|
|
Post by jay17 on May 29, 2016 20:34:46 GMT -5
So that means when you engage here you are almost constantly engaging from ego.  I don't think it's Ego, figgles. But that's due to my current understanding that Ego is merely another term for the self, so it seems redundant to mention it when referring to the words or behavior of a person. What i see is laughter behaving in such a manner as to grab someone's attention enough so they will interact with him. He behaves in a specific way when interacting with others who he shares similar beliefs with, and behaves in a completely different way with people he does not rez with. The upshot being, he often behaves like an 'attention wh.ore'. Saying all manner of irrational and disrespectful things in order to entice a person to respond. Usually to fill some void or need, and having to resort to socially unacceptable behavior to procure it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2016 1:26:13 GMT -5
So that means when you engage here you are almost constantly engaging from ego. I don't think it's Ego, figgles. But that's due to my current understanding that Ego is merely another term for the self, so it seems redundant to mention it when referring to the words or behavior of a person. What i see is laughter behaving in such a manner as to grab someone's attention enough so they will interact with him. He behaves in a specific way when interacting with others who he shares similar beliefs with, and behaves in a completely different way with people he does not rez with. The upshot being, he often behaves like an 'attention wh.ore'. Saying all manner of irrational and disrespectful things in order to entice a person to respond. Usually to fill some void or need, and having to resort to socially unacceptable behavior to procure it. Oh, is calling someone an "attention wh0re" socially acceptable where you live jimmy?  ... as for (most of) the rest of it, pure projection son.  |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on May 30, 2016 22:24:51 GMT -5
Oh, is calling someone an "attention wh0re" socially acceptable where you live jimmy? ... as for (most of) the rest of it, pure projection son. Q. I don't know the exact social protocols in 'Murica, but in Oz, there exists the freedom afforded to all to express one's personal opinion. Thus doing so is socially acceptable. But perhaps your beef is not with 'freedom of speech', as you seem quite comfortable when expressing your opinion of others and\or thier thoughts. Perhaps your beef is confined to expressions you do not agree with or like. Perhaps you seek more power to censor others. For if you were like me, in that i am no longer adversely affected by other's words, i have no need or desire to censor anyone's verbal expressions. If you have a different opinion to mine, i would like to hear what you conclude is\are your reason(s) for your constant immature, irrational and disrespectful comments toward those you disagree with and\or do not rez with. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 17, 2016 15:18:02 GMT -5
(** muttley snicker **) 2.3Still playin' eh?.. Ah well, children do enjoy their games.  And now we have your answer to this question, don't we?  are you so obsessed with me that you just can't bear to play any longer?  And as for you calling me a child I'll remind you that it's a game you joined willingly when you thought you had a chance of "winning". But you see, the game isn't about that, it's about settling a very specific question, remember? Being obsessed doesn't make you a loser, it just means that you're .. well .. you know ... obsessed.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jun 17, 2016 15:33:10 GMT -5
Still playin' eh?.. Ah well, children do enjoy their games. And now we have your answer to this question, don't we? are you so obsessed with me that you just can't bear to play any longer? And as for you calling me a child I'll remind you that it's a game you joined willingly when you thought you had a chance of "winning". But you see, the game isn't about that, it's about settling a very specific question, remember? Being obsessed doesn't make you a loser, it just means that you're .. well .. you know ... obsessed. I did win. Or did you forget about creating this thread for the express purpose of directly responding to me with mutley snickers? How could you actually think that wasn't a deal breaker? And, yes, it is childish to try to keep playing a game after you've ended it yourself, by losing the challenge. You are taking my interest in the Tenka conversation personally, obviously. What I'm interested in addressing, I would be interested in addressing regardless of who was making the faulty assertions you've been making. The stance you have taken is not unique to you. It is common amongst seekers to mistake 'no mountain' for end all and be all. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 17, 2016 16:22:10 GMT -5
