Nuthin'

[Laird]

I'm not sure what you're getting at buns.

[sue hindmarsh]

Laird,

What you mean is that you consider Carl's post "generally disparage the opinions and positions of" YOU. You have no need to protect "others", for they can stand on their own two feet. And if they can't, what's it to you? A more important question is whether or not you can stand on yours?

Carl's post mentioned many of the things you value, such as love, and the desire for love. So what of it? Why are you so bothered about what he thinks? The only reason people get upset and bothered by such criticism is if the base for their thinking is shonky. Perhaps the reason you became so upset was because you recognized in Carl's post proof of a "serious flaw" in your thinking. If that is the case, it may turn out to be helpful in developing your ability to think more deeply on matters. Or - and this is more often the case - it could make you cling even more tightly to those same ideas even though they've shown themselves to be seriously flawed.

[snow bunny]

I'm not sure what you're getting at buns.

I'm in a transitional mode from aggressor to mediator-- I do it every weekend.

[Laird]

What you mean is that you consider Carl's post "generally disparage the opinions and positions of" YOU.

Well, yeah, call me hyper-sensitive but a lot of it did seem to be directed at me. Carl can confirm or deny this. But I'm not the only one that he's had a go at in this thread. He's mocked sear and put the boot into Elizabeth too, and those are just the ones that I can remember off the top of my head.

You have no need to protect "others", for they can stand on their own two feet. And if they can't, what's it to you? A more important question is whether or not you can stand on yours?

My sense of justice leads me to want to protect others, whether they can stand on their own two feet or not. And if you don't know the answer to your "more important question" by now then I don't think that you've been following my contributions to this forum at all.

Carl's post mentioned many of the things you value, such as love, and the desire for love. So what of it? Why are you so bothered about what he thinks? The only reason people get upset and bothered by such criticism is if the base for their thinking is shonky.

Uh, no, the reason I got "upset" is that Carl seems purely intent on criticising without making any contribution of his own. He's the perpetual critic on the sidelines, yelling at all of the players for not playing the game well enough but not being willing to jump in and play the game himself. He doesn't justify his criticisms, just slings mud at other people: witness his constant mocking/parody of daybrown - irrelevant of any point that daybrown is actually making Carl seems intent on making a mockery of his contributions. I'm perfectly willing to engage in a rational discussion and I can handle criticism, but Carl has shown little willingness to engage with me rationally. Well, I suppose to be fair we did have a bit of a sane exchange in the "Observations on women" thread. But take the thread "A world without war": he casts aspersions on me for even starting the thread in the first place and then hurls around insults and when I invite him to provide a substantial critique what's the result? Nada.

Perhaps the reason you became so upset was because you recognized in Carl's post proof of a "serious flaw" in your thinking.

Uh, no. There was no proof, purely scorn.

If that is the case, it may turn out to be helpful in developing your ability to think more deeply on matters. Or - and this is more often the case - it could make you cling even more tightly to those same ideas even though they've shown themselves to be seriously flawed.

By "think more deeply" you of course mean "think like me".

[Laird]

I'm in a transitional mode from aggressor to mediator-- I do it every weekend.

Oh, I see. Is this a voluntary role or will you be expecting a fee for your services?

[snow bunny]

I only charge during the weekdays, since everyone likes a good fight.

[sue hindmarsh]

Laird wrote:

By "think more deeply" you of course mean "think like me".

Your thoughts and mine will bear their fruit, but it will not only be you and I that bear the consequences - your thoughts and mine live on eternally in all things. Simply put: if you are serious about life you naturally focus on truthful thoughts and thereby live in heaven. If you don't take life seriously by not focusing of truth, hell is where you remain, and thereby hell is perpetuated.

[Laird]

Carl seems purely intent on criticising without making any contribution of his own. He's the perpetual critic on the sidelines, yelling at all of the players for not playing the game well enough but not being willing to jump in and play the game himself.

I want to take this back because it's not quite fair. Carl does make good contributions other than pure criticism at times, it's just that of late they've been few and far between. Bring back the good stuff mate. You're a smart dude and you have interesting things to say.

[Tomas]

Carl seems purely intent on criticising without making any contribution of his own. He's the perpetual critic on the sidelines, yelling at all of the players for not playing the game well enough but not being willing to jump in and play the game himself.

I want to take this back because it's not quite fair. Carl "does" make good contributions other than pure criticism at times, it's just that of late they've been few and far between. Bring back the good stuff mate. You're a smart dude and you have interesting things to say.

