GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:My reference to ad-hominems was from the quote I quoted from you from only a few minutes before.
What I find to be "bullshit" or what some have referred to as "kowshit" is your pointless namecalling, derailing of threads, hijacking of threads with innane questions, and general irrational behavior.

This I will bring up from when you first got here (less than a week ago, despite your approaching 200 posts). I did used to point out specifics of your irrationality in hopes that you would learn what looked irrational. Even though there are thousands of examples here of how to do a rational argument, I outlined the procedure for you, and even coached you you on how to make one of your posts more rational. It appears that you do not want to learn.

This is a joke. You have posted totally irrational, pointless and ridiculously non sequitur comments, all too frequently. One of the first things read on this forum was someone insulting you over something that you posted. A bit more reading and sure enough someone was making derogatory comments to Sue. You guys were asked about this behavior. You justified it.

Learn from you? No thank you. Physician, heal thyself.

While this is kind of entertaining (distracts me from doing homework), when is Kow getting banned? I can't understand this behavior continuing when someone like Sky was banned very quickly.

sschaula wrote:While this is kind of entertaining (distracts me from doing homework), when is Kow getting banned? I can't understand this behavior continuing when someone like Sky was banned very quickly.

Re your homework; the answer is 4. :)

sschaula wrote:While this is kind of entertaining (distracts me from doing homework), when is Kow getting banned? I can't understand this behavior continuing when someone like Sky was banned very quickly.

Don't forget that guy that got banned when I first got here - the "that's hilarious" guy - banned for being annoying.

sschaula wrote:While this is kind of entertaining (distracts me from doing homework), when is Kow getting banned? I can't understand this behavior continuing when someone like Sky was banned very quickly.

Kow will be banned when and if I or David or Kevin decide he/she ought to be. He/she is on notice but not on my ban radar just yet. Sky was banned for deleting posts, which is an entirely different matter.

sschaula wrote:While this is kind of entertaining (distracts me from doing homework), when is Kow getting banned? I can't understand this behavior continuing when someone like Sky was banned very quickly.

Oh, well then we'll make the best of it.

What homework are you avoiding?
Personally I'm avoiding writing a paper for a gender studies class. Do you think I can pass looking at Genius for the last 5 hours off as 'research' ?

I'm supposed to be talking about women and jihad - and we've touched on both topics today. :)

Dan Rowden wrote:

sschaula wrote:While this is kind of entertaining (distracts me from doing homework), when is Kow getting banned? I can't understand this behavior continuing when someone like Sky was banned very quickly.

Kow will be banned when and if I or David or Kevin decide he/she ought to be. He/she is on notice but not on my ban radar just yet. Sky was banned for deleting posts, which is an entirely different matter.

You had better realize that if these guys are going to be abusive, they will eat abuse, too. It's allowed for people to talk about cunts and address others as "Blowjob", but not to stand up to moronic bullies?

It's about frequency and intent. I don't mind if people refer to arguments as stupid or moronic - from time to time. But I do mind if it happens every other post. It is just needless and doesn't achieve anything . There's too much of it flying around here and I'd ask people to reflect on how often and how meaningfully they do it. But this isn't a kindergarten so I'm not going to tell people not to do it at all.

So, now, can we get back to actual discussion?

kowtaaia wrote:You had better realize that if these guys are going to be abusive, they will eat abuse, too. It's allowed for people to talk about cunts and address others as "Blowjob", but not to stand up to moronic bullies?

I'm not quite sure how to interpret the part about it not being okay to stand up to moronic bullies. We have been standing up to you - were you defending our right to stand up to you?

As was pointed out to you earlier, people did name-call each other, but the main focus was still on a logical and rational thought process. People had harsh mannerisms, but there was a line. Also, the ones who played fairlly looked more rational (because they were). Dan mentioned a suggestion about you trying to set an example. Try it.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:You had better realize that if these guys are going to be abusive, they will eat abuse, too. It's allowed for people to talk about cunts and address others as "Blowjob", but not to stand up to moronic bullies?

I'm not quite sure how to interpret the part about it not being okay to stand up to moronic bullies. We have been standing up to you - were you defending our right to stand up to you?

As was pointed out to you earlier, people did name-call each other, but the main focus was still on a logical and rational thought process. People had harsh mannerisms, but there was a line. Also, the ones who played fairlly looked more rational (because they were). Dan mentioned a suggestion about you trying to set an example. Try it.

Ah yes, all of you standing up against kow. :) Sometimes it's better to say nothing and let people just think that you're stupid. Stop proving it to us, Elizabeth Isabelle.

It's time to stop, darling.

Dan -
Sorry about the timing on the above post, I'm typing slow on this repalcement keyboard, and I'm multi-tasking. - I would have dropped it had I seen your "So, now, can we get back to actual discussion?" I said almost the same thing on another thread and it didn't do any good coming from me, but maybe coming from an admin, it will help.

