GENIUS FORUMS

Hello again, Ill try it again.
Just joined under a slightly different banner, what yresterday (enlightenedgenius) and after leaving a distinctly strong yet polite post on some womans thread, and sending the member Cory i believe a pm, i soon suddenly found myself absent from amongst you fine individuals. A concerned note to a ksolway went unanswered.
So here i am having to guess wha-da-hel that was all about.

It frightens me to think its a case of the muscle-boys protecting the mouthy (opps sorry about that it slipped) gals. Well this time ill give them nothing to complain about.
If they think im some previous problem-member back to harrass them again they are mistaken, i have never been banned (or in this case totally extinguished all sign no explanation) from a discussion group in my life, have never given a reason to.
But nevertheless, guessing, i will this time refrain from pointing out the uselessness of any women here leaving so much as an intelligible word, uselessness to themselves as well as the world at large. (I say that after quite a read)
No I wont go there at all this time.
Ill just make this my introduction, and add some personal info as time allows, and hope its let be for, jesus, at least 24 hours lets say, then go ahead and move it as your great wisdom directs you. But quit it with the deletes.
And stop interfering with the freedom of inter-member communication, too.
In other words.......ah......i better not, ah, say that.

ok then, Godspeed!
EGG

1.Welcome
2.You're in the wrong Forum
3.I can't imagine any Admin having interfered in your "inter-member communication".

It would have been me that deleted you. I now doubt mistook you for one of the many spammers - or lunatics - I have to deal with every day. I don't recall my reason for deleting your account but I obviously had one.

Oh, and I don't have the ability to "interfere" with your private messages to anyone.

Can administrators read private messages from any member's account?

awakeninggenius wrote:i will this time refrain from pointing out the uselessness of any women here leaving so much as an intelligible word, uselessness to themselves as well as the world at large. (I say that after quite a read)
No I wont go there at all this time.

My 4c worth:

- Gratuitous nastiness is not encouraged on the Genius Forum. Why should anyone hate Nature?

- Conflict over ideas and values is not a problem here. Or, it should not be. Censorship or political correctness is no help to anyone. I doubt the administrators - mostly just one long-suffering admin lately - would ever delete a comment or member to stifle dissent.

- There is a marked difference between defending the ego, and causing pain to the ego. The latter is extremely rare, and, sadly, many people deceive themselves that they are engaging in it.

- This is not a men's rights movement board. It does not have a political mission. It is wholly about the individual's battle to abandon falsehoods about Ultimate Reality, and the psychology of the sexes is only a tool in this battle.

...

Kelly Jones wrote:Can administrators read private messages from any member's account?

I have no idea. It's possible to "test" a person's "permissions" - which generally means posting rights. I have no idea how that relates to PMs but I doubt it grants that ability.

[Edit: As I thought, it doesn't. I think the only way any admin could ever see anyone's PMs is via the PHP itself, and maybe not even then (and that would mean only Kevin anyhow).

Dan,

Maybe it'd be helpful for some of the new members if you clarified your position regarding spam. Do you think you have a double standard for what constitutes spam by males vs. females?

For instance, you appear to spend a lot of time educating Kunga (a female), yet it is generally true that women are "receptive", "polite" and "agreeable" only so that a man will continue to make her feel attractive and special by interacting with her. But you give very short shrift to an aggressive, angry male, whose indignation could well be justified. But you ban him immediately.

This may confuse the new members, who may think you aren't being fair. How would you explain to them what your motivation is? (I think I know).


...

My view of spam/trolling is simple enough - I will not tolerate it if:

a) it is evidently, consciously designed to be disruptive (with no higher purpose);
b) it is sufficiently constant such that it disrupts the flow of threads (e.g. 10 posts in a row of mindless nonsense) - indicating that the person wishes to use the board as a personal blog with little respect for its actual nature;
c) it is classical spam in the sense of posting irrelevant advertising material.