Don't believe a word he says, Carl.

All pomp and circumstance.

Remember, this is coming from a guy who wants to defang the Amerikkaner army!

.

[Laird]

Don't believe a word he says, Carl.

All pomp and circumstance.

You don't have much faith in my sincerity huh Tomas? What can I say dude, except "get with the programme".

Remember, this is coming from a guy who wants to defang the Amerikkaner army!

Hmm, yes, wanting to disarm the world equates to being insincere. Or what, to having bad character? I really don't know what you're getting at Tomas, but that's par for the course.

[Tomas]

Don't believe a word he says, Carl.

All pomp and circumstance.

You don't have much faith in my sincerity huh Tomas? What can I say dude, except "get with the programme".


Lighten up already :-)

Remember, this is coming from a guy who wants to defang the Amerikkaner army!

Hmm, yes, wanting to disarm the world equates to being insincere. Or what, to having bad character? I really don't know what you're getting at Tomas, but that's par for the course.


This thread is a breath of fresh air.

Not every thread (on Worldly Forums) need be end-of-the-world doomsday scenarios...

Some americans have a wicked sense of humor.

ps- Lose some of the touch-feely sensitivity :-)


Tomas (the tank)

.

[Carl G]

His post (below) is clearly him throwing down the gauntlet, and welcoming all and sundry to pick it up.

Oh nonsense. His post was clearly him trying to generally disparage the opinions and positions of others. It doesn't deserve a serious response.

No. It is not "clearly" that. That conclusion is where you err, and where you stop...thinking, responding, processing. This is evident by your kiss-off "It doesn't deserve a serious response." In fact it does deserve a serious response, and not a habitual reaction. My mirroring of you is an opportunity to look deeper, more clearly, and more honestly into yourself. And I give you specific things to look at, particular beliefs you might want to examine. Which you resist.

But instead of picking it up, you cry outrage and ask others to spare you from having to stand your ground.

Come again?

"Come again?" is "this shocks me. It is out of my realm of experience." Well, good. Isn't that what you want? Or, are you bound to the safe and cushy modes of thinking? If so, why are you here?

Outrage? I was simply calling it as I see it.

You react. You feel justified in that reaction. I am offering you a glimpse of that, and perhaps a way out.

And where exactly did I say that I'm not willing to stand my ground? I stand my ground in every thread in which I participate, unless someone can point out to me a serious flaw in my thinking.

You stand your ground only according to your own rules. When someone plays by other criteria you cry foul and run. I don't blame you. It is hard to look at oneself. This is what is meant by having one's thoughts bloodied. And it won't happen if you always demand your tried and true cozy setups.

[Carl G]

Carl's post mentioned many of the things you value, such as love, and the desire for love. So what of it? Why are you so bothered about what he thinks? The only reason people get upset and bothered by such criticism is if the base for their thinking is shonky.

Uh, no, the reason I got "upset" is that Carl seems purely intent on criticising without making any contribution of his own.

You are wrong, because I am not "purely intent on criticising without making any contribution." My intent is to help you, help the forum, and in the long term work for, lacking a better term, the survival of wisdom. Also, what I, and Sue and Dan, I think, have seen as contribution is what you continue to view as merely simple harassment.

An invitation to wake up is not a contribution?

He's the perpetual critic on the sidelines, yelling at all of the players for not playing the game well enough but not being willing to jump in and play the game himself.

You're framing what, the board? Life? The spiritual path?...as a game, but you are really saying it is your game, your rules, "the" rules as you know them, your BOX. And no, I am not willing to play that game with you. I am instead trying to prod you out of it, and to expand it, because I see the limitations you are self-imposing, and I don't think it serves wisdom particularly well. Does it really serve you?

If you think this is harsh or unfair, I would ask what you are doing on a messageboard about truth, honesty, enlightenment? I think your being here opens you to this type of inquiry. You just don't like HOW I am going about it. But you must admit, it is effective. Look at the genuine nerves struck!

He doesn't justify his criticisms, just slings mud at other people: witness his constant mocking/parody of daybrown - irrelevant of any point that daybrown is actually making Carl seems intent on making a mockery of his contributions.

Daybrown can voice his own concerns if he wishes, and I will address them.

I'm perfectly willing to engage in a rational discussion and I can handle criticism, but Carl has shown little willingness to engage with me rationally.

I am addressing you rationally, extremely so, albeit indirectly. Sometimes this is a better approach. And now directly.

