|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2014 12:45:35 GMT -5
Oh, the brushstrokes. This is your imagination running wild, and when you do this, when you write something that ascribes words to someone else that they didn't write, it is a form of libel.In all seriousness, if all words are ultimately acausal how can any accusation or blame of libel be assigned to a specific anyone? What do peeps have to do with any ultimate? Go back and read what you called BS carefully, and you'll find the answer there. You'll also find it in what you (mistakenly) took Niz's definition of love to be. You can also find it in this quote: The function of the lawyer is to preserve a sceptical relativism in a society hell-bent for absolutes. The worse the society, the more law there will be. In Hell there will be nothing but law and due process will be meticulously observed.
Grant Gilmore... which is actually a bastardization of a much more richly textured quote by a former Supreme Court Justice that eludes me this afternoon. Where there are peeps, there will be law. Now, certainly, it takes a peep to engage with a peep in matters of law, so noone engaging in the relativity of juris prudence is above it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2014 12:46:28 GMT -5
For whatever it's worth Silver, I don't think you need any advice on how to deal with the 'the stain'. (I know....not your words)....From where I sit, It would appear you're dealing just fine. You've actually provided a nice example of what it means to have a divergence of opinion while remaining centered and civil.... without devolving into name calling and anger, or joining in sideways conversations in agreement, when others go there. I'd say Laffy could maybe learn a thing or two about that from YOU.  You mean like the one you're having now, or the ones you've had many times with Andy? Prepare for an intricate text-wall of self-justification.  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 16, 2014 12:48:04 GMT -5
Wull yeah, but you didn't have to word it quite like that.  figgles sees the dialogs here as a contest divided into two different camps, and has repeatedly demonstrated a complete refusal to acknowledge the negativity she brings to the forum overall or in particular dialogs. Since all of the content that she sources is entangled with those fundamental self-deceptions, it all comes from a place of baseline dishonesty. There's no way to engage any of it without manifesting some of that yourself, even if you take everything she writes as if it was written by a writer at National Lampoon or The Onion. Believe me -- I'm totally hip to dat.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 16, 2014 12:48:40 GMT -5
For whatever it's worth Silver, I don't think you need any advice on how to deal with the 'the stain'. (I know....not your words)....From where I sit, It would appear you're dealing just fine. You've actually provided a nice example of what it means to have a divergence of opinion while remaining centered and civil.... without devolving into name calling and anger, or joining in sideways conversations in agreement, when others go there. I'd say Laffy could maybe learn a thing or two about that from YOU. You mean like the one you're having now, or the ones you've had many times with Andy? You cherry picked my words and edited out a key part. what I said was: without devolving into name calling and anger, or joining in sideways conversations in agreement, when others go there.Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3769/peeping-tom?page=10&scrollTo=210209#ixzz3DVB4Oy3uI'm not engaging in angry name-calling here, am I? And I was referring to the fact that although Silver and I are not currently seeing eye to eye, she still questioned Laffy's need to call me 'a stain on humanity.' |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2014 12:50:08 GMT -5
"What you see"? And yet, when anyone else shows your your own bile, in your own words, what comes spewing out of you like a fountain of vomit is some of the most prolific, intricate and self-deluded rationalization ever written in the history of mankind.  Seriously? A beautiful fountain to illustrate 'vomit'? Surely Chuckles, you can do a 'lil better than that?  It fits perfectly because that's how you dress up your content, but WIBIGO is actually quite transparent. Just like the water in the fountain. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2014 12:53:48 GMT -5
figgles sees the dialogs here as a contest divided into two different camps, and has repeatedly demonstrated a complete refusal to acknowledge the negativity she brings to the forum overall or in particular dialogs. Since all of the content that she sources is entangled with those fundamental self-deceptions, it all comes from a place of baseline dishonesty. There's no way to engage any of it without manifesting some of that yourself, even if you take everything she writes as if it was written by a writer at National Lampoon or The Onion. Believe me -- I'm totally hip to dat. One overarching characteristic of the deception built-in to her content is that it is manipulative. Notice how with you, in particular, she often uses praise and delightful poetic lightness like "silver bell" to trigger positive emotions, and confrontational criticism like "buzz off" in an attempt to trigger a negative reaction. What you can notice going forward is that the less you agree with her, and the more you disagree with her, the more of that type of content you're going to see directed your way. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 16, 2014 12:59:43 GMT -5
Believe me -- I'm totally hip to dat. One overarching characteristic of the deception built-in to her content is that it is manipulative. Notice how with you, in particular, she often uses praise and delightful poetic lightness like "silver bell" to trigger positive emotions, and confrontational criticism like "buzz off" in an attempt to trigger a negative reaction. What you can notice going forward is that the less you agree with her, and the more you disagree with her, the more of that type of content you're going to see directed your way. I understand about the manipulative bit -- but I'm the one who interpreted her 'suggestion' that I find greener pastures if I didn't like becoming involved in the tussle, into 'buzz off' - but whatev. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2014 13:01:18 GMT -5