That's about it, really. There's no gender bias in my attitude. Let's not forget that I have banned Donna Thompson in numerous incarnations for the above reasons. It's not about lack of understanding or stupidity. I will tolerate innocent stupidity for a very long time, even when it can be irritating. It's about behaviour and the motives behind it.

Thanks for clarifying that, Dan. It was pretty much as I thought. It's not about gender (at least, only indirectly), but about consciousness. And consciousness plays out differently between the sexes.

But how much room on this board should be made for people of no or little scope?

It is difficult sometimes for men to accept the truth that women are really very wretched, because they think know women will say they are nasty for pointing this out, or else that it will discourage the easily discouraged women from striving to improve themselves. Men are much stronger with criticism, and think it is fair to tell it as it is. But they want to shield women, partly because they want to avoid the unsolvable, inevitable and endless emotional outpourings that come from women when upset, and partly because they see that women are so easily distracted into that kind of volcanic emotional pointlessness. So having to facilitate women can take a lot of time and energy, and there is very little point to doing so.


...

Kelly Jones wrote:But how much room on this board should be made for people of no or little scope?

If their behaviour is not openly disruptive, my attitude to that is that people of little or no scope nevertheless have utility for those that do, even if that lies only in the way they present delusional thinking so clearly. It's easier to fight an "enemy" when one has the ability to identify it and its nuances.

Kelly Jones wrote:Can administrators read private messages from any member's account?

Yes.

That said, from my perspective one would read private messages if a member were attempting to overthrow the Australian government. Unknown as to whether Dan (our admin.) would hand over any messages to the governmental "authorities that be".

I would to the US government. They ain't my daddy and my kneecaps are properly positioned (thank you very much) and why be booted because .. you deserve to be every now and then. I'm in tight with a couple of Christ's apostles and have let them in on some of your shenanigans and when Christ returns in a cloud you will be one of the select few he will set down and have a heart to heart talk with. No coffee drinking will be allowed and the virgin mary will be no more. Not that she will be passed around to the apostles and a few other select religious folk such as Jesse Jackson and Jimmy Swaggart but she better have her act together. The apostles began returning to earth in 1947 near Roswell, New Mexico.

Sounds like post-traumatic stress, Tomas.


...

Kelly Jones wrote:But how much room on this board should be made for people of no or little scope?

It is difficult sometimes for men to accept the truth that women are really very wretched, because they think know women will say they are nasty for pointing this out, or else that it will discourage the easily discouraged women from striving to improve themselves. Men are much stronger with criticism, and think it is fair to tell it as it is. But they want to shield women, partly because they want to avoid the unsolvable, inevitable and endless emotional outpourings that come from women when upset, and partly because they see that women are so easily distracted into that kind of volcanic emotional pointlessness. So having to facilitate women can take a lot of time and energy, and there is very little point to doing so.

Don't forget all the time and energy that was spent on you....so stop your bitching !

Tomas wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:Can administrators read private messages from any member's account?

Yes.

Actually, no I can't. Further, I suspect for Kevin to be able to he'd have to go into the PHP code itself and I don't know if that's even possible. Your PMs are perfectly safe.

Kunga wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:But how much room on this board should be made for people of no or little scope?

It is difficult sometimes for men to accept the truth that women are really very wretched, because they think know women will say they are nasty for pointing this out, or else that it will discourage the easily discouraged women from striving to improve themselves. Men are much stronger with criticism, and think it is fair to tell it as it is. But they want to shield women, partly because they want to avoid the unsolvable, inevitable and endless emotional outpourings that come from women when upset, and partly because they see that women are so easily distracted into that kind of volcanic emotional pointlessness. So having to facilitate women can take a lot of time and energy, and there is very little point to doing so.

Don't forget all the time and energy that was spent on you....so stop your bitching !

