A Return To Coming Empty

[laughter]

Mar 29, 2013 16:35:19 GMT -5 topology said:

Mar 29, 2013 15:43:13 GMT -5 laughter said:

(lol) looks like earnest has invented a new idiom ... perhaps we should call it "Goating"...

I've got a terrible mind.   When you said "goating", my mind produced "Goatse-ing".  *shudders*

wow, learn something new every day ... how 'bout that google? ... you know, in this case, the re-phrase of "if it fits, you must acquit!" seems apropo in a way ...

[topology]

Mar 29, 2013 16:40:44 GMT -5 laughter said:

Mar 29, 2013 16:35:19 GMT -5 topology said:

I've got a terrible mind.   When you said "goating", my mind produced "Goatse-ing".  *shudders*

wow, learn something new every day ... how 'bout that google? ... you know, in this case, the re-phrase of "if it fits, you must acquit!" seems apropo in a way ...

I definitely a quitted with M-G.

[enigma]

Mar 29, 2013 16:18:15 GMT -5 laughter said:

Mar 29, 2013 15:58:44 GMT -5 enigma said:

Would you like to begin our investigation of your motivations now, or would you like a week to prepare your case first?

what you think there's going to be a trial?

you can't smell the torches? ... see them in the distance down in the valley? ... if it were less humid we might be able to discern the clink of the pitchforks ...

Well, maybe a 'mock' trial at least.

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2013 14:15:14 GMT -5 enigma said:

Mar 29, 2013 13:08:18 GMT -5 @mountaingoat said:

Mar 29, 2013 11:12:17 GMT -5 enigma said:

From my perspective, she was clearly emotionally manipulating.

And i maintain that i think everyone is entitled to their individual separate personal opinions/views/conclusions/etc about reality, and that everyone be able to freely express them, that i consider the opportunity to listen to others opinions/views/conclusions/etc has the potential to increase a person's understanding of themself and reality.
However, that is not the point of this long but enjoyable and fascinating conversation.

I don't know what it would mean to call it a fact since the notion of emotionally manipulating is fundamentally subjective.

Considering you said these...

Feb 27, 2013 1:39:00 GMT -5 enigma said:

It's not a lie, and it's not an accusation. Nobody cares that you were being unconsciously manipulative (That's what blackmail meant in this case) but it was offered as possible clarity for you. Also, nobody cares that the offer was received with a slap in the face because that was expected.

Feb 10, 2013 13:29:42 GMT -5 enigma said:

The fact that Silver is blackmailing is a separate issue from whatever is said to her with whatever style.

I have a couple of theores as to why you don't know what it would mean to you when you claimed it's a fact that silver is blackmailing.
Two theories are lack of self awareness and the inability to consider the possibility your conclusions/observations might be incorrect.

What is manipulative for one may not be so for another.

Yet up until this very point, you always maintained that 'silver blackmailing' was a fact.

For the same reason, it can't possibly be proven.

Yeah, considering you said these...

Mar 27, 2013 2:58:08 GMT -5 enigma said:

Point is, my 'accusations' are just as provable as yours.

Mar 28, 2013 18:01:32 GMT -5 enigma said:

"My accusations are just as provable as yours" is the same as "You can't prove your accusations any more than I can prove mine" given that you can't prove yours, which you know you can't. You seem to like to play games with words.

..it's still unclear to me of what your actual position is.

I don't recall calling it a fact, but if I did I mis-spoke.

I am not suprised you are not aware that for just over 6 weeks you expressed that you maintained that 'silver blackmailing' was a fact.

This 'conversation' passed my subjective absurdity threshold long ago and from my subjective perspective has become an obsession with you.

If you state to silver that her blackmailing is not a fact, that it was just your personal unverified conclusion/observation, then my work is done.

Then your work is done here.

Ah, no it isn't...this is what i said...

Mar 29, 2013 13:08:18 GMT -5 @mountaingoat said:

If you state to silver that her blackmailing is not a fact, that it was just your personal unverified conclusion/observation, then my work is done.

