GENIUS FORUMS

Dan Rowden wrote:What a thoroughly moronic post. Honestly.

Yeah? well I can't help but feel pity for the likes of you, who have no aesthetic sense.

God does not create all equal.

When I look at Monica Bellucci, I see a living sculpture, by an artist that I recognize. That is my reality and perception, so for you to dismiss it is to invalidate my existence itself. And who do you think you are, to do that?

That's your proof of God, like it or not. If you have the guts to rub me out, the truth will remain, mocking you.

prince wrote: When I look at Monica Bellucci, I see a living sculpture, by an artist that I recognize. That is my reality and perception, so for you to dismiss it is to invalidate my existence itself. And who do you think you are, to do that?

That's your proof of God, like it or not. If you have the guts to rub me out, the truth will remain, mocking you.

As far as my experience of you has been you've been a liar, a cheat, a thief and a hypocrite. Are you going to deny my experience of you?

He so beautifully flawed.

It's fantastic.

You may be on to something there. Maybe that explains why we love him so.;) ...maybe love flows not to where it's deserved, but to where it's needed the most.

ok, we'd better not discuss this any further, lest he come in here and call us both 'dipshits'...lol!

I've mentioned before that I have an older brother who's a creationist Xian, and as it happens we went to see Gibson's Christ movie together when it came out. The first thing he said to me when the film was over was to remark on how attractive Bellucci was. Coincedence?

Dan,

I don't ban people because they're foolish. I think that is an incredibly slippery slope to start to ride. David may be happy to ride it, but I'm not.

My opinion on banning is if someone submits posts frequently with long outdrawn writing, and they are clearly unable to be taught wisdom, constantly questioning the more intelligent posters, then they become a constant a drain on the forum. And they should be banned, there was only one person I wanted banned and David agreed. I forget the alias name now.

Prince isn't enough of a pest to ban.

However, I disagree with Diebert, I think these types of threads have some value, as they make a spectacle some of the jesters on the forum whose views are not irrational, and it reaffirms the overall objectives of the forum. It serves the same purpose that a public hanging used to serve in the wild west.

It is interesting because the more irrational posters tend to defend prince, with very emotional arguments, while the rational ones criticize his positions. To a newbie reading on the forum, the dichotomy becomes obvious, and serves an important lession.

To Diebert - There are too many irrationals to be consistent, one can only isolate some of the more charming entertaining posters once and awhile, and nail them to a cross publicly for their evil deeds.

prince wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:What a thoroughly moronic post. Honestly.

Yeah? well I can't help but feel pity for the likes of you, who have no aesthetic sense.

God does not create all equal.

When I look at Monica Bellucci, I see a living sculpture, by an artist that I recognize. That is my reality and perception, so for you to dismiss it is to invalidate my existence itself. And who do you think you are, to do that?

That's your proof of God, like it or not. If you have the guts to rub me out, the truth will remain, mocking you.

Dear Prince....We all will age, get sick and die...what's so aestheitc about that ?

Will you still love Monica when she's all wrinkled up and boobs sagging ?
We all turn to dust....

Ryan Rudolph wrote:To Diebert - There are too many irrationals to be consistent, one can only isolate some of the more charming entertaining posters once and awhile, and nail them to a cross publicly for their evil deeds.

To me he seems not much of a target, like hitting a handicapped child. I suspect he's a target because it's so easy, and my interest is in the dynamics that cause people spend more than one or two funny lines as reaction to his arguments - I've seen the same dynamic on other forums with similar situations.

Apart from that Prince has shown over the years some glimmers of reach and depth. He's a drunk mystic to me, most of the time drunk but occasionally I can smell spirit. Right there is the beauty of his flaws - his inner Bellucci!

Diebert,

To me he seems not much of a target, like hitting a handicapped child.

But aren't all irrational thinkers like handicapped children to some degree Diebert?

It is useful to isolate Prince, and make a spectacle of his errors in thinking because the common folk on here get addicted to his shallow attacks, and they may mistake it for some sort of truth. It is valuable in the sense that it points out to the form that Prince's posts are like big macs from macdonalds - They are initially satisfying to the hungry seeker, but they leave your heart clogged with crap.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:

It is useful to isolate Prince, and make a spectacle of his errors in thinking because the common folk on here get addicted to his shallow attacks, and they may mistake it for some sort of truth. It is valuable in the sense that it points out to the form that Prince's posts are like big macs from macdonalds - They are initially satisfying to the hungry seeker, but they leave your heart clogged with crap.

Like faith? Sets up two sides, both feeling of importance. Those who believe, and those who believe they don't believe.

Side note: I hate it when people say, "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in a greater being." They try to sound smart, but end up showing their stupidity.

Diebert:

Apart from that Prince has shown over the years some glimmers of reach and depth. He's a drunk mystic to me, most of the time drunk but occasionally I can smell spirit. Right there is the beauty of his flaws - his inner Bellucci!

Carmel:
Yes, it seems that David Quinn saw it, too. He once said that prince had the ability to state things accurately with few words.

Maybe one has to be a bit older or more experienced to recognize it?

Ryan, don't play the "newbie" card with me. It won't work. To me, you're the "newbie" due to your age and inexperience. Philosophy, books, knowledge exist outside this forum. Don't presume you know anything about me or my level of knowledge. It wouldn't be prudent.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:..make a spectacle .... it points out to the forum ...

While it's important not to lose awareness of the bigger canvas one is writing on, imagining some fictive audience who might get "wrong impressions" of some kind doesn't seem to be a good motivator. I think this forum has left the realms of "good impressions" for casual readers long ago. Pearls are not easy to find - it's the nature of their value.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:But aren't all irrational thinkers like handicapped children to some degree Diebert?