Well, I suppose to be fair we did have a bit of a sane exchange in the "Observations on women" thread. But take the thread "A world without war": he casts aspersions on me for even starting the thread in the first place and then hurls around insults and when I invite him to provide a substantial critique what's the result? Nada.

You were not open to my direct approach, so I went indirect, and here we now are. You still seem in major reaction mode, but at least we are speaking.

If you want a fairly direct criticism of your disarmament theme, by the way, which you did ask for in that war thread, please see the one post to you in this thread, by "Girly Man Carl."

Perhaps the reason you became so upset was because you recognized in Carl's post proof of a "serious flaw" in your thinking.

Uh, no. There was no proof, purely scorn.

C'mon, Laird. You are a lively and likable fellow, really. Why do you want to be so blind and emotional-reaction based?

If that is the case, it may turn out to be helpful in developing your ability to think more deeply on matters. Or - and this is more often the case - it could make you cling even more tightly to those same ideas even though they've shown themselves to be seriously flawed.

By "think more deeply" you of course mean "think like me".

There, more of the same.

[Laird]

In fact it does deserve a serious response

I'll take your word for that. Here's my serious response then:

I'm all for a World Government, a total Big Brother situation, with a World Army lording it over the people.

If you read what I actually proposed in the thread to which you're alluding, "A world without war", then you'll find my recent rebuttal to the idea that the particular World Army that I'm proposing would in any way "lord it" over the people.

So you're a cynic of global organisation. Fine. Personally I don't believe that World Government is of necessity going to lead to Big Brother, and I think that implemented properly, a World Government would instead be a powerful force for peace, prosperity, justice and cooperation. Apparently you disagree. So then explain why, don't just cast around these aspersions. There's been a whole thread where you could have explained your position, and I even invited you to join in the discussion, but you choose not to participate and then expect me to take your vague criticisms as a thinking point. You haven't actually said anything about why you believe what you believe, nor given me any real reason to question my own beliefs.

I don't mind increased cameras on street corners, buggings of citizens phones and email, and silent searches of homes -- heck, we've got that now, and I for one feel safer.

If this is supposed to represent my thinking then it's off base.

I don't fly much but it's not because of the delays and shakedowns and prohibitions of aerosol or liquids. All that is a good thing.

To be honest I haven't thought too much about that issue. Without thinking it over too carefully my tentative reaction is: yeah, some of those measures are justified.

Point is, I'm a trusting and idealistic person.

I'm trusting to a point mate. I don't leave my wallet sitting on the bar while I go to the toilet though. And if you breach my trust you have to earn it back again.

And yeah, I believe in idealism. I think that many of the remarkable occurrences and progresses in the world occurred through infectious idealism. What's your problem with that? Should I instead sink into cynicism and apathy? Where would the world be if we all took that approach?

I don't like to admit it but I think with my emotions.

Coming from someone who a few days ago blew up in a swearing fit at me that's quite ironic. Look, my emotions affect some of my judgements, but in the main I don't let my emotions colour my philosophy, I have a set of values that form the basis of my philosophy. So no, I wouldn't like to "admit" that I "think with my emotions" because it's not true.

I think Love is the greatest thing. Actually, I think a woman's body is the greatest thing.

I do value both of those things. Sue me.

I'm desperate for a girlfriend.

"Desperate" has a certain ring about it that I'm not comfortable with. If I were that desperate I'd be out at the pub every night, trying to forge a social circle in this town, trying to chat up every woman in sight. I'm a reasonably likeable guy and I make friends easily. I'm sure that if I played my cards right and made the effort I could get the result that I'm after. But going to all of that trouble is more than it's worth to me. I'm actually something more of a loner. Sure though, I'd like to have a girlfriend if the relationship was low-hassle and didn't impinge on my lifestyle too much.

Hence I post on a philosophy board.

What, the desire for a relationship should be the overriding concern in my choice of hobby? I can't post to a philosophy board simply because I enjoy stimulating dialogue and the community? Anyhow, I have made female friends through this board (I've made at least one male friend too). Whether any of them ever go beyond friendship is another matter but it's a valid means of meeting likeminded individuals.

I love to think about things. The world is full of wonder.

Yeah, um, this seems to be a pretty natural human reaction/pursuit. Your objection to it is exactly what?

Sometimes I wonder if unicorns are real. I like to turn things over in my mind, and then spew them into cyberspace. I don't believe in privately thinking through things. I like to air them out, just like a woman.