And now we have your answer to this question, don't we? And as for you calling me a child I'll remind you that it's a game you joined willingly when you thought you had a chance of "winning". But you see, the game isn't about that, it's about settling a very specific question, remember? Being obsessed doesn't make you a loser, it just means that you're .. well .. you know ... obsessed. I did win. Or did you forget about creating this thread for the express purpose of directly responding to me with mutley snickers? How could you actually think that wasn't a deal breaker? And, yes, it is childish to try to keep playing a game after you've ended it yourself, by losing the challenge. You are taking my interest in the Tenka conversation personally, obviously. What I'm interested in addressing, I would be interested in addressing regardless of who was making the faulty assertions you've been making. The stance you have taken is not unique to you. It is common amongst seekers to mistake 'no mountain' for end all and be all. The stance you take is common among peeps who are actively pursuing a path of surrender and acceptance and don't understand what appears to be a different path of negation of limitation. I explained it in detail here. No I didn't take it personally in terms of your theory, but it seems really really odd of you to now imply you didn't direct that theory to your image of myself as a person, and quite squarely so. Are you conscious of the double-bind that you're trying to play with that absurd implication? The dialog with tenka was mine, you were the interceder, which would suggest that it's you who took what I was writing personally, even though it had nothing to do with you as it was playing out. That would make your attempt at the bind a projection. Now as far as the game is concerned, first off, it's not even true that you haven't been playing. Since the end of the game v1 about 20% of your content has been posts that reply to me without crossing the threshold of the letter of the test: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343388/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343389/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343398/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343868/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343873/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343938/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/344177/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/344732/threadThat number is quite conservative as well as I'm leaving out most of your "make laffy wrong about what E' said" debate content. In contrast, you won't find a single post of mine along those lines during that same time. Not one. By my estimation you did a little better in v2 of the game than in v1. Maybe that will improve over time. Second off, the whole purpose of the game was to settle this question, the one you initially raised, remember? Yeah, I just don't know for certain...but, There are only a select few here whom you go toe to toe with, and only a few females...I'd say it was pretty clear you were mocking someone whom you had a bone to pick with. Interesting thing too.... I wasn't even on the forum at the time you posted, so it wasn't even in response to something I'd said to you. You just started posting the link for a laugh. Almost seems a tad obsessive.  Why were you visiting my site in the first place and why did you specifically post a product from my site to mock if you weren't in some way referencing me specifically? , and the stark fact that there was nothing connecting you to the link is really anyone needs to know to see how this is all just fantasy. Over the past few months not only have you dedicated two OP's specifically to me, but you're (almost) always the one who initiates dialog first, mostly by directly responding to me when I haven't responded to you, or, as in this case, contriving an elaborate straw laffy that I have some fun burnin'. .. so of course it's going to involve replies back and forth to one another, and that was accounted for specifically in the rules: No prohibition against a dialog once it starts. Finally, no, I already explained here how the first few snickers were about inviting you to consider the spirit as opposed to the letter of the bet, and you didn't refute a single one of the points or directly answer the question posed in that post. But now you definitely have answered that question indirectly. Try to face this question Faye: why do you want to end the agreement of not bothering with each other any longer, and why can't you keep your mind off of me or what I write even when you're trying to live up to that agreement? As the game continues, it becomes even more obvious than it was before that I can take or leave what you have to write and have no need to refer to you in the least, while you can very clearly not say the same about yourself relative to me. Yes, you can't bear the game to continue because of your obsession. Too bad. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jun 17, 2016 18:31:22 GMT -5
I did win. Or did you forget about creating this thread for the express purpose of directly responding to me with mutley snickers? How could you actually think that wasn't a deal breaker? And, yes, it is childish to try to keep playing a game after you've ended it yourself, by losing the challenge. You are taking my interest in the Tenka conversation personally, obviously. What I'm interested in addressing, I would be interested in addressing regardless of who was making the faulty assertions you've been making. The stance you have taken is not unique to you. It is common amongst seekers to mistake 'no mountain' for end all and be all. The stance you take is common among peeps who are actively pursuing a path of surrender and acceptance and don't understand what appears to be a different path of negation of limitation. I explained it in detail here. No I didn't take it personally in terms of your theory, but it