see things that are there. I know this isn't obvious to just me.......you only address the portions of people's posts that support your slant on things. I respond to the portions of posts that interest me and to which I feel I may have something useful to say, just like everybody else. I'll say that I have a kind of nonsense threshold that keeps me from responding to much of what I read. Folks just spitting venom or repeating themselves endlessly are usually ignored. I have no enemies, either online or in the meat world. There are some here (like you) who see me as an enemy, and sometimes I mention that, but it's their own attitude and not something I've assigned to them. Granted, they likely wouldn't accept the label, but what's being referred to is a defensive/offensive bias that colors their perception of me. A good example is your repeated attempts to get me to stop politely asking James a question in his thread. (Where I finally told you to hush.  ) I don't know what you imagined was going on, but it was negative and was biased from your 'enemy' attitude. It had nothing to do with me. Maybe, but for you it is your normal mode of operation. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 24, 2013 11:58:19 GMT -5
The same way you see things that aren't there, you also don't see things that are there. I just wanted to say about this>>>"When Reefs said that, I thought he ment 'me' as in him. I was not reading that right," I took it that way immediately because I couldn't relate to it the other way at all! Nobody is suggesting you're lying or being deceitful. What's being suggested is that much of what you see is giraffes, which is why it's being pointed out that what you see is not really there. (Or that you don't see what IS there) Hencely, you won't recognize what you don't see. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 24, 2013 11:58:24 GMT -5
I know this isn't obvious to just me.......you only address the portions of people's posts that support your slant on things. I respond to the portions of posts that interest me and to which I feel I may have something useful to say, just like everybody else. I'll say that I have a kind of nonsense threshold that keeps me from responding to much of what I read. Folks just spitting venom or repeating themselves endlessly are usually ignored. I have no enemies, either online or in the meat world. There are some here (like you) who see me as an enemy, and sometimes I mention that, but it's their own attitude and not something I've assigned to them. Granted, they likely wouldn't accept the label, but what's being referred to is a defensive/offensive bias that colors their perception of me. A good example is your repeated attempts to get me to stop politely asking James a question in his thread. (Where I finally told you to hush. ) I don't know what you imagined was going on, but it was negative and was biased from your 'enemy' attitude. It had nothing to do with me. Maybe, but for you it is your normal mode of operation. We are all alike because we give our 'best' answers to any given question. We're in the mode of personal PR 24/7 - excluding none. And I always take that into consideration - it's always in the back of my mind when conversing with folks. There's always a reason for what people will say out loud, bar none, consciously or unconsciously. I'm not your enemy, no. Just because a person has the capacity to 'get' angry over something someone says or their behavior doesn't mean they're hate-filled and driven to get even. A lot of people are like that. Do you entertain the notion that people who come here who are like that would stay very long? I don't think they would. I don't think those types even consider joining up, once they see what there is to 'offer' here, rofl. So, I readily see through that. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 24, 2013 15:32:02 GMT -5
I respond to the portions of posts that interest me and to which I feel I may have something useful to say, just like everybody else. I'll say that I have a kind of nonsense threshold that keeps me from responding to much of what I read. Folks just spitting venom or repeating themselves endlessly are usually ignored. I have no enemies, either online or in the meat world. There are some here (like you) who see me as an enemy, and sometimes I mention that, but it's their own attitude and not something I've assigned to them. Granted, they likely wouldn't accept the label, but what's being referred to is a defensive/offensive bias that colors their perception of me. A good example is your repeated attempts to get me to stop politely asking James a question in his thread. (Where I finally told you to hush. ) I don't know what you imagined was going on, but it was negative and was biased from your 'enemy' attitude. It had nothing to do with me. Maybe, but for you it is your normal mode of operation. We are all alike because we give our 'best' answers to any given question. We're in the mode of personal PR 24/7 - excluding none. Folks are always doing the best they can, yes. I never suggested otherwise, but of course that doesn't make everybody alike. "Personal PR 24/7" is your particular filter through which you view others, and one reason your perception is so distorted. It doesn't have to be that way. There are all kinds of peeps. The capacity to get angry doesn't equal an enemy attitude. Sure. It's a drama hootnany. I don't know what you mean. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 24, 2013 16:10:30 GMT -5
Silver,
If I can ask you some questions that will require reflection. What are you getting out of your discussion here with Enigma? Why do you continue it? What are you hoping to get out of it? What are you actually getting out of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 24, 2013 18:04:44 GMT -5