This is actually fairly insulting for the reason that it implies that my posts are poorly thought out, whereas actually I put a lot of effort into them - not just into the content but into the form, grammar and spelling of them too. There's also an insinuation that somehow expressing thoughts on this forum is objectionable - that I should simply think them privately and keep them to myself - which ignores the entire point of an internet discussion forum which is for people to share and discuss their thoughts. And this is "womanly" how? Men shouldn't share their thoughts with one another? How else does civilisation advance without men (and women) promoting their thoughts? I mean, here you're really just out to disparage without justification aren't you? I rub you up the wrong way perhaps, and you feel the need to cut me down to size and diminish me.

By the way, chauvinism noted. You're not as gung ho about it as many of the other lads on this forum but you do have a bias against women, don't you?

------------------

"Come again?" is "this shocks me. It is out of my realm of experience."

Yes, "Come again?" is "this shocks me" - not because it's out of my realm of experience though, but because it's an observation that's far from the truth.

Well, good. Isn't that what you want? Or, are you bound to the safe and cushy modes of thinking? If so, why are you here?

Yes, I'm willing to consider radical ideas, but just because something's "safe and cushy" doesn't automatically mean that it's wrong. As for why I'm here, it's pretty simple - Kevin is my neighbour, we have a lot of interesting philosophical discussions, he invited me to start posting, I did, I found the resulting discussions stimulating and I decided to stick around. For the moment this place is my primary hobby. I'm here for the community as much as for the philosophical discussion.

Laird: Outrage? I was simply calling it as I see it.

Carl: You react. You feel justified in that reaction. I am offering you a glimpse of that, and perhaps a way out.

I don't feel any need for a way out. I do feel justified in my reaction. Why would I be looking for a way out of a justified reaction?

Laird: And where exactly did I say that I'm not willing to stand my ground? I stand my ground in every thread in which I participate, unless someone can point out to me a serious flaw in my thinking.

Carl: You stand your ground only according to your own rules.

Kindly point me to the rules which I should be following then.

When someone plays by other criteria you cry foul and run.

Link me to an instance of this please. I don't know what you're referring to.

[Laird]

You are wrong, because I am not "purely intent on criticising without making any contribution." My intent is to help you, help the forum, and in the long term work for, lacking a better term, the survival of wisdom. Also, what I, and Sue and Dan, I think, have seen as contribution is what you continue to view as merely simple harassment.

An invitation to wake up is not a contribution?

If it's an invitation to wake up then you're not providing me with much idea of what I'm supposed to be waking into nor why you think I'm in a dream, merely that that's what you think. Something to do with love being an illusion, my idealism being misplaced. That's all I'm getting.

You're framing what, the board? Life? The spiritual path?...as a game, but you are really saying it is your game, your rules, "the" rules as you know them, your BOX. And no, I am not willing to play that game with you. I am instead trying to prod you out of it, and to expand it, because I see the limitations you are self-imposing, and I don't think it serves wisdom particularly well. Does it really serve you?

What sort of box do you think I'm in exactly? I would have thought that by now I've demonstrated that I'm fairly flexible in my approach. I've dabbled in some satire, played around with a quiz, and generally I get down into the nitty gritty of a good old back-and-forth, which by the way is what you seem to be "boxing" us into right now.

If you think this is harsh or unfair, I would ask what you are doing on a messageboard about truth, honesty, enlightenment? I think your being here opens you to this type of inquiry. You just don't like HOW I am going about it. But you must admit, it is effective. Look at the genuine nerves struck!

This discussion might be effective. The initiation of the thread itself wasn't. To be honest, I was of a mind just to let it pass for a while. Let you air your disapproval and kind of shrug and go "whatever". I guess I figured that something needed to be said though in the end.

You were not open to my direct approach

I'm not open to getting involved in aggressive (and insulting) arguments, and that's the direction that you were taking us in. You didn't seem to have much to say either, it just came across to me as an angry, knee-jerk reaction. Funny then that you write that I'm in major reaction mode.

If you want a fairly direct criticism of your disarmament theme, by the way, which you did ask for in that war thread, please see the one post to you in this thread, by "Girly Man Carl."

Yeah, a bit of an insinuation that global organisation leads to an Orwellian nightmare but very little substance. You'll have to go into a bit more detail if you want to come close to having any impact on me.

Sue: Perhaps the reason you became so upset was because you recognized in Carl's post proof of a "serious flaw" in your thinking.

Laird: Uh, no. There was no proof, purely scorn.

Carl: C'mon, Laird. You are a lively and likable fellow, really. Why do you want to be so blind and emotional-reaction based?