Actually, I am always sensible of my journey when I make these suggestions. I had some dreadful patches, and really tested the limits. But I was always deeply aware of my predicament, and was in dread of being incorrigible. I never wanted to lose sight of the ultimate goal, and knew I couldn't wallow around in emotionalism for long. So, my messiness was always held in check by this purpose. My late entry - at the age of 26 - has always been a matter of deep concern, and I often remember my age relative to my spiritual goals.

However, even though my own determination has been my main source of progress, I am deeply grateful that much "time and energy" has been spent on me, and 80-90% of it was doing precisely what I advised above. Namely, ignoring any emotionalism completely, and waiting for me to be in the human realms ready to think and apply.


...

Dan Rowden wrote:

Tomas wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:Can administrators read private messages from any member's account?

Yes.

Actually, no I can't. Further, I suspect for Kevin to be able to he'd have to go into the PHP code itself and I don't know if that's even possible. Your PMs are perfectly safe.

I'd submitted an article (In The News thread?) about how it's possible in these sort forums (and others). I'll scope out In The News article and report back as to whether it was posted by yours truly.

I've no panic attacks about PMs being perfectly safe. I realized though that your admin abilities are 99 & 44/100th's near perfect though. Warm Regards.

Kelly Jones wrote:Dan,

Maybe it'd be helpful for some of the new members if you clarified your position regarding spam. Do you think you have a double standard for what constitutes spam by males vs. females?

For instance, you appear to spend a lot of time educating Kunga (a female), yet it is generally true that women are "receptive", "polite" and "agreeable" only so that a man will continue to make her feel attractive and special by interacting with her. But you give very short shrift to an aggressive, angry male, whose indignation could well be justified. But you ban him immediately.

This may confuse the new members, who may think you aren't being fair. How would you explain to them what your motivation is? (I think I know).


...

wow.

Well if "Kelly" is truely female id certainly be fairly shocked, sounds more like a man and for all we know may indeed be a man. But given he's female for the time being, I wonder and must ask-How is it? Why is it? Why unlike her very gender?
My gut feel is it's a case of parrotting what one has learned, why? well to fit in somewhere "special", to gain approval from a man or men she finds appealing. Thats always at the bottom of it when it comes to women.

Certainly if the right man came along and requested so she'd be just fine with sliding philosophy off to the side indefinitely and then diving headlong into the ecstacy of love in a new relationship. Even most (any?) men would do the same, given that the love interest closely matched their idea of the perfect woman or person. Perhaps marriage wouldnt be in the cards right away but sex and plenty of it would certainly be inevitable. Can you just imagine it, at long last a lover with the mind, body, spirit, soul, and all the rest of it, but in this particular case crazy about you!
Unbelievable.

But i suppose we can expect the expected "no not me" bull from this supposed female- can one ever really believe the female answer to difficult questions? No i dont think so. And neither do you, am i right.

Yes i am.

Considering more closely the above responses, isnt this really the probable thinking behind it---"well ill keep my (smoking) composure, be careful not to defend myself, in fact i will join in just as one of the boys and throw out my own criticism of women, pretending to have no ego and to take fem-slams entirely impersonally."

How different would be a true reflection of all that is easily hidden here by this type of communication.

Clap, clap, clap, I applaud you, the actress Kelly if that is your real name, bravo, perhaps some nimwit has been fooled, but not I.
Can you say anything that you havent picked up from your guru(s) or others here.

What proof is there that a woman, any woman can actually think.
And in the USA no less, ha! as unlikely as it is unbelievable.

No offence intended, sir.
Is that ok, that i call you "sir".
Wouldnt that be complimentary.

I dont think anyone in this group would prefer i hold punches, so there it is.
Sincerely.

EGG (for short)

Dan Rowden wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:Can administrators read private messages from any member's account?

I have no idea. It's possible to "test" a person's "permissions" - which generally means posting rights. I have no idea how that relates to PMs but I doubt it grants that ability.

[Edit: As I thought, it doesn't. I think the only way any admin could ever see anyone's PMs is via the PHP itself, and maybe not even then (and that would mean only Kevin anyhow).

