|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2013 14:37:04 GMT -5
There’s a pattern that emerges in the constant parade of anti-E trolls, these people E’ antagonizes (PEA’s). A self-proclaimed personally identified perspective that has an interest in the personal/impersonal polarity will assume the truth of the idea of an impersonally identified perspective. This impersonal perspective (hereinafter “IP”) is not, btw, the same idea as a perspective absent identification … personal identification or otherwise.
E’ is then framed in terms of this IP strawman. It’s assumed that any observation he makes about what the PEA has to say is colored with a delusion in that it’s assumed on his part from an arrogant personal perch of absolute clarity bourn of complete detachment. This despite E’s often emphatic points that no idea is ultimately true and that he has no way to be conscious of what he’s unconscious of.
Any expression of information requires a background and a foreground -- there is light and dark, cold and hot, up and down etc... Distinctions made on the basis of information can be valuable tools of insight but are of course limited to, dependant on, and are in turn expressions of information. On the other hand, there is no information available about or directly from a perspective absent identification. Absent the subject/object split there is no ground for and no mechanism of expression.
From what I’ve seen of the PEA’s, they tend to be bright people who’ve spent some time introspecting and meditating, and have mastered the art of distinction, but this distinction between an IP and a perspective absent identification is one that seems to have eluded them. They seem somehow blind to the point of ineffability. Assuming some objectified oneness that is absent a split and then applying the tool of distinction in that false context results in some pretty wacky conclusions, but sadly, what a PEA has to say is going to make perfect sense to anyone that’s strongly personally identified but less possessed of the tools of distinction. This, in turn, leads to a reinforcement of delusion and suffering based on the PEA’s blind spot.
If it weren’t for this feedback loop of suffering … well then …
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 7, 2013 14:44:50 GMT -5
1rd and hopefully last thread sucks btw
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 7, 2013 15:39:58 GMT -5
+1 (what I understand of it, anyway. Pretty much esoteric nonsense, if you ask me).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2013 15:48:34 GMT -5
1rd and hopefully last thread sucks btw you've used up 1rd once already! for the 5rd time now in fact!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2013 15:49:41 GMT -5
+1 (what I understand of it, anyway. Pretty much esoteric nonsense, if you ask me). nice of you to help me off the runway at least! thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 7, 2013 15:57:16 GMT -5
+1 (what I understand of it, anyway. Pretty much esoteric nonsense, if you ask me). nice of you to help me off the runway at least! thanks! Well, I could pick it apart, but doing so would only help prove your point (at least that which I'm clear on, anyway).
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 7, 2013 16:05:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 7, 2013 16:06:26 GMT -5
you've used up 1rd once already! for the 5rd time now in fact! Like I give a fúck.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2013 16:07:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2013 16:11:32 GMT -5
you've used up 1rd once already! for the 5rd time now in fact! Like I give a fúck. That's the 5st one 'o those you've thrown my way this week! Thanks man!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2013 18:50:31 GMT -5
There’s a pattern that emerges in the constant parade of anti-E trolls, these people E’ antagonizes (PEA’s). A self-proclaimed personally identified perspective that has an interest in the personal/impersonal polarity will assume the truth of the idea of an impersonally identified perspective. This impersonal perspective (hereinafter “IP”) is not, btw, the same idea as a perspective absent identification … personal identification or otherwise. E’ is then framed in terms of this IP strawman. It’s assumed that any observation he makes about what the PEA has to say is colored with a delusion in that it’s assumed on his part from an arrogant personal perch of absolute clarity bourn of complete detachment. This despite E’s often emphatic points that no idea is ultimately true and that he has no way to be conscious of what he’s unconscious of. Any expression of information requires a background and a foreground -- there is light and dark, cold and hot, up and down etc... Distinctions made on the basis of information can be valuable tools of insight but are of course limited to, dependant on, and are in turn expressions of information. On the other hand, there is no information available about or directly from a perspective absent identification. Absent the subject/object split there is no ground for and no mechanism of expression. From what I’ve seen of the PEA’s, they tend to be bright people who’ve spent some time introspecting and meditating, and have mastered the art of distinction, but this distinction between an IP and a perspective absent identification is one that seems to have eluded them. They seem somehow blind to the point of ineffability. Assuming some objectified oneness that is absent a split and then applying the tool of distinction in that false context results in some pretty wacky conclusions, but sadly, what a PEA has to say is going to make perfect sense to anyone that’s strongly personally identified but less possessed of the tools of distinction. This, in turn, leads to a reinforcement of delusion and suffering based on the PEA’s blind spot. If it weren’t for this feedback loop of suffering … well then … "As long as he dresses up like a squirrel, nobody will catch him." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3039/?page=15#ixzz2eFnsoBEo