Well, it's a written medium. It's hard to judge people's motivations in the end. That's just the way that it came across to me.

Sue: If that is the case, it may turn out to be helpful in developing your ability to think more deeply on matters. Or - and this is more often the case - it could make you cling even more tightly to those same ideas even though they've shown themselves to be seriously flawed.

Laird: By "think more deeply" you of course mean "think like me".

Carl: There, more of the same.

Oh, come on. Sue believes that she's in possession of absolute truth and that "deep thinking" will inevitably lead one to the same absolute truth. Ergo, to think deeply is to think like her.

[Sapius]

.

Humm… I must say... I am quite impressed by your well-composed and rational reactions, Laird. Never let go of it! :)

[Laird]

Humm… I must say... I am quite impressed by your well-composed and rational reactions, Laird. Never let go of it! :)

Thanks mate. And you already know how impressed I am with the way that you live your life. I'm taking a real liking to you Sap. I'm starting to consider you as a friend.

[Sapius]

Humm… I must say... I am quite impressed by your well-composed and rational reactions, Laird. Never let go of it! :)

Thanks mate. And you already know how impressed I am with the way that you live your life. I'm taking a real liking to you Sap. I'm starting to consider you as a friend.

Wow! Thanks for bestowing such privileges to me ;D

[Laird]

Wow! Thanks for bestowing such privileges to me ;D

Hey, you and me can blow this fucking world apart man! Bring on the utopian dream.

Edit: actually, rather than "blow apart" I should have chosen "bring together", but you get my general drift I trust.

Edit2: Right, I'm off to the pub on a Saturday night to blow apart the world of every woman that I meet there. :-P Haha. I'm a little prepared in the way of alcohol if you hadn't noticed...

[Sapius]

Wow! Thanks for bestowing such privileges to me ;D

Hey, you and me can blow this fucking world apart man! Bring on the utopian dream.

Edit: actually, rather than "blow apart" I should have chosen "bring together", but you get my general drift I trust.

Edit2: Right, I'm off to the pub on a Saturday night to blow apart the world of every woman that I meet there. :-P Haha. I'm a little prepared in the way of alcohol if you hadn't noticed...

I know exactly what you mean, and that did not warrent an explanation.

You go ahead and have a drink on me... I’m off to inner Mongolia this time.. I’ll be back! Soon.

[Carl G]

Laird,

I see from your responses that you still have no inkling of what I am saying, or any connection to the things I am showing you.

Sapius,

Your heartfelt backslapping of Laird does not reduce his plight.

[Laird]

I see from your responses that you still have no inkling of what I am saying, or any connection to the things I am showing you.

OK mate - you're right, I'm wrong:I'll be sure to remember that.

Sapius,

Your heartfelt backslapping of Laird does not reduce his plight.

Yeah, I'm really flapping around, begging for a saviour. Carl, will you be my saviour?

[Carl G]

Regarding wisdom you're sort of write-off, then. And regarding this site, you're just another pair of flapping gums watering down the message with endless words of ego defense and self-gratification. All your posts proclaim this.

[Carl G]

Well, I guess that's done with.

On to other things! Pages and pages ahead!

What a fun and fast-moving thread! What do you say, Dan, shall we 'sticky' this?

[Laird]

You know what Carl? I've had a gutful of you mate. This is your thread, and you supposedly want to engage with me, but when I send you the most detailed responses that I've got, you come back with a couple of terse, pitiful posts. You call me "girly", but let's face facts: you wouldn't know masculinity if it hit you in the face. You don't have the courage to put yourself on the line. I give it my best shot, every time. I put the best reasoning that I can muster into every post that I make and if it's not good enough then I cop it on the chin and admit that I'm wrong. I freely admit that sear gave me a serving at the start of the thread, "A world without war", in our exchange on hunting. He had the stronger arguments. Real men give it their best shot and admit when they're wrong. What have you been doing? Sniping from the sidelines, criticising vaguely, casting aspersions, but in the end, never saying anything concrete. That way no one can prove you wrong. Gutless.

I've treated you with nothing but fair-mindedness and friendliness, Carl. My very first interaction with you was to compliment you on a well-written post. What do I get in return? "Girly man", on a forum that values masculinity and when you know that I want to be attractive to women. You really couldn't have been more insulting and disrespectful, could you? But did I blow up at you? No, I kept my cool and made a joke out of it. And then you have the hide to tell me that I think with my emotions. You, on the other hand, at the slightest hint of (legitimate) criticism, burst into a swearing fit at me. And I'm the emotional one? Get real mate.