...clearly you have not done this.
Also, the issue of a formal apology for your slanderous remark against silver, i leave up to her if she would like one or not.

I never intended to claim my perception as a proven fact.

I can read enigma, i know, by reading your posts, that is, by the simple act of observing your word usage, that you never intend that any of your observations(via your perception) about anything are 'proven facts'. What you actually did is claim your observation is a fact, not "proven fact", and then for the next 6 weeks you maintained this claim.

If you intended to claim your observation is a proven facts, you actually would have provided the proof along with your claim, because that's what 'proven fact' means - you provided proof, of which you never did, and i have already stated that i do not require proof that you perceive what you do perceive.
What i also already said is i require proof when you claim your observation is a fact and that is the whole point of the discussion, that you have no proof or have not shared it when you claimed it's a fact that silver is blackmailing.

You took "The fact that Silver is blackmailing is..." out of context.

I shall address this later.

Yes, I admit that it was a careless use of words while testifying in word court,

And i have already addressed this here...

Mar 29, 2013 13:08:18 GMT -5 @mountaingoat said:

I am not suprised you are not aware that for just over 6 weeks you expressed that you maintained that 'silver blackmailing' was a fact.

I can understand your admission that you were careless with your word choice, as you have mentioned on numerous occasions that you don't care.
It's quite logical to expect carelessness when you don't care.
However, even though i admire your ability to express you were careless about your word choice, carelessness is not the issue i am concerned about.

The issue i am concerned about is you claiming something as fact when you do not present proof, and that your claim is a slander against another person.
I don't give a dingo's kidney how many times you claim non duality is a fact as i don't dispute people's religious beliefs, that i do not require proof of such things.
My concern is you made a slanderous claim against my sister, that you have not proven, of which you still have not proven or retracted, as shown in this next statement of yours...

but the comment was intended to convey something about style, not to testify to the factual nature of the blackmailing.

Here you are still maintaining that 'silver blackmailing' is a fact.
And yes, i am well aware that this...

Feb 10, 2013 13:29:42 GMT -5 enigma said:

The fact that Silver is blackmailing is a separate issue from whatever is said to her with whatever style.

...is not about you proving proof("testify") of your claim. Have you only just realised this?

Oh, and i am quite busy enjoying helping another with their problems, so i don't have time to address or offer help
with your persecution complex, perhaps topology can help you with that.
The persecution complex i speak of is your perception that someone confronting you about one statement you made
is as if you were being taken to court, and of your constant references to word lawyers.
I assume this is what you see from the world you are encased in, and even though i do not know what this world looks like,
how encased you are in it, how distorted your sight is from within it,
i will still state that from my view of reality i see no word lawyers or a word court.

All i see is common people of equal standing discussing an issue that has arisen because
you claimed something about another as fact without proof.
But if you feel persecuted, again, perhaps topology can help you with that.

but the comment was intended to convey something about style, not to testify to the factual nature of the blackmailing.

Regarding that i took your claim of 'it's a fact that silver is blackmailing' out of context.
Here's the full statement you made...

Feb 10, 2013 13:29:42 GMT -5 enigma said:

The fact that Silver is blackmailing is a separate issue from whatever is said to her with whatever style.

I see no mention of silver's style and i see the claim about silver has nothing to do with the style of how the accusation was presented.
All quite the opposite of what you just said about how the original statement was about style.

So you've been demanding proof for weeks based on that comment? Holy moley!

Holy moley indeed enigma.
The simple matter is you stated and maintained for 6 weeks( and to me, you still do ) that it's a fact that silver is blackmailing.
The only change you have made thus far is you admit you were careless in using the word 'fact'.
But the actual issue of either proving this claim or retracting it still stands.
So, if you state to silver that her blackmailing is not a fact, that it was just your personal unverified conclusion/observation, then my work is done.

[enigma]

Mar 30, 2013 13:31:06 GMT -5 @mountaingoat said:

Mar 29, 2013 14:15:14 GMT -5 enigma said:

Then your work is done here.

Ah, no it isn't...this is what i said...