seems really really odd of you to now imply you didn't direct that theory to your image of myself as a person, and quite squarely so. Are you conscious of the double-bind that you're trying to play with that absurd implication? The dialog with tenka was mine, you were the interceder, which would suggest that it's you who took what I was writing personally, even though it had nothing to do with you as it was playing out. That would make your attempt at the bind a projection. Now as far as the game is concerned, first off, it's not even true that you haven't been playing. Since the end of the game v1 about 20% of your content has been posts that reply to me without crossing the threshold of the letter of the test: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343388/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343389/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343398/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343868/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343873/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343938/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/344177/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/344732/threadThat number is quite conservative as well as I'm leaving out most of your "make laffy wrong about what E' said" debate content. In contrast, you won't find a single post of mine along those lines during that same time. Not one. By my estimation you did a little better in v2 of the game than in v1. Maybe that will improve over time. Second off, the whole purpose of the game was to settle this question, the one you initially raised, remember? Oh, I'd say, given the content of this thread, that it's pretty obvious which one between the two of us is obsessed, and the stark fact that there was nothing connecting you to the link is really anyone needs to know to see how this is all just fantasy. Over the past few months not only have you dedicated two OP's specifically to me, but you're (almost) always the one who initiates dialog first, mostly by directly responding to me when I haven't responded to you, or, as in this case, contriving an elaborate straw laffy that I have some fun burnin'. .. so of course it's going to involve replies back and forth to one another, and that was accounted for specifically in the rules: No prohibition against a dialog once it starts. Finally, no, I already explained here how the first few snickers were about inviting you to consider the spirit as opposed to the letter of the bet, and you didn't refute a single one of the points or directly answer the question posed in that post. But now you definitely have answered that question indirectly. Try to face this question Faye: why do you want to end the agreement of not bothering with each other any longer, and why can't you keep your mind off of me or what I write even when you're trying to live up to that agreement? As the game continues, it becomes even more obvious than it was before that I can take or leave what you have to write and have no need to refer to you in the least, while you can very clearly not say the same about yourself relative to me. Yes, you can't bear the game to continue because of your obsession. Too bad. I'm not trying to live up to any agreement. The contest was lost & thus, over, a long time ago. It was lost by you, with your first snicker in the thread you created. If it's really important to you that I do not engage you, just ask me not to. It's that simple. I'm not interested in your games or challenges, clearly, you don't play fair. Regarding that first snicker that lost it for ya; Why did you want to end the agreement of not bothering with each other any longer, and why couldn't you keep your mind off of me or what I wrote even when you were trying to live up to that agreement? |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jun 18, 2016 7:25:59 GMT -5
The stance you take is common among peeps who are actively pursuing a path of surrender and acceptance and don't understand what appears to be a different path of negation of limitation. I explained it in detail here. No I didn't take it personally in terms of your theory, but it seems really really odd of you to now imply you didn't direct that theory to your image of myself as a person, and quite squarely so. Are you conscious of the double-bind that you're trying to play with that absurd implication? The dialog with tenka was mine, you were the interceder, which would suggest that it's you who took what I was writing personally, even though it had nothing to do with you as it was playing out. That would make your attempt at the bind a projection. Now as far as the game is concerned, first off, it's not even true that you haven't been playing. Since the end of the game v1 about 20% of your content has been posts that reply to me without crossing the threshold of the letter of the test: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343388/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343389/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343398/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343868/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343873/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343938/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/344177/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/344732/threadThat number is quite conservative as well as I'm leaving out most of your "make laffy wrong about