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 7, 2013 21:44:36 GMT -5
Greetings.. There’s a pattern that emerges in the constant parade of anti-E trolls, these people E’ antagonizes (PEA’s). A self-proclaimed personally identified perspective that has an interest in the personal/impersonal polarity will assume the truth of the idea of an impersonally identified perspective. This impersonal perspective (hereinafter “IP”) is not, btw, the same idea as a perspective absent identification … personal identification or otherwise. E’ is then framed in terms of this IP strawman. It’s assumed that any observation he makes about what the PEA has to say is colored with a delusion in that it’s assumed on his part from an arrogant personal perch of absolute clarity bourn of complete detachment. This despite E’s often emphatic points that no idea is ultimately true and that he has no way to be conscious of what he’s unconscious of. Any expression of information requires a background and a foreground -- there is light and dark, cold and hot, up and down etc... Distinctions made on the basis of information can be valuable tools of insight but are of course limited to, dependant on, and are in turn expressions of information. On the other hand, there is no information available about or directly from a perspective absent identification. Absent the subject/object split there is no ground for and no mechanism of expression. From what I’ve seen of the PEA’s, they tend to be bright people who’ve spent some time introspecting and meditating, and have mastered the art of distinction, but this distinction between an IP and a perspective absent identification is one that seems to have eluded them. They seem somehow blind to the point of ineffability. Assuming some objectified oneness that is absent a split and then applying the tool of distinction in that false context results in some pretty wacky conclusions, but sadly, what a PEA has to say is going to make perfect sense to anyone that’s strongly personally identified but less possessed of the tools of distinction. This, in turn, leads to a reinforcement of delusion and suffering based on the PEA’s blind spot. If it weren’t for this feedback loop of suffering … well then … The 'blind spot' you suffer, is that you cannot conceive that you are choosing a personal preference and applying your intellect in defense of your choice, a choice that has no verifiable basis other than your preference, a redundant self-referential recursion where you cannot believe your belief could be inconsistent with what you prefer, and so you prefer to believe your beliefs.. I am not an "anti E troll", i am an anti-deception/illusion advocate.. a person's choice to deceive will be scrutinized, and their choice to evade simple direct discussions relating to the deceptions/illusions will be further scrutinized.. E's choice to antagonize others presumes he is possessed of truth realized and it is an arrogance in its references to those not agreeing as being deluded, and he has no basis for such presumption other that the words posts and the beliefs he holds to be true, and.. he fails to present a compelling account that would sway someone who is just looking from continuing to look, rather than agree with his beliefs.. E misrepresents the words of others, and creates illusions and deceptions with intentionally deceptive word-play and plausible denial excuses.. there is no demonstrable sincerity when the intention is to intimidate and provoke people into believing the same beliefs E holds to be true.. sincerity begins when when E realizes he is no different than those he intimidates and provokes, it begins when he realizes he didn't realize a 'truth', he realized a preferred experience.. The entire first paragraph of your post is your constructed 'strawman' that you try to stipulate as controlling the rest of your post's defense of E's messianic agenda, and your thinly veiled contempt of those not agreeable with your high-minded temperament.. i genuinely wish you could hold a simple direct discussion, common words, common meanings, absent the desire that any belief prevail over any other, unconditionally interested in what is actually happening.. i sense that could be pretty cool.. The still mind has suspended personal/impersonal perspectives, and it has no need to ramble-on about such 'thinking' concepts.. it is you and E and Reefs, and occasionally Silence that want to apply your beliefs about your thinking to the simple discussions others wish they could have, but.. there is always the E-messiah and his disciples to insist that the discussions 'must' be framed in neo-one-non-dual-advaita realized beliefs.. IF we were all just looking, without expectations, and describing what we 'see', rather than what we 'think' we see.. there's a fair chance we could get past this pointless bickering.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2013 23:05:15 GMT -5