Mar 29, 2013 13:08:18 GMT -5 @mountaingoat said:

If you state to silver that her blackmailing is not a fact, that it was just your personal unverified conclusion/observation, then my work is done.

...clearly you have not done this.
Also, the issue of a formal apology for your slanderous remark against silver, i leave up to her if she would like one or not.

I never intended to claim my perception as a proven fact.

I can read enigma, i know, by reading your posts, that is, by the simple act of observing your word usage, that you never intend that any of your observations(via your perception) about anything are 'proven facts'. What you actually did is claim your observation is a fact, not "proven fact", and then for the next 6 weeks you maintained this claim.

If you intended to claim your observation is a proven facts, you actually would have provided the proof along with your claim, because that's what 'proven fact' means - you provided proof, of which you never did, and i have already stated that i do not require proof that you perceive what you do perceive.
What i also already said is i require proof when you claim your observation is a fact and that is the whole point of the discussion, that you have no proof or have not shared it when you claimed it's a fact that silver is blackmailing.

You took "The fact that Silver is blackmailing is..." out of context.

I shall address this later.

Yes, I admit that it was a careless use of words while testifying in word court,

And i have already addressed this here...

Mar 29, 2013 13:08:18 GMT -5 @mountaingoat said:

I am not suprised you are not aware that for just over 6 weeks you expressed that you maintained that 'silver blackmailing' was a fact.

I can understand your admission that you were careless with your word choice, as you have mentioned on numerous occasions that you don't care.
It's quite logical to expect carelessness when you don't care.
However, even though i admire your ability to express you were careless about your word choice, carelessness is not the issue i am concerned about.

The issue i am concerned about is you claiming something as fact when you do not present proof, and that your claim is a slander against another person.
I don't give a dingo's kidney how many times you claim non duality is a fact as i don't dispute people's religious beliefs, that i do not require proof of such things.
My concern is you made a slanderous claim against my sister, that you have not proven, of which you still have not proven or retracted, as shown in this next statement of yours...

but the comment was intended to convey something about style, not to testify to the factual nature of the blackmailing.

Here you are still maintaining that 'silver blackmailing' is a fact.
And yes, i am well aware that this...

Feb 10, 2013 13:29:42 GMT -5 enigma said:

The fact that Silver is blackmailing is a separate issue from whatever is said to her with whatever style.

...is not about you proving proof("testify") of your claim. Have you only just realised this?

Oh, and i am quite busy enjoying helping another with their problems, so i don't have time to address or offer help
with your persecution complex, perhaps topology can help you with that.
The persecution complex i speak of is your perception that someone confronting you about one statement you made
is as if you were being taken to court, and of your constant references to word lawyers.
I assume this is what you see from the world you are encased in, and even though i do not know what this world looks like,
how encased you are in it, how distorted your sight is from within it,
i will still state that from my view of reality i see no word lawyers or a word court.

All i see is common people of equal standing discussing an issue that has arisen because
you claimed something about another as fact without proof.
But if you feel persecuted, again, perhaps topology can help you with that.

but the comment was intended to convey something about style, not to testify to the factual nature of the blackmailing.

Regarding that i took your claim of 'it's a fact that silver is blackmailing' out of context.
Here's the full statement you made...

Feb 10, 2013 13:29:42 GMT -5 enigma said:

The fact that Silver is blackmailing is a separate issue from whatever is said to her with whatever style.

I see no mention of silver's style and i see the claim about silver has nothing to do with the style of how the accusation was presented.
All quite the opposite of what you just said about how the original statement was about style.

So you've been demanding proof for weeks based on that comment? Holy moley!

Holy moley indeed enigma.
The simple matter is you stated and maintained for 6 weeks( and to me, you still do ) that it's a fact that silver is blackmailing.
The only change you have made thus far is you admit you were careless in using the word 'fact'.
But the actual issue of either proving this claim or retracting it still stands.
So, if you state to silver that her blackmailing is not a fact, that it was just your personal unverified conclusion/observation, then my work is done.

Of course it was my personal observation. What else could it be? Maybe God speaking through a burning bush? It still is my observation and I stand by it. I would say get over it, but I see that you're not moving in that direction....so much....really.