what E' said" debate content. In contrast, you won't find a single post of mine along those lines during that same time. Not one. By my estimation you did a little better in v2 of the game than in v1. Maybe that will improve over time. Second off, the whole purpose of the game was to settle this question, the one you initially raised, remember? .. so of course it's going to involve replies back and forth to one another, and that was accounted for specifically in the rules: Finally, no, I already explained here how the first few snickers were about inviting you to consider the spirit as opposed to the letter of the bet, and you didn't refute a single one of the points or directly answer the question posed in that post. But now you definitely have answered that question indirectly. Try to face this question Faye: why do you want to end the agreement of not bothering with each other any longer, and why can't you keep your mind off of me or what I write even when you're trying to live up to that agreement? As the game continues, it becomes even more obvious than it was before that I can take or leave what you have to write and have no need to refer to you in the least, while you can very clearly not say the same about yourself relative to me. Yes, you can't bear the game to continue because of your obsession. Too bad. If it's really important to you that I do not engage you, just ask me not to. It's that simple. I'm not interested in your games or challenges, clearly, you don't play fair. Regarding that first snicker that lost it for ya; Why did you want to end the agreement of not bothering with each other any longer, and why couldn't you keep your mind off of me or what I wrote even when you were trying to live up to that agreement? Mein himmel ! Look at the size of laughter's response, which i interpret as one of his usual tactics to bury, in this case, the very short and simple fact he lost the contest. And though i await either a lengthy response to again disprove via covering over the fact he lost the contest, or he'll respond with a short tirade of denigration of me, or a blank post, or one with an image or gif, or yet another request i respond to his strange request i clarify my comments about me being a human-alien hybrid incubator, even though i repeatedly issue the same response... ...what i am actually still waiting for is a response from him to this. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 19, 2016 14:35:30 GMT -5
The stance you take is common among peeps who are actively pursuing a path of surrender and acceptance and don't understand what appears to be a different path of negation of limitation. I explained it in detail here. No I didn't take it personally in terms of your theory, but it seems really really odd of you to now imply you didn't direct that theory to your image of myself as a person, and quite squarely so. Are you conscious of the double-bind that you're trying to play with that absurd implication? The dialog with tenka was mine, you were the interceder, which would suggest that it's you who took what I was writing personally, even though it had nothing to do with you as it was playing out. That would make your attempt at the bind a projection. Now as far as the game is concerned, first off, it's not even true that you haven't been playing. Since the end of the game v1 about 20% of your content has been posts that reply to me without crossing the threshold of the letter of the test: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343388/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343389/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343398/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343868/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343873/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/343938/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/344177/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/344732/threadThat number is quite conservative as well as I'm leaving out most of your "make laffy wrong about what E' said" debate content. In contrast, you won't find a single post of mine along those lines during that same time. Not one. By my estimation you did a little better in v2 of the game than in v1. Maybe that will improve over time. Second off, the whole purpose of the game was to settle this question, the one you initially raised, remember? .. so of course it's going to involve replies back and forth to one another, and that was accounted for specifically in the rules: Finally, no, I already explained here how the first few snickers were about inviting you to consider the spirit as opposed to the letter of the bet, and you didn't refute a single one of the points or directly answer the question posed in that post. But now you definitely have answered that question indirectly. Try to face this question Faye: why do you want to end the agreement of not bothering with each other any longer, and why can't you keep your mind off of me or what I write even when you're trying to live up to that agreement? As the game continues, it becomes even more obvious than it was before that I can take or leave what you have to write and have no need to refer to you in the least, while you can very clearly not say the same about yourself relative to me. Yes, you can't bear the game to continue because of your obsession. Too bad. I'm not trying to live up to any agreement. The contest was lost & thus, over, a long time ago. It was