GENIUS FORUMS

Okay Blair, please explain how ^that post of yours^ contributes to the wisdom of anyone in any way. Over here you seemed to be trying to indicate that you had a deeper purpose to your snide remarks: uncledote wrote: Lots and lots of blunt, cynical 'one liners' don't provide anything constructive for...

True. In my year without much internet access, much of what I grew skilled at here regressed. I've only been back a couple of months, if that, and dusted myself off a bit. If you can think of something you'd like to debate me in The Crucible, I'd enjoy the exercise with someone else in the refresher...

Thanks Laird - all better now. No more flashing warnings, Skype's back without having to reload it, and Firefox is back with all of my bookmarks in place.

Something with the Windows sheild automatically downloaded on my computer, claiming I had malicious software, demanding that I activate it to remove the problem. I tried to get rid of it with DefenderPro 15-in-1, which is the antivirus/firewall/PC repair, etc. that I had - which gave me the error me...

Until that idea is fully tasted, both by you and by me, it will continue to arise in both our consciousness', this continuum of "taste me/analyze me" being its mark of emptiness. Oh? So if I have fully tasted/analyzed that idea, it will still arise in both of our consciousness if you have...

movingalways wrote:which was in respond to your riding-the-fence response to me:

Since you read Wisdom of the Infinite, you know that there isn't necessarily a fence to ride.

Elizabeth Isabelle: Good point; I have also been guilty of passing judgement on the dead. Ad hominems are also wrong against the dead (even though the damage may not be as bad because you probably can not hinder the individual's post-mortem growth, though you may hinder the spread of their ideas)- ...

They have slapped so many labels on me that I can't remember them all. The most accurate description would be compound-complex PTSD, but that is not an officially accepted diagnosis even though it has been written about in professional journals. That's probably why the variety of rotating and concur...

I can agree with that the way that he explained it, and that it doesn't need to be perceived - but I can also see the perspective where existence would not equal appearance. It kind of depends on definitions of things.

I haven't been trying to engage Blair in discussion, but for the most part ignore him. But lately, his aggro, largely meaningless responses have been more frequent, and worse perhaps. By lately, do you mean since say, the beginning of December? That's when you posted the ad hominem that he has been...

parasympathetic wrote:What do they want?

The same thing they want every night Pinky; to try to take over the world.

The actual point is how to deal with a person who can't handle rational discussions, but reacts with unwarranted hostility. Ignoring that behaviour seems downright idiotic. Actually, if a person actually could not handle rational discussions, the best course of action usually is to ignore the behav...

There are genuinely rational circumstances where it is possible to refer to a person's psychology and behaviour in a metaphysical conversation, and it not be a fallacious form of argument, as in the typical argumentum ad hominem. Yes, there is a time and a place where it may be permissible or even ...

rather than just booting prince out on his heavily worn welcome mat. And that's the all-too-human pettiness I would expect from you. (But not Kelly) Are we learning something here? Prince, Go through all of your posts. Add up how many of your posts are just heckler's remarks, and how many are posts...

I believe that the most useful application of A=A here is to realize that Joe's opinion is Joe's opinion, which does not make it a fact. That is where many logical slips happen. Joe might think that you are a grape, but that is unlikely to confuse you about whether or not you are a grape (though it ...

The wisdom of A = A applies only to one's one united truth of oneself, and cannot apply, at any time, to one's opinion of another. That is not correct. A=A means that a thing is exactly what it is. One's specific opinion of another is simply that. If someone named Joe held the opinion that you were...

the use of impersonal, finite categories or concepts purposed to accomplish their transcendence is not at all of the same intent as the ad hominem attacks such as were used in this thread. Why are you putting so much significance on ad hominems between Kelly and prince? Kelly and prince engaged in ...

The ad hominem attacks by those who claim to be enlightenment of logic and reason are evidence enough for me of the substance of my wisdom. I'm pretty sure that Kelly has not claimed to be enlightened. If prince has claimed to be enlightened, he was either being snarky or he was seriously mistaken....

Thank you cousinbasil. Yes, I agree that she crossed the line there, and I also believe that she crossed the line in the post where she quoted herself making the ad hominem about psychological issues. Whether or not Kelly intended this to imply she regards prince as mentally ill - which was how I re...

I don't appreciate an amateur, armchair psychologist like Kelly Jones labelling me as "mentally ill". Enough said. I agree that playing armchair psychologist and publicly labeling someone with a specific mental disorder crosses the line really close to every time, and even coming close to...

Your gripe is only an indication that you resent someone telling things as they see it, without apology. Wait until your apple-cart gets tipped over, girl. And I'll be sitting right here, laughing at you. Laughng my fucking ass off. Prince, you have never understood the difference between construct...

prince wrote:Ok, what knowledge do you have that I don't, you pretentious bore?

How quaint. A boor calls Kelly a bore.

Here's some guy using creative cooking skills. Watch the whole thing. It just keeps getting better.

Oh, I'm sorry for the delay; I did not realize that our discussion had moved to another thread. I don't always hit all the threads anymore, so if you respond to a post of mine in a different thread than where our discussion started, I'd appreciate a pm letting me know so that I can continue with you...

Obviously if her intent was to be banned, she would never have posted anything in the first place. So, you think that if one desired to be banned from GF, the most effective means to that end would be to never post to GF? No. If she never posted to GF, she simply never would have posted to GF - not...