[Deleted]

Mar 30, 2013 14:22:31 GMT -5 enigma said:

Of course it was my personal observation.

I will take this as your final declaration.
So if you would please now formally declare to silver that her blackmailing is not a fact,
that it was just your personal unverified conclusion/observation.

What else could it be?

Seriously, you still can't remember you said it was fact.
Your memory issues does give one reason why you constantly talk in circles./font]

It still is my observation and I stand by it.

And i only speak for myself here in that i have never requested or demanded you stop expressing your personal opinions.
The request has always been this...
State to silver that her alleged blackmailing is not a fact, that it was just your personal unverified conclusion/observation.
Then, my work on this one simple issue shall be done.

[enigma]

Mar 31, 2013 16:17:46 GMT -5 @mountaingoat said:

Mar 30, 2013 14:22:31 GMT -5 enigma said:

Of course it was my personal observation.

I will take this as your final declaration.
So if you would please now formally declare to silver that her blackmailing is not a fact,
that it was just your personal unverified conclusion/observation.

I would like to formally ask that Silver try to notice when she is being emotionally manipulative.

What else could it be?

Seriously, you still can't remember you said it was fact.
Your memory issues does give one reason why you constantly talk in circles./font]

I don't remember talking in circles.

It still is my observation and I stand by it.

And i only speak for myself here in that i have never requested or demanded you stop expressing your personal opinions.
The request has always been this...
State to silver that her alleged blackmailing is not a fact, that it was just your personal unverified conclusion/observation.
Then, my work on this one simple issue shall be done.

So at the moment she figures I read it off a stone tablet or sumthin?


[/font]

[tzujanli]

Greetings..

Mar 31, 2013 17:57:01 GMT -5 enigma said:

Mar 31, 2013 16:17:46 GMT -5 @mountaingoat said:

I will take this as your final declaration.
So if you would please now formally declare to silver that her blackmailing is not a fact,
that it was just your personal unverified conclusion/observation.

I would like to formally ask that Silver try to notice when she is being emotionally manipulative.

I'm requesting that you notice the same about yourself..

Seriously, you still can't remember you said it was fact.
Your memory issues does give one reason why you constantly talk in circles./font]

I don't remember talking in circles.

Whether you remember or not doesn't invalidate the actuality that you do..

And i only speak for myself here in that i have never requested or demanded you stop expressing your personal opinions.
The request has always been this...
State to silver that her alleged blackmailing is not a fact, that it was just your personal unverified conclusion/observation.
Then, my work on this one simple issue shall be done.

So at the moment she figures I read it off a stone tablet or sumthin?

[/font][/quote]
You state your beliefs as if they are facts, and you defend your beliefs with such mocking and ridicule that your emotional attachment to them is obvious.. so, it does seem that you believe that you did read them off a stone tablet or sumthin..

Be well..

[Deleted]

Mar 21, 2013 22:34:49 GMT -5 someNOTHING! said:

I don't know why.

But, when I look back on all of the things Top has written here on our cyber sanatorium, the word that commonly rises to mind is 'angel'. I don't really know what that means, but that there's what's happening.

lyrics.. 
[adapted from..]

[Deleted]

Mar 31, 2013 17:57:01 GMT -5 enigma said:

Mar 31, 2013 16:17:46 GMT -5 @mountaingoat said:

I will take this as your final declaration.
So if you would please now formally declare to silver that her blackmailing is not a fact,
that it was just your personal unverified conclusion/observation.

I would like to formally ask that Silver try to notice when she is being emotionally manipulative.

I am not suprised you have circled back to claiming it's a fact that silver is blackmailing,
given your declaration you can't remember what you do may have something to do with it.

Mar 31, 2013 17:57:01 GMT -5 enigma said:

Mar 31, 2013 16:17:46 GMT -5 @mountaingoat said:

Seriously, you still can't remember you said it was fact.
Your memory issues does give one reason why you constantly talk in circles.

I don't remember talking in circles.

I think there's a lot you don't know about yourself.