Greetings.. There’s a pattern that emerges in the constant parade of anti-E trolls, these people E’ antagonizes (PEA’s). A self-proclaimed personally identified perspective that has an interest in the personal/impersonal polarity will assume the truth of the idea of an impersonally identified perspective. This impersonal perspective (hereinafter “IP”) is not, btw, the same idea as a perspective absent identification … personal identification or otherwise. E’ is then framed in terms of this IP strawman. It’s assumed that any observation he makes about what the PEA has to say is colored with a delusion in that it’s assumed on his part from an arrogant personal perch of absolute clarity bourn of complete detachment. This despite E’s often emphatic points that no idea is ultimately true and that he has no way to be conscious of what he’s unconscious of. Any expression of information requires a background and a foreground -- there is light and dark, cold and hot, up and down etc... Distinctions made on the basis of information can be valuable tools of insight but are of course limited to, dependant on, and are in turn expressions of information. On the other hand, there is no information available about or directly from a perspective absent identification. Absent the subject/object split there is no ground for and no mechanism of expression. From what I’ve seen of the PEA’s, they tend to be bright people who’ve spent some time introspecting and meditating, and have mastered the art of distinction, but this distinction between an IP and a perspective absent identification is one that seems to have eluded them. They seem somehow blind to the point of ineffability. Assuming some objectified oneness that is absent a split and then applying the tool of distinction in that false context results in some pretty wacky conclusions, but sadly, what a PEA has to say is going to make perfect sense to anyone that’s strongly personally identified but less possessed of the tools of distinction. This, in turn, leads to a reinforcement of delusion and suffering based on the PEA’s blind spot. If it weren’t for this feedback loop of suffering … well then … The 'blind spot' you suffer, is that you cannot conceive that you are choosing a personal preference and applying your intellect in defense of your choice, a choice that has no verifiable basis other than your preference, a redundant self-referential recursion where you cannot believe your belief could be inconsistent with what you prefer, and so you prefer to believe your beliefs.. Ahhh yes ... these beliefs that you keep referring to, that despite a nearly year long ongoing conversation, you've yet to identify. I am not an "anti E troll", Who said you were? (** muttley snicker **) i am an anti-deception/illusion advocate.. a person's choice to deceive will be scrutinized, and their choice to evade simple direct discussions relating to the deceptions/illusions will be further scrutinized.. E's choice to antagonize others presumes he is possessed of truth realized and it is an arrogance in its references to those not agreeing as being deluded, and he has no basis for such presumption other that the words posts and the beliefs he holds to be true, and.. he fails to present a compelling account that would sway someone who is just looking from continuing to look, rather than agree with his beliefs.. E misrepresents the words of others, and creates illusions and deceptions with intentionally deceptive word-play and plausible denial excuses.. Oh, ok, nevermind ... just one of those infamous instances of Tzu' contradicting himself within the same paragraph. You'd be able to back-up the heroic image you present of yourself if you contradicted yourself less and spent less ink describing these phantoms you repeatedly imagine. Do you find E' intimidating? If so, then what does he say or do that intimidates you? If not, then who does, and how do you know they do? What exactly does E do or say that's so intimidating to these others? What specific misrepresentations are you talking about? Do you mean to say that E attributes quotes to others that they didn't say, because you're someone who often gets challenged on that account and you very rarely ever respond with a quote to corroborate your claims. In this you belie your underlying hallucination. This, btw, is one of those instances -- E is intimidating? Link or giraffe. E' misrepresents the words of others? Link or giraffe. The entire first paragraph of your post is your constructed 'strawman' that you try to stipulate as controlling the rest of your post's defense of E's messianic agenda, and your thinly veiled contempt of those not agreeable with your high-minded temperament.. i genuinely wish you could hold a simple direct discussion, common words, common meanings, absent the desire that any belief prevail over any other, unconditionally interested in what is actually happening.. i sense that could be pretty cool.. "Messianic agenda?" ... are you kidding me? ... don't even know what "high-minded temperament" refers to but my guess is that it's not a compliment. You do realize, don't you, that most of what you write here most of the time could be considered insulting by those you