There you have it: the secret to all my kind interactions! The only time I'm harsh is when I see some actual maturity, something worth the energetic prodding. And of course toward kindred spirits there's no need for kindness nor harshness.

In the end one can only be a moron in a moronic world. Yet still live as royalty!

Diebert,

I see your point, but in a forum such as this, all posters should expect harsh criticisms now and again, that is the whole purpose of the forum. It prevents the forum from being too safe and friendly where people don't criticize each other because they learn to like each other through superficial interactions.

I believe it is necessary to reaffirm the forum's overall purpose, energy and scope of vision. For instance: suppose a thinker with potential came across this forum, and as they read through the posts, they noticed nothing but jokey, immature interactions of people who were always being overly friendly. The forum would be perceived as a wasteland, devoid of wisdom, no different than any other forum, but if accurate psychological criticisms and wisdom were present in many threads, it would at least show some signs of life.

I think many of the posters do not treat this as a battleground of argument, which is its entire purpose is.

Elizabeth's post reminded me of something - That you need to consciously create the environment you desire. You can't allow unconscious forces to take over, and mold it into something ugly.

While it's important not to lose awareness of the bigger canvas one is writing on, imagining some fictive audience who might get "wrong impressions" of some kind doesn't seem to be a good motivator. I think this forum has left the realms of "good impressions" for casual readers long ago. Pearls are not easy to find - it's the nature of their value.

As far as motivation goes, I'm merely trying to create the proper environment to inspire wisdom, which is one of the sole purposes for being here. And even if there isn't any new individuals here who have an authentic interest in the values of the sage, I believe that harsh criticisms will perhaps cause them to take their superficial behavior elsewhere if they are not capable of change.

You said you would constantly ban people, well, how is that any different than my harsh attacks which are aimed at either jolting someone to change or leave? both are attacks.

It hurts the ego just as much to be banned from a forum because they are deemed not intelligent enough, as it is to be harshly criticized.

simple mistake. taking someone else's views and accepting them. david quinn viewed prince as expressing his thoughts in very few words... stick to your guns

Ryan Rudolph:
For instance: suppose a thinker with potential came across this forum, and as they read through the posts, they noticed nothing but jokey, immature interactions of people who were always being overly friendly.

Carmel:
Right Ryan...and what if they come across some your useless, generalizations, which you repeatedly engage in, despite advice from someone older and wiser than you(Carl). what then?

What if they see all the self aggrandizing youngsters here who falsely claim to be sages when clearly they're not. Anyone can claim to be a sage, it doesn't make it so, in most cases, it just makes you a braggart.

Your also forgetting the "84,000 paths" to enlightment and more importantly, you're forgetting that enlightment does not preclude laughter. In fact, comedy can be used to teach people and is often more effective than some of the pointless, unfocused ego bashing that occurs here all too frequently.

Ryan:
You said you would constantly ban people, well, how is that any different than my harsh attacks which are aimed at either jolting someone to change or leave? both are attacks.

Carmel:
If everyone who wasn't strictly logcal was banned, there'd be no one left.

wise, wiser, wisest
Are you the wisest in the land?

...you have alot more to learn, Ryan.
...We all do.

Carmel's caramel.

Carmel,

Right Ryan...and what if they come across some your useless, generalizations, which you repeatedly engage in, despite advice from someone older and wiser than you(Carl). what then?

philosophy consists of systems of generalizations, it is one of the pillars of rational thought.

You don't seem to be a philosopher at heart, you realize that this is a forum dedicated to individuals have devote their lives to philosophy and spiritual teachings. This is not a forum for entertainment.

Kunga wrote:Dear Prince....We all will age, get sick and die...what's so aestheitc about that ?

Will you still love Monica when she's all wrinkled up and boobs sagging ?
We all turn to dust....

In the meantime, I enjoy hangin' with my pushing-60 girlfriend of 45 years.

Dust - what a beautiful choice :-)

Ryan says blandly to cover for his errored ways:

philosophy consists of systems of generalizations, it is one of the pillars of rational thought.

Carmel:
weak. A good example of why youngsters can't philosophize. ;)

Ryan goes for the patronizing effect unsuccessfully:
You don't seem to be a philosopher at heart, you realize that this is a forum dedicated to individuals have devote their lives to philosophy and spiritual teachings.

Carmel:
You're not a philosopher, you're a regurgitator. Where's Ryan in all this? Where's your truth? I don't see it, I see your ego mixed in with bits of Bill Maher and pieces of the QRS. You talk about philosophy, but rarely engage in it, in any real way. You're just expressing your views, like anyone else, on any random discussion board. meh.

...and that's why I laugh in church...people who takes themselves so seriously just become funny after awhile...

Ryan, did you read the post Pye wrote about meditation...you can simply ignore my posts if you don't have any use for them. It really is that simple.

I think I'll take that advice and do the same.

*Carmel cranks the volume to the "The Benny Hill Theme Song" and practices meditating. :)

Dan Rowden wrote:What a thoroughly moronic post. Honestly.

How so? because there is something "in between" that makes it believable?

If you can't see how ridiculous the idea is from that example, how much inbetween is needed to make it acceptable...

And don't fling evolution theory sites etc at me, because my instinct rejects it as nonsense.

prince wrote: If you can't see how ridiculous the idea is from that example, how much inbetween is needed to make it acceptable...

Is this what you are after? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd4f2xeKg08

I dunno.... I can still find gaps in that theory! lol

This one has a nice before and after comparison http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbu1MnNwnGo

You fuckin dick.

prince wrote:You fuckin dick.

Sorry, I couldn't go back in time and ask reality to do a time lapse video of the evolution of species... either way, there will always be gaps.

I went back in time thanks to the search function and found this from March 08 viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4018

Still hold the same opinions prince? If not, why not?

Genuine question.