figgles sees the dialogs here as a contest divided into two different camps, Nah, I sometimes do see two camps, but no 'contest' and more than contributing to a more concrete division, I see the dialogs as having the potential to at least to some degree, create a bridge between those two camps. Often though, in order for bridges to be built, other structures in the vicinity need to either get torn down or at least, considered into the equation. Folks generally don't like it, and some even get very angry, when another begins pointing at those structures. If you could lose the anger, you might stop seeing conversations with divergent opinions as 'contests.' You're lawyering based on frequency even as you serve me with your admission to my claim that you see two camps. You've never admitted to a simple negative emotion relative to your participation here, much less anger, and in this, you perpetuate the litigation in your deception, which is apparently directed both inwardly as well as outwardly. There's really no reason for me to address my own obvious expressions of disgust at WIBIGO with you as long as you maintain the deception, as the deception is the greater sin. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2014 13:06:55 GMT -5
You mean like the one you're having now, or the ones you've had many times with Andy? Prepare for an intricate text-wall of self-justification. ***Breathing deeply and getting into my happy place*** |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2014 13:07:20 GMT -5
One overarching characteristic of the deception built-in to her content is that it is manipulative. Notice how with you, in particular, she often uses praise and delightful poetic lightness like "silver bell" to trigger positive emotions, and confrontational criticism like "buzz off" in an attempt to trigger a negative reaction. What you can notice going forward is that the less you agree with her, and the more you disagree with her, the more of that type of content you're going to see directed your way. I understand about the manipulative bit -- but I'm the one who interpreted her 'suggestion' that I find greener pastures if I didn't like becoming involved in the tussle, into 'buzz off' - but whatev. Well that's the trap she invites you into, the one that she's caught in: the subjectivity trap. Yes, it's true that you translated "go elsewhere" into "buzz off", but if you notice, figgles does those sorts of translations all the time in order to support her debate performances. She'll never take responsibility for them in particular either, instead arguing and fighting tooth and nail over the nuances of the meaning, and only at the end, when she's been cornered by reason, will she finally admit to it being all "just her opinion". There's a value to commonsense that I've stated this way before: subjectivity ends where consensus begins. It's the duck test. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, then it's a duck. If most people interpret "go elsewhere" to mean "buzz off", then, it is what it is. There's no reason to hold onto it of course. The reaction to it can be seen, witnessed, and left to sail on through, but twisting it into a deception that it wasn't what it was is just as bad as stewing about it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2014 13:07:53 GMT -5
Prepare for an intricate text-wall of self-justification. ***Breathing deeply and getting into my happy place*** |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2014 13:15:01 GMT -5
You mean like the one you're having now, or the ones you've had many times with Andy? You cherry picked my words and edited out a key part. what I said was: without devolving into name calling and anger, or joining in sideways conversations in agreement, when others go there.Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3769/peeping-tom?page=10&scrollTo=210209#ixzz3DVB4Oy3uI'm not engaging in angry name-calling here, am I? And I was referring to the fact that although Silver and I are not currently seeing eye to eye, she still questioned Laffy's need to call me 'a stain on humanity.' Okay, so it's the sideways conversations with others who are angrily name calling you were talking about. I wasn't cherry picking. I thought they were separate scenarios. It's a little too complex and subjective for me to comment on, then. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2014 13:16:56 GMT -5
You mean like the one you're having now, or the ones you've had many times with Andy? You cherry picked my words and edited out a key part. what I said was: without devolving into name calling and anger, or joining in sideways conversations in agreement, when others go there.Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3769/peeping-tom?page=10&scrollTo=210209#ixzz3DVB4Oy3uI'm not engaging in angry name-calling here, am I? And I was referring to the fact that although Silver and I are not currently seeing eye to eye, she still questioned Laffy's need to call me 'a stain on humanity.' Objection to the use of the word need. Can you prove that I had a need to use that device? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2014 13:19:34 GMT -5
You cherry picked my words and edited out a key part. what I said was: without devolving into name calling and anger, or joining in sideways conversations in agreement, when others go there.Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3769/peeping-tom?page=10&scrollTo=210209#ixzz3DVB4Oy3uI'm not engaging in angry name-calling here, am I? And I was referring to the fact that although Silver and I are not currently seeing eye to eye, she still questioned Laffy's need to call me 'a stain on humanity.' Okay, so it's the sideways conversations with others who are angrily name calling you were talking about. I wasn't cherry picking. I thought they were separate scenarios. It's a little too complex and subjective for me to comment on, then.That rich entanglement of the personalized interpretations dappled here and there with ephemeral flashes of apparent psuedo-insight are a trademark of our resident maestro. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 16, 2014 13:23:45 GMT -5
Prepare for an intricate text-wall of self-justification. ***Breathing deeply and getting into my happy place*** It really wasn't so bad, was it? |
|