What a bunch of bull, you can bet that Mr Kevin checks certain pms at will, and feels in the right in doing so. Dont believe otherwise, if he claims otherwise.

"Oh, gee, i never thought about that, wow, Ive never even thought about reading a members messages, wow, ill have to look into that, gee maybe i can, but NO dont be concerned, im not a republican after all, write away, and from the bottom of your hearts, we wont read it, honestly we wont, you can trust me, really, i love the truth and never lie, especially to my mom, oh, HI MOM, are you watching today! Hope so. Love you! DR"

EGG,lol

Kelly Jones wrote:

Kunga wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:But how much room on this board should be made for people of no or little scope?

It is difficult sometimes for men to accept the truth that women are really very wretched, because they think know women will say they are nasty for pointing this out, or else that it will discourage the easily discouraged women from striving to improve themselves. Men are much stronger with criticism, and think it is fair to tell it as it is. But they want to shield women, partly because they want to avoid the unsolvable, inevitable and endless emotional outpourings that come from women when upset, and partly because they see that women are so easily distracted into that kind of volcanic emotional pointlessness. So having to facilitate women can take a lot of time and energy, and there is very little point to doing so.

Don't forget all the time and energy that was spent on you....so stop your bitching !

Actually, I am always sensible of my journey when I make these suggestions. I had some dreadful patches, and really tested the limits. But I was always deeply aware of my predicament, and was in dread of being incorrigible. I never wanted to lose sight of the ultimate goal, and knew I couldn't wallow around in emotionalism for long. So, my messiness was always held in check by this purpose. My late entry - at the age of 26 - has always been a matter of deep concern, and I often remember my age relative to my spiritual goals.

However, even though my own determination has been my main source of progress, I am deeply grateful that much "time and energy" has been spent on me, and 80-90% of it was doing precisely what I advised above. Namely, ignoring any emotionalism completely, and waiting for me to be in the human realms ready to think and apply.


...

Well i have to wonder, what you think the ultimate goal really is! Just based on your comments here, and reading between the lines so to speak, it is clear that your ego is clearly present and quite healthy, just like an ordinary person.

As to emotions and emotionalism, your ego has you believing that when you are emotional, you can capture and stop any such events, no matter that you arent clear minded at the time.
And i dont think you even realize that you thought and wrote "always" four times!
Being absolutist is no way to find or understand the absolute.

Im going to guess that you are not some distance away from the gurus you admire so (amm, i.e. love), trying to be like and liked by, and neither I might add are any of the other women writing here pretending to be wise.
And that unlike probably some 90% of members you dont live in some other country or 3,000 miles from him/them.
(By the way, so i dont have to keep writing "him/them" would you care to say whether there is equal attachment or involvement for each (two or more, i dont know) or whether one teacher in particular, Dan, Kevin or ? was intrumental.......
)
Ok then, not sure if it has happened before but here it is, your chance to prove yourself to an incredulous world, whether you feel like you have to or not, everyone's watching.
And with any luck the other gals will come out of hiding, stop pretending they're not reading, and we can have a thread for each; would anyone care to enlighten me (Cory!)-- Are there 3, 4, five female contributors who believe themselves wise in the manner of the teachers here? Regulars.

Honestly i havent done very much reading thus far. Enough but not a lot. And labels dont always give away gender.

EGG

awakeninggenius wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:Can administrators read private messages from any member's account?

I have no idea. It's possible to "test" a person's "permissions" - which generally means posting rights. I have no idea how that relates to PMs but I doubt it grants that ability.

[Edit: As I thought, it doesn't. I think the only way any admin could ever see anyone's PMs is via the PHP itself, and maybe not even then (and that would mean only Kevin anyhow).

What a bunch of bull, you can bet that Mr Kevin checks certain pms at will, and feels in the right in doing so. Dont believe otherwise, if he claims otherwise.