write it to if they really gave a sh!t about what you thought, right? The worlds needs less of that sort of pollution, not more. If you don't like what someone has to say, why read it? Why argue the same point with someone endlessly when it's pretty clear that your argument is completely ineffective at influencing them? This is exactly what it means to be a troll. there is no demonstrable sincerity when the intention is to intimidate and provoke people into believing the same beliefs E holds to be true.. sincerity begins when when E realizes he is no different than those he intimidates and provokes, it begins when he realizes he didn't realize a 'truth', he realized a preferred experience.. E has made clear repeatedly that he's nothing special and that self-realization is nothing special and that it not only doesn't differentiate but references a commonality of everyone regardless of who they are. You, on the other hand, make it pretty clear what type of self-image you harbor: i say to you, you and some others here are attached to and fixated with the 'pointing', demonstrating no evidence of having realized/experienced what it is you think you're pointing to.. it is as if you are mimicking those who 'pointed' before you, a lineage of 'pointing' without having had the actual experience/realization.. like mapmakers, faithfully reproducing the map based on one explorer's report, without realizing the map is not the land and that the original explorer's journey is not their journey.. there's no belief about 'oneness' in my message, not about non-duality, duality, separation, truth, etc.. there is no attachment to the stories and beliefs that have distorted people's clarity and led them into suffering and conflicts of ideologies, but.. there is the trust that the clarity born of a still mind's release of beliefs is sufficient to end the needless and preventable suffering of the human experience and of the environment, physical and spiritual, in which the human experience is actually happening.. Sounds like you, with this message designed to "end the needless and preventable suffering of the human experience" ... sounds like you're the one with the Christ complex ... and given that that you actually self-contradict this claim of being free from belief, it's a complex firmly rooted in obvious delusion. The still mind has suspended personal/impersonal perspectives, and it has no need to ramble-on about such 'thinking' concepts.. Uh-huh. That's why you take every opportunity you can to repeat, over and over and over again, some version of these: How many times has it been explained to you that there is a 'self', a person, and identifying with the self/person is part of the process of 'being'.. we see a very obvious 'me', enigma/Phil, declaring there is no 'me', a demonstrable self-deception by the Phil/enigma 'self'.. and this: "I" AM 'this body/mind', and I AM NOT limited or confined or defined by anyone's belief about what that means, because I AM much more and less than those beliefs.. "I AM" the undifferentiated whole AND this individuated independently functioning manifestation of that whole.. I AM the Part AND the Whole, experiencing whichever perspective, part/whole/both, i choose to place attention on.. Everyone knows about this by now. I correspond with people who I greatly admire and respect with the same outlook. We simply agree to disagree about it ... oh, but not Tzu'. There are several possible reason for the repetitiveness but none of them are indicative of the still mind clarity that you just as often proclaim for yourself in the same breath as you contradict it by referencing conceptual structures such as those that describe the nature of time or objectified unity. it is you and E and Reefs, and occasionally Silence that want to apply your beliefs about your thinking to the simple discussions others wish they could have, but.. there is always the E-messiah and his disciples to insist that the discussions 'must' be framed in neo-one-non-dual-advaita realized beliefs.. IF we were all just looking, without expectations, and describing what we 'see', rather than what we 'think' we see.. there's a fair chance we could get past this pointless bickering.. Be well.. Your name wasn't called out in the OP ... that just outlined a pattern. The bickering here is clearly on your hands. If you saw yourself in the pattern, that was your doing.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 7, 2013 23:29:07 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. The 'blind spot' you suffer, is that you cannot conceive that you are choosing a personal preference and applying your intellect in defense of your choice, a choice that has no verifiable basis other than your preference, a redundant self-referential recursion where you cannot believe your belief could be inconsistent with what you prefer, and so you prefer to believe your beliefs.. Ahhh yes ... these beliefs that you keep referring to, that despite a nearly year long ongoing conversation, you've yet to identify. I am not an "anti E troll", Who said you were? (** muttley snicker **) i am an anti-deception/illusion advocate.. a person's choice to deceive will be scrutinized, and their choice to evade simple direct discussions relating to the deceptions/illusions will be further scrutinized.. E's choice to antagonize others presumes he is possessed of truth realized and it is an arrogance in