lost by you, with your first snicker in the thread you created. If it's really important to you that I do not engage you, just ask me not to. It's that simple. I'm not interested in your games or challenges, clearly, you don't play fair. Regarding that first snicker that lost it for ya; Why did you want to end the agreement of not bothering with each other any longer, and why couldn't you keep your mind off of me or what I wrote even when you were trying to live up to that agreement? Well you can disclaim your ongoing interest in the agreement but that's inconsistent with the way you expressed yourself in that lists of posts. You can also keep claiming victory but it's really really silly on the basis of the game of " the one in question" alone, if nothing else. And no, of course it's not "really important to me that you not engage me". Are you conscious of yet another failed attempt at a double bind? After these years I'm completely indifferent to whether you respond to me or not -- there's really nothing much left to say, after all.  But for as long as you remain in denial about the stark fact that it's you who has the interest in me and not vice-versa, then the game is an opportunity for you that I'm quite happy to continue to offer. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 19, 2016 14:43:30 GMT -5
I'm not trying to live up to any agreement. The contest was lost & thus, over, a long time ago. It was lost by you, with your first snicker in the thread you created. If it's really important to you that I do not engage you, just ask me not to. It's that simple. I'm not interested in your games or challenges, clearly, you don't play fair. Regarding that first snicker that lost it for ya; Why did you want to end the agreement of not bothering with each other any longer, and why couldn't you keep your mind off of me or what I wrote even when you were trying to live up to that agreement? Mein himmel ! Look at the size of laughter's response, which i interpret as one of his usual tactics to bury, in this case, the very short and simple fact he lost the contest. And though i await either a lengthy response to again disprove via covering over the fact he lost the contest, or he'll respond with a short tirade of denigration of me, or a blank post, or one with an image or gif, or yet another request i respond to his strange request i clarify my comments about me being a human-alien hybrid incubator, even though i repeatedly issue the same response... ...what i am actually still waiting for is a response from him to this.Oh sure I'll respond to that if you're interested, but before I do, it's very important that you directly answer the question posed here, and please take note that it's answerable with a simple yes or no. And as I already mentioned, if you're interested in why you're wrong in your opinion that I lost the initial contest, your answer to that question is important, as my response in the dialog is entirely dependent on it. Are you interested as to why that is? Also, clearly, the contest as stated had no defined end to it. Now, if you consider what I've written to be a denigration of you, you might want to follow the advice you keep giving me about cultivating non-reactivity. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jun 19, 2016 17:08:04 GMT -5
I'm not trying to live up to any agreement. The contest was lost & thus, over, a long time ago. It was lost by you, with your first snicker in the thread you created. If it's really important to you that I do not engage you, just ask me not to. It's that simple. I'm not interested in your games or challenges, clearly, you don't play fair. Regarding that first snicker that lost it for ya; Why did you want to end the agreement of not bothering with each other any longer, and why couldn't you keep your mind off of me or what I wrote even when you were trying to live up to that agreement? Well you can disclaim your ongoing interest in the agreement but that's inconsistent with the way you expressed yourself in that lists of posts. You can also keep claiming victory but it's really really silly on the basis of the game of " the one in question" alone, if nothing else. And no, of course it's not "really important to me that you not engage me". Are you conscious of yet another failed attempt at a double bind? After these years I'm completely indifferent to whether you respond to me or not -- there's really nothing much left to say, after all. But for as long as you remain in denial about the stark fact that it's you who has the interest in me and not vice-versa, then the game is an opportunity for you that I'm quite happy to continue to offer. It was a question. And you've answered. Thanks. If a particular conversation you're involved in interests me enough, you may find me responding to a post of yours. Make of that what you will. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 19, 2016 18:08:31 GMT -5