"Oh, gee, i never thought about that, wow, Ive never even thought about reading a members messages, wow, ill have to look into that, gee maybe i can, but NO dont be concerned, im not a republican after all, write away, and from the bottom of your hearts, we wont read it, honestly we wont, you can trust me, really, i love the truth and never lie, especially to my mom, oh, HI MOM, are you watching today! Hope so. Love you! DR"

EGG,I'm a moron

Oh, yeah, now I know why I banned you - you're a total cretin.

awakeninggenius wrote:Well if "Kelly" is truely female id certainly be fairly shocked, sounds more like a man and for all we know may indeed be a man. But given he's female for the time being, I wonder and must ask-How is it? Why is it? Why unlike her very gender?
My gut feel is it's a case of parrotting what one has learned, why? well to fit in somewhere "special", to gain approval from a man or men she finds appealing. Thats always at the bottom of it when it comes to women.

Yes, typically this is true. But if a female is psychologically masculine (for instance, a young tomboy is an anomalous female, who often prefers hanging around with her brothers and their friends, because she enjoys the same activities and attitudes), then it's likely she has a more idealistic, objective mind. Instead of looking for approval from men, she seeks approval in the arena of her own ideals and goals. This is the natural culmination of eroticism.

Certainly if the right man came along

If a Buddha came along, I would have to be a Buddha to recognise him, and therefore be unable to love. It's both good and bad luck, depending on your view of the matter.

Even most (any?) men would do the same, given that the love interest closely matched their idea of the perfect woman or person. Perhaps marriage wouldnt be in the cards right away but sex and plenty of it would certainly be inevitable. Can you just imagine it, at long last a lover with the mind, body, spirit, soul, and all the rest of it, but in this particular case crazy about you!

I don't know why, but even before puberty I had an unusually individualistic character. I was an eroticist, and I didn't even know it: I couldn't imagine falling in love with anyone who wasn't many times my superior. I couldn't conceive of adoring anyone who didn't perfectly match the ideal. And there were always flaws. So I never fell in love. My mind was always stronger than a need for company. Even when I eventually found some high-calibre individuals, I wanted them to be even better than they were - so I postponed my "endorsement". I am certain this is why I have never maintained relationships with people, and grow tired quickly of the company of others. While other people resent my idealism, I am capable of coping with its relentless pressure. This is probably why people see me as sad, empty, and tired. I am not glowing with self-approval, and the ease of the mediocrity's small measure of success.

But i suppose we can expect the expected "no not me" bull from this supposed female- can one ever really believe the female answer to difficult questions? No i dont think so. And neither do you, am i right. Yes i am.

Eroticism is not a difficult topic to fathom. Ayn Rand also had the same insights, but she seemed to shy away from the natural conclusion: individuality.

Considering more closely the above responses, isnt this really the probable thinking behind it---"well ill keep my (smoking) composure, be careful not to defend myself, in fact i will join in just as one of the boys and throw out my own criticism of women, pretending to have no ego and to take fem-slams entirely impersonally."

I don't see myself as "just as one of the boys". I've never done so. I have always been a loner type.


...

Dan Rowden wrote:

awakeninggenius wrote:[quot="Dan Rowden"]

Kelly Jones wrote:Can administrators read private messages from any member's account?

I have no idea. It's possible to "test" a person's "permissions" - which generally means posting rights. I have no idea how that relates to PMs but I doubt it grants that ability.

[Edit: As I thought, it doesn't. I think the only way any admin could ever see anyone's PMs is via the PHP itself, and maybe not even then (and that would mean only Kevin anyhow).

What a bunch of bull, you can bet that Mr Kevin checks certain pms at will, and feels in the right in doing so. Dont believe otherwise, if he claims otherwise.