its references to those not agreeing as being deluded, and he has no basis for such presumption other that the words posts and the beliefs he holds to be true, and.. he fails to present a compelling account that would sway someone who is just looking from continuing to look, rather than agree with his beliefs.. E misrepresents the words of others, and creates illusions and deceptions with intentionally deceptive word-play and plausible denial excuses.. Oh, ok, nevermind ... just one of those infamous instances of Tzu' contradicting himself within the same paragraph. You'd be able to back-up the heroic image you present of yourself if you contradicted yourself less and spent less ink describing these phantoms you repeatedly imagine. Do you find E' intimidating? If so, then what does he say or do that intimidates you? If not, then who does, and how do you know they do? What exactly does E do or say that's so intimidating to these others? What specific misrepresentations are you talking about? Do you mean to say that E attributes quotes to others that they didn't say, because you're someone who often gets challenged on that account and you very rarely ever respond with a quote to corroborate your claims. In this you belie your underlying hallucination. This, btw, is one of those instances -- E is intimidating? Link or giraffe. E' misrepresents the words of others? Link or giraffe. The entire first paragraph of your post is your constructed 'strawman' that you try to stipulate as controlling the rest of your post's defense of E's messianic agenda, and your thinly veiled contempt of those not agreeable with your high-minded temperament.. i genuinely wish you could hold a simple direct discussion, common words, common meanings, absent the desire that any belief prevail over any other, unconditionally interested in what is actually happening.. i sense that could be pretty cool.. "Messianic agenda?" ... are you kidding me? ... don't even know what "high-minded temperament" refers to but my guess is that it's not a compliment. You do realize, don't you, that most of what you write here most of the time could be considered insulting by those you write it to if they really gave a sh!t about what you thought, right? The worlds needs less of that sort of pollution, not more. If you don't like what someone has to say, why read it? Why argue the same point with someone endlessly when it's pretty clear that your argument is completely ineffective at influencing them? This is exactly what it means to be a troll. there is no demonstrable sincerity when the intention is to intimidate and provoke people into believing the same beliefs E holds to be true.. sincerity begins when when E realizes he is no different than those he intimidates and provokes, it begins when he realizes he didn't realize a 'truth', he realized a preferred experience.. E has made clear repeatedly that he's nothing special and that self-realization is nothing special and that it not only doesn't differentiate but references a commonality of everyone regardless of who they are. You, on the other hand, make it pretty clear what type of self-image you harbor: i say to you, you and some others here are attached to and fixated with the 'pointing', demonstrating no evidence of having realized/experienced what it is you think you're pointing to.. it is as if you are mimicking those who 'pointed' before you, a lineage of 'pointing' without having had the actual experience/realization.. like mapmakers, faithfully reproducing the map based on one explorer's report, without realizing the map is not the land and that the original explorer's journey is not their journey.. there's no belief about 'oneness' in my message, not about non-duality, duality, separation, truth, etc.. there is no attachment to the stories and beliefs that have distorted people's clarity and led them into suffering and conflicts of ideologies, but.. there is the trust that the clarity born of a still mind's release of beliefs is sufficient to end the needless and preventable suffering of the human experience and of the environment, physical and spiritual, in which the human experience is actually happening.. Sounds like you, with this message designed to "end the needless and preventable suffering of the human experience" ... sounds like you're the one with the Christ complex ... and given that that you actually self-contradict this claim of being free from belief, it's a complex firmly rooted in obvious delusion. The still mind has suspended personal/impersonal perspectives, and it has no need to ramble-on about such 'thinking' concepts.. Uh-huh. That's why you take every opportunity you can to repeat, over and over and over again, some version of these: How many times has it been explained to you that there is a 'self', a person, and identifying with the self/person is part of the process of 'being'.. we see a very obvious 'me', enigma/Phil, declaring there is no 'me', a demonstrable self-deception by the Phil/enigma 'self'.. and this: "I" AM 'this body/mind', and I AM NOT limited or confined or defined by anyone's belief about what that means, because I AM much more and less than those beliefs.. "I AM" the undifferentiated whole AND this individuated independently functioning manifestation of that whole.. I AM the Part AND the Whole, experiencing whichever perspective, part/whole/both, i choose to place attention on.. Everyone