Mar 31, 2013 17:57:01 GMT -5 enigma said:

Mar 31, 2013 16:17:46 GMT -5 @mountaingoat said:

And i only speak for myself here in that i have never requested or demanded you stop expressing your personal opinions.
The request has always been this...
State to silver that her alleged blackmailing is not a fact, that it was just your personal unverified conclusion/observation.
Then, my work on this one simple issue shall be done.

So at the moment she figures I read it off a stone tablet or sumthin?

That is not required, unless you are into religious symbolism.

You claim it's fact that silver is blackmailing.
You have never given proof, even after numerous requests.
You then stated, it's just your personal opinion, inferring you have no proof it's a fact.
Note that it's inferred it's not a fact, you haven't actually stated it's not a fact.
Evidenced by this...

Mar 31, 2013 17:57:01 GMT -5 enigma said:

Mar 31, 2013 16:17:46 GMT -5 @mountaingoat said:

I will take this as your final declaration.
So if you would please now formally declare to silver that her blackmailing is not a fact,
that it was just your personal unverified conclusion/observation.

I would like to formally ask that Silver try to notice when she is being emotionally manipulative.

Instead of stating it's not a fact, you restated it is a fact by repeating what you have been saying for weeks,
that silver should open her eyes and see she is blackmailing - what you later called "emotionally manipulative".

Enigma, i never expected you to state to silver that her alleged blackmailing is not a fact.
I am more than satisfied just by watching you go around in circles and making so many avoidance moves,
saying so many irrational, illogical and derogative statements, either consciously or unconsciously,
is enough proof for me that you lack credibility.

I thank you for giving me a very quick tour through non duality and providing me
with practical data to base my decisions on this religion/belief/philosophy/theory/concept/idea.

[enigma]

Mar 31, 2013 21:25:33 GMT -5 tzujanli said:

Greetings..

Mar 31, 2013 17:57:01 GMT -5 enigma said:

I'm requesting that you notice the same about yourself..


Whether you remember or not doesn't invalidate the actuality that you do..

So at the moment she figures I read it off a stone tablet or sumthin?

[/font][/quote]
You state your beliefs as if they are facts,[/quote]

You say that like it's a fact.

and you defend your beliefs with such mocking and ridicule that your emotional attachment to them is obvious.. so, it does seem that you believe that you did read them off a stone tablet or sumthin..

You seem to be mocking and ridiculing me.

[enigma]

Apr 2, 2013 15:14:35 GMT -5 @mountaingoat said:

Mar 31, 2013 17:57:01 GMT -5 enigma said:

I would like to formally ask that Silver try to notice when she is being emotionally manipulative.

I am not suprised you have circled back to claiming it's a fact that silver is blackmailing,
given your declaration you can't remember what you do may have something to do with it.

Mar 31, 2013 17:57:01 GMT -5 enigma said:

I don't remember talking in circles.

I think there's a lot you don't know about yourself.

Mar 31, 2013 17:57:01 GMT -5 enigma said:

So at the moment she figures I read it off a stone tablet or sumthin?

That is not required, unless you are into religious symbolism.

You claim it's fact that silver is blackmailing.
You have never given proof, even after numerous requests.
You then stated, it's just your personal opinion, inferring you have no proof it's a fact.
Note that it's inferred it's not a fact, you haven't actually stated it's not a fact.
Evidenced by this...

Mar 31, 2013 17:57:01 GMT -5 enigma said:

I would like to formally ask that Silver try to notice when she is being emotionally manipulative.

Instead of stating it's not a fact, you restated it is a fact by repeating what you have been saying for weeks,
that silver should open her eyes and see she is blackmailing - what you later called "emotionally manipulative".

Enigma, i never expected you to state to silver that her alleged blackmailing is not a fact.
I am more than satisfied just by watching you go around in circles and making so many avoidance moves,
saying so many irrational, illogical and derogative statements, either consciously or unconsciously,
is enough proof for me that you lack credibility.

I thank you for giving me a very quick tour through non duality and providing me
with practical data to base my decisions on this religion/belief/philosophy/theory/concept/idea.

Yer welcome.