"Oh, gee, i never thought about that, wow, Ive never even thought about reading a members messages, wow, ill have to look into that, gee maybe i can, but NO dont be concerned, im not a republican after all, write away, and from the bottom of your hearts, we wont read it, honestly we wont, you can trust me, really, i love the truth and never lie, especially to my mom, oh, HI MOM, are you watching today! Hope so. Love you! DR"

EGG,I'm a moron

dr:
Oh, yeah, now I know why I banned you - you're a total cretin.

Either that or, I love the truth more than you do.
It does seem you're unwilling to see certain people for what they may actually be, with your filters on. Perhaps your pals they are, your kids effectively. Tough love isnt easy.
Ill admit that your remark hurt me, congratulations oh great one, are your guru brothers as foul mouthed as you are. I dont think it was necessary, or at all true.
I believe actually quite the opposite, that you're intimidated by my intelligence and insights.

That you without explanation once canned me, plus your behavior here, seems to suggest you have a somewhat lousy character. Though it is difficult to comprehend what it is these gals see in you, perhaps you are a good lover and you make up for it there.
Whatever.

My suggestion is to examine your life more closely and then to rid it of whatever is drawing you away from a more wholesome existence.

EGG

Kelly Jones wrote:

awakeninggenius wrote:Well if "Kelly" is truely female id certainly be fairly shocked, sounds more like a man and for all we know may indeed be a man. But given he's female for the time being, I wonder and must ask-How is it? Why is it? Why unlike her very gender?
My gut feel is it's a case of parrotting what one has learned, why? well to fit in somewhere "special", to gain approval from a man or men she finds appealing. Thats always at the bottom of it when it comes to women.

Yes, typically this is true. But if a female is psychologically masculine (for instance, a young tomboy is an anomalous female, who often prefers hanging around with her brothers and their friends, because she enjoys the same activities and attitudes), then it's likely she has a more idealistic, objective mind. Instead of looking for approval from men, she seeks approval in the arena of her own ideals and goals. This is the natural culmination of eroticism.

"Does kelly want a cracker?"

Certainly if the right man came along

If a Buddha came along, I would have to be a Buddha to recognise him, and therefore be unable to love. It's both good and bad luck, depending on your view of the matter.

What is a "buddha"?

Even most (any?) men would do the same, given that the love interest closely matched their idea of the perfect woman or person. Perhaps marriage wouldnt be in the cards right away but sex and plenty of it would certainly be inevitable. Can you just imagine it, at long last a lover with the mind, body, spirit, soul, and all the rest of it, but in this particular case crazy about you!

I don't know why, but even before puberty I had an unusually individualistic character. I was an eroticist, and I didn't even know it: I couldn't imagine falling in love with anyone who wasn't many times my superior. I couldn't conceive of adoring anyone who didn't perfectly match the ideal. And there were always flaws. So I never fell in love. My mind was always stronger than a need for company. Even when I eventually found some high-calibre individuals, I wanted them to be even better than they were - so I postponed my "endorsement". I am certain this is why I have never maintained relationships with people, and grow tired quickly of the company of others. While other people resent my idealism, I am capable of coping with its relentless pressure. This is probably why people see me as sad, empty, and tired. I am not glowing with self-approval, and the ease of the mediocrity's small measure of success.

Oh yes, you certainly do sound like a superwoman. Im sure you could cope with just about anything with complete equanimity. People mean nothing to wisemen of your caliber. Life would be just fine without them--no?

But i suppose we can expect the expected "no not me" bull from this supposed female- can one ever really believe the female answer to difficult questions? No i dont think so. And neither do you, am i right. Yes i am.

Eroticism is not a difficult topic to fathom. Ayn Rand also had the same insights, but she seemed to shy away from the natural conclusion: individuality.

Considering more closely the above responses, isnt this really the probable thinking behind it---"well ill keep my (smoking) composure, be careful not to defend myself, in fact i will join in just as one of the boys and throw out my own criticism of women, pretending to have no ego and to take fem-slams entirely impersonally."

I don't see myself as "just as one of the boys". I've never done so. I have always been a loner type.

So the possibility of a date is, i guess, then, out of the question, eh...