knows about this by now. I correspond with people who I greatly admire and respect with the same outlook. We simply agree to disagree about it ... oh, but not Tzu'. There are several possible reason for the repetitiveness but none of them are indicative of the still mind clarity that you just as often proclaim for yourself in the same breath as you contradict it by referencing conceptual structures such as those that describe the nature of time or objectified unity. it is you and E and Reefs, and occasionally Silence that want to apply your beliefs about your thinking to the simple discussions others wish they could have, but.. there is always the E-messiah and his disciples to insist that the discussions 'must' be framed in neo-one-non-dual-advaita realized beliefs.. IF we were all just looking, without expectations, and describing what we 'see', rather than what we 'think' we see.. there's a fair chance we could get past this pointless bickering.. Be well.. Your name wasn't called out in the OP ... that just outlined a pattern. The bickering here is clearly on your hands. If you saw yourself in the pattern, that was your doing. IF you actually wanted to have an open direct simple discussion, we would, it's easy.. you don't want that, you want to parade your ego around, and admire your cleverness.. cool, do it, you're very good at it.. you know exactly what the score is, Bill, and you play it for your advantage rather than a sincere interest in what is actually happening.. no links, no Giraffes.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2013 23:36:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. Ahhh yes ... these beliefs that you keep referring to, that despite a nearly year long ongoing conversation, you've yet to identify. Who said you were? (** muttley snicker **) Oh, ok, nevermind ... just one of those infamous instances of Tzu' contradicting himself within the same paragraph. You'd be able to back-up the heroic image you present of yourself if you contradicted yourself less and spent less ink describing these phantoms you repeatedly imagine. Do you find E' intimidating? If so, then what does he say or do that intimidates you? If not, then who does, and how do you know they do? What exactly does E do or say that's so intimidating to these others? What specific misrepresentations are you talking about? Do you mean to say that E attributes quotes to others that they didn't say, because you're someone who often gets challenged on that account and you very rarely ever respond with a quote to corroborate your claims. In this you belie your underlying hallucination. This, btw, is one of those instances -- E is intimidating? Link or giraffe. E' misrepresents the words of others? Link or giraffe. "Messianic agenda?" ... are you kidding me? ... don't even know what "high-minded temperament" refers to but my guess is that it's not a compliment. You do realize, don't you, that most of what you write here most of the time could be considered insulting by those you write it to if they really gave a sh!t about what you thought, right? The worlds needs less of that sort of pollution, not more. If you don't like what someone has to say, why read it? Why argue the same point with someone endlessly when it's pretty clear that your argument is completely ineffective at influencing them? This is exactly what it means to be a troll. E has made clear repeatedly that he's nothing special and that self-realization is nothing special and that it not only doesn't differentiate but references a commonality of everyone regardless of who they are. You, on the other hand, make it pretty clear what type of self-image you harbor: Sounds like you, with this message designed to "end the needless and preventable suffering of the human experience" ... sounds like you're the one with the Christ complex ... and given that that you actually self-contradict this claim of being free from belief, it's a complex firmly rooted in obvious delusion. Uh-huh. That's why you take every opportunity you can to repeat, over and over and over again, some version of these: and this: Everyone knows about this by now. I correspond with people who I greatly admire and respect with the same outlook. We simply agree to disagree about it ... oh, but not Tzu'. There are several possible reason for the repetitiveness but none of them are indicative of the still mind clarity that you just as often proclaim for yourself in the same breath as you contradict it by referencing conceptual structures such as those that describe the nature of time or objectified unity. Your name wasn't called out in the OP ... that just outlined a pattern. The bickering here is clearly on your hands. If you saw yourself in the pattern, that was your doing. IF you actually wanted to have an open direct simple discussion, we would, it's easy.. you don't want that, you want to parade your ego around, and admire your cleverness.. cool, do it, you're very good at it.. you know exactly what the score is, Bill, and you play it for your advantage rather than a sincere interest in what is actually happening.. no links, no Giraffes.. Be well.. The card-board cut-out of me that you have in your mind doesn't want this fictitious conversation that you claim you want. Me? I've turned on a dime and never denied you OHC, you you know this. You know where to find me any time you want to lay down the weapons and just talk.
|
|