Well you can disclaim your ongoing interest in the agreement but that's inconsistent with the way you expressed yourself in that lists of posts. You can also keep claiming victory but it's really really silly on the basis of the game of " the one in question" alone, if nothing else. And no, of course it's not "really important to me that you not engage me". Are you conscious of yet another failed attempt at a double bind? After these years I'm completely indifferent to whether you respond to me or not -- there's really nothing much left to say, after all. But for as long as you remain in denial about the stark fact that it's you who has the interest in me and not vice-versa, then the game is an opportunity for you that I'm quite happy to continue to offer. It was a question. And you've answered. Thanks. If a particular conversation you're involved in interests me enough, you may find me responding to a post of yours. Make of that what you will. Sure you can pretend now as if you didn't repeat the meme of my supposed "obsession" several times both publicly and semi-privately over the preceding months, and this despite the fact that it was quite obviously you chasing me around during that time, not the other way around. You've also complained and specifically asked that I not respond to you in the past, but I've never reciprocated that request. Bottom line is that the game is an opportunity for you that will continue, and given your propensity for inflexibility and stasis as opposed to openness and growth, one that will likely persist for as long as we're both logging in or at least until it becomes so glaringly clear that you are the one interested in me and not vice-versa, that continuing it would be overkill. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jun 20, 2016 4:13:32 GMT -5
Mein himmel ! Look at the size of laughter's response, which i interpret as one of his usual tactics to bury, in this case, the very short and simple fact he lost the contest. And though i await either a lengthy response to again disprove via covering over the fact he lost the contest, or he'll respond with a short tirade of denigration of me, or a blank post, or one with an image or gif, or yet another request i respond to his strange request i clarify my comments about me being a human-alien hybrid incubator, even though i repeatedly issue the same response... ...what i am actually still waiting for is a response from him to this.Oh sure I'll respond to that if you're interested, but before I do, it's very important that you directly answer the question posed here, and please take note that it's answerable with a simple yes or no. See figgles, he still avoids responding to my post in this thread, and has once again brought up the request i give him an answer about me being a hybrid baby incubator. Laughter, it is not important to me that you respond to my post in this thread. The ongoing stalemate tactic you use is totally ineffective on me. You not responding already says a lot, though it would be interesting to hear your reasons for your constant immature, irrational and disrespectful comments toward those you disagree with and\or do not rez with. And as I already mentioned, if you're interested in why you're wrong in your opinion that I lost the initial contest, your answer to that question is important, as my response in the dialog is entirely dependent on it. Are you interested as to why that is? Again, not interested in your opinion you think i am wrong. I can clearly see you lost the contest, and in my view, an extremely trivial matter compared to the rest of one's life. What is still interesting is observing you spend a lot of time trying to convince others you did not lose the contest, as it reaffirms my theory you do have issues with losing or being wrong and will go to great lengths to be publicly seen as the winner or correct. Also, clearly, the contest as stated had no defined end to it. That's fantastic, though completely irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 22, 2016 16:42:23 GMT -5
Oh sure I'll respond to that if you're interested, but before I do, it's very important that you directly answer the question posed here, and please take note that it's answerable with a simple yes or no. See figgles, he still avoids responding to my post in this thread, and has once again brought up the request i give him an answer about me being a hybrid baby incubator. Laughter, it is not important to me that you respond to my post in this thread. The ongoing stalemate tactic you use is totally ineffective on me. You not responding already says a lot, though it would be interesting to hear your reasons for your constant immature, irrational and disrespectful comments toward those you disagree with and\or do not rez with. And as I already mentioned, if you're interested in why you're wrong in your opinion that I lost the initial contest, your answer to that question is important, as my response in the dialog is entirely dependent on it. Are you interested as to why that is? Again, not interested in your opinion you think i am wrong. I can clearly see you lost the contest, and in my view, an extremely trivial matter compared to the rest of one's life. What is still interesting is observing you spend a lot of time trying to convince others you did not lose the contest, as it reaffirms my theory you do have issues with losing or being wrong and will go to great lengths to be publicly seen as the winner or correct. Also, clearly, the contest as stated had no defined end to it. That's fantastic, though completely irrelevant. Well no, I'm not avoiding a response to your post in this thread, but I am insisting that you directly answer that question before I offer one. The avoidance here is very clearly yours and not mine: all you have to do is directly answer that question to get the response you were waiting for. Why won't you do that? I promise that as soon as you do I will, with great joy, immediately and gleefully respond very directly to every point