We are all alike because we give our 'best' answers to any given question. We're in the mode of personal PR 24/7 - excluding none. Folks are always doing the best they can, yes. I never suggested otherwise, but of course that doesn't make everybody alike. "Personal PR 24/7" is your particular filter through which you view others, and one reason your perception is so distorted. It doesn't have to be that way. There are all kinds of peeps. The capacity to get angry doesn't equal an enemy attitude. Sure. It's a drama hootnany. I don't know what you mean. See. This is what more than one person has said to you/about you - that you are very often contradicting yourself, such as here (and at the same time, putting me down): And then, you said: which strongly(!) suggests you know you are part and parcel of the instigator of MUCH of said drama.  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 24, 2013 18:07:41 GMT -5
Silver, If I can ask you some questions that will require reflection. What are you getting out of your discussion here with Enigma? Why do you continue it? What are you hoping to get out of it? What are you actually getting out of it? I love you, Top, you know that. So, I will respond in typical E fashion: Why do you want to know, and Are you suspicious of me or don't like others challenging him or you or anyone who doesn't accept / understand the non-dual way(s)?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 24, 2013 20:20:15 GMT -5
Folks are always doing the best they can, yes. I never suggested otherwise, but of course that doesn't make everybody alike. "Personal PR 24/7" is your particular filter through which you view others, and one reason your perception is so distorted. It doesn't have to be that way. There are all kinds of peeps. The capacity to get angry doesn't equal an enemy attitude. Sure. It's a drama hootnany. I don't know what you mean. See. This is what more than one person has said to you/about you - that you are very often contradicting yourself, such as here (and at the same time, putting me down): And then, you said: which strongly(!) suggests you know you are part and parcel of the instigator of MUCH of said drama. I don't know where you found a contradiction. Most folks just make the vague accusation. When asked for examples, I'm likely to get a 'where's Waldo' puzzle like this. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 24, 2013 20:38:32 GMT -5
See. This is what more than one person has said to you/about you - that you are very often contradicting yourself, such as here (and at the same time, putting me down): And then, you said: which strongly(!) suggests you know you are part and parcel of the instigator of MUCH of said drama. I don't know where you found a contradiction. Most folks just make the vague accusation. When asked for examples, I'm likely to get a 'where's Waldo' puzzle like this. Your smart-arse responses aren't enough to keep you clean in my eyes, anyway. This is just what you think is an easy out. It's not vague. What you are asking for is a photograph or video-tape - unblurred - as some sort of courtroom proof - we all know how hard that is to come by. You turn a 'normal' conversation into a knock-down-drag-out as if you were being accused of murder or something. I don't call that anywhere near coming empty. It's not a BFD that you are making of it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 24, 2013 22:14:55 GMT -5
I don't know where you found a contradiction. Most folks just make the vague accusation. When asked for examples, I'm likely to get a 'where's Waldo' puzzle like this. Your smart-arse responses aren't enough to keep you clean in my eyes, anyway. This is just what you think is an easy out. It's not vague. What you are asking for is a photograph or video-tape - unblurred - as some sort of courtroom proof - we all know how hard that is to come by. You turn a 'normal' conversation into a knock-down-drag-out as if you were being accused of murder or something. I don't call that anywhere near coming empty. It's not a BFD that you are making of it. You brought it up. I just asked for clarification. No proof needed, just what you see. I don't live in your fantasy world, so I can't see what is in your head. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 24, 2013 22:37:43 GMT -5
Your smart-arse responses aren't enough to keep you clean in my eyes, anyway. This is just what you think is an easy out. It's not vague. What you are asking for is a photograph or video-tape - unblurred - as some sort of courtroom proof - we all know how hard that is to come by. You turn a 'normal' conversation into a knock-down-drag-out as if you were being accused of murder or something. I don't call that anywhere near coming empty. It's not a BFD that you are making of it. You brought it up. I just asked for clarification. No proof needed, just what you see. I don't live in your fantasy world, so I can't see what is in your head. Heeheeh, I wouldn't want you in my fantasy world, so that's a relief! |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 24, 2013 22:57:06 GMT -5
Silver, If I can ask you some questions that will require reflection. What are you getting out of your discussion here with Enigma? Why do you continue it? What are you hoping to get out of it? What are you actually getting out of it? I love you, Top, you know that. So, I will respond in typical E fashion: Why do you want to know, and Are you suspicious of me or don't like others challenging him or you or anyone who doesn't accept / understand the non-dual way(s)? No suspicions, just genuine questions. |
|
) I don't know what you imagined was going on, but it was negative and was biased from your 'enemy' attitude. It had nothing to do with me. 