you've raised there. Glad to see that you're not waiting any longer, I wouldn't want to leave you in a lurch like that. Perhaps you never were really waiting for that reply after all and instead would rather it remain unwritten .. I mean, a simple yes or no is all it would take to illicit it at this point, and if I didn't hold up my end then of course I'd have broken a promise and you'd be able to refer to me along the lines of something similar to "attention wh0re" and then preemptively whine about how I might wind up denigrating you in further dialog. As far as the game is concerned, you're the one bringing the initial interest as to who's won or lost, so of course the question as to whether it had a defined ending point is quite relevant to that interest. It's no surprise to me that you're interested in the game, as you're in exactly the same situation that gave rise to it to begin with. By that I mean the following: have you noticed that over these months it's always you who responds to me first -- and with one very notable exception -- it's always you who starts writing about me out of the blue when I've neither engaged what you've written or made reference to you? |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jun 24, 2016 3:05:01 GMT -5
See figgles, he still avoids responding to my post in this thread, and has once again brought up the request i give him an answer about me being a hybrid baby incubator. Laughter, it is not important to me that you respond to my post in this thread. The ongoing stalemate tactic you use is totally ineffective on me. You not responding already says a lot, though it would be interesting to hear your reasons for your constant immature, irrational and disrespectful comments toward those you disagree with and\or do not rez with. Again, not interested in your opinion you think i am wrong. I can clearly see you lost the contest, and in my view, an extremely trivial matter compared to the rest of one's life. What is still interesting is observing you spend a lot of time trying to convince others you did not lose the contest, as it reaffirms my theory you do have issues with losing or being wrong and will go to great lengths to be publicly seen as the winner or correct. That's fantastic, though completely irrelevant. Well no, I'm not avoiding a response to your post in this thread, but I am insisting that you directly answer that question before I offer one. The avoidance here is very clearly yours and not mine: all you have to do is directly answer that question to get the response you were waiting for. Why won't you do that? I promise that as soon as you do I will, with great joy, immediately and gleefully respond very directly to every point you've raised there. All issues raised here, already addressed. If you are not satisfied with this opinion, then you aren't, and i theorise you will once again repeat yourself in some hope you will somehow receive that which you are trying to obtain. Glad to see that you're not waiting any longer, I wouldn't want to leave you in a lurch like that. Perhaps you never were really waiting for that reply after all and instead would rather it remain unwritten .. I mean, a simple yes or no is all it would take to illicit it at this point, and if I didn't hold up my end then of course I'd have broken a promise and you'd be able to refer to me along the lines of something similar to "attention wh0re" and then preemptively whine about how I might wind up denigrating you in further dialog. I stopped waiting for a response from you as soon as it came to my attention i was reported for sharing my opinion you behave like an attention wh.ore. Hence my statement you not responding in the thread says a lot to me. As far as the game is concerned, you're the one bringing the initial interest as to who's won or lost, so of course the question as to whether it had a defined ending point is quite relevant to that interest. It's no surprise to me that you're interested in the game, as you're in exactly the same situation that gave rise to it to begin with. By that I mean the following: have you noticed that over these months it's always you who responds to me first -- and with one very notable exception -- it's always you who starts writing about me out of the blue when I've neither engaged what you've written or made reference to you? Seems quite evident to me the actual initial interest is yours laughter when you spent a chunk of your life creating the game in order to prove something, that i can only assume is important to you. If going around repeating a catch phrase of a character off of a mindnumbingly idiotic cartoon as an instrument of mocking someone or their thoughts gives you some kind of pleasurable or positive sensations, i sincerely wish you well. I do ignore you for long stretches. Sometimes I get annoyed with the nonsense when it becomes this ridiculous and sustained, but the intense level of emotional attachment you've got to this negativity is very obvious in what you write, and that's simply not happening with me with respect to you. My health isn't suffering because of our interaction, but I can tell that yours is. I guess if I were a full-on embodiment of Christ consciousness, if I was a perfect holy Buddha, I'd return all of your vitriol with a loving smile, but ya' see, I'm just a common every-day internet clown.  Sorry hun', just the way it goes. No argument from me. |
|
... as for (most of) the rest of it, pure projection son. 