Ah, I take it the problem was the actual keyboard?

Anyway, Kow, can you tell me where this quote comes from?:

There is self and there is truth. Where self is, truth is not. Where truth is, self is not. Self is the fleeting error of samsara; it is individual separateness and that egotism which begets envy and hatred. Self is the yearning for pleasure and the lust after vanity. Truth is the correct comprehension of things; it is the permanent and everlasting, the real in all existence, the bliss of righteousness.

The existence of self is an illusion, and there is no wrong in this world, no vice, no evil, except what flows from the assertion of self.

Apart from the "bliss of righteousness" part it's very good, but I don't know its origin..

Dan Rowden wrote:Ah, I take it the problem was the actual keyboard?

Anyway, Kow, can you tell me where this quote comes from?:

There is self and there is truth. Where self is, truth is not. Where truth is, self is not. Self is the fleeting error of samsara; it is individual separateness and that egotism which begets envy and hatred. Self is the yearning for pleasure and the lust after vanity. Truth is the correct comprehension of things; it is the permanent and everlasting, the real in all existence, the bliss of righteousness.

The existence of self is an illusion, and there is no wrong in this world, no vice, no evil, except what flows from the assertion of self.

Apart from the "bliss of righteousness" part it's very good, but I don't know its origin..

...and what does this have to do with ghosts? :)

It's attributed to the Buddha and quoted on one of the Dalai Lama 'GOTARO' sites, but good luck finding it in the suttas/sutras.

kowtaaia wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote: Anyway, Kow, can you tell me where this quote comes from?:

There is self and there is truth. Where self is, truth is not. Where truth is, self is not. Self is the fleeting error of samsara; it is individual separateness and that egotism which begets envy and hatred. Self is the yearning for pleasure and the lust after vanity. Truth is the correct comprehension of things; it is the permanent and everlasting, the real in all existence, the bliss of righteousness.

The existence of self is an illusion, and there is no wrong in this world, no vice, no evil, except what flows from the assertion of self.

Apart from the "bliss of righteousness" part it's very good, but I don't know its origin..

...and what does this have to do with ghosts? :)

It's attributed to the Buddha and quoted on one of the Dalai Lama 'GOTARO' sites, but good luck finding it in the suttas/sutras.

Well, it doesn't have anything to do with ghosts, but who the hell wants to talk about that anyway? As for the quote, I guess the Dalai Lama gets things right by accident every now and then.....

I think that on very rare occasions Ghosts could very well be something actually experienced, rather than simply imagined.

The way I see it is as follows -

Light reflected from an object enters another object and becomes trapped inside. The light becomes trapped by entering the object at a particular angle that causes it to reflect back and forth between some crystalline structure inside the object or between atoms or even within a number of atoms. I suspect the later - light gets trapped within thousands of individual atoms and will remain inside until the atoms themselves decay –any light coming in would be held in a large number of atoms, all decaying at slightly different rates/stages, producing intermittent and unpredictable occasions where “ghosts” are seen.

The light can thus be contained inside, reflecting back and forth for centuries, eventually though, seeing as all things are in a constant state of partial change, the internal structure that holds the light image in a state of back-and-forth balance, gets corrupted and light from the past will slowly be released outside the object.

The light now released from the object is weak and requires smoke, smog or the right kind of light in order to provide the background required to see the loose hologram-like or lazer like light stream coming from the object.

The type of object that could contain trapped light images for centuries would be somewhat limited – it would need to be dense material. Crystal glass and silverware are prime candidates – particularly silverware, as the chemicals involved in polishing may change atoms during the polishing. As the atoms are changing light may enter but then as the chemicals interact a further change occurs that closes off the exit points for the light. As the polish decays it may reopen the exit points within the atomic structure from which light can flow. Don’t forget that atoms are really huge complex entities – there might be trillions of quarks arranged in patterns that the light could circulate around within the atom for literally millions of years.

This similar to the manner in which elements give off different colours, century after century, until the atom changes element type due to internal and external causes.

Dan Rowden wrote: As for the quote, I guess the Dalai Lama gets things right by accident every now and then.....

If you should ever discover its sutta source, be sure to pm it, please. Keep in mind that you might find it and not recognize it immediately. Pali translations are varied, to say the least. As an example, below are 5 translations of the exact same Pali words, the beginning of The Dharmapada:

1/ What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: our life is the creation of our mind.

2/Mind is the forerunner of states. Mind is chief; mind-made are they.

3/Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought.

4/Phenomena are preceded by the heart, ruled by the heart, made of the heart.

5/We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world.

Dan, could you start a new post for that please? I want to talk about this.


I like jamesh's idea, but I am not a scientific person, so I would like to see what others have to say.

Borommakot wrote:Dan, could you start a new post for that please? I want to talk about this.

Borommakot-

I apologize for the following post, but I am posting off-topic anyway just in case Dan does not start a new thread on the matter.

Kow,

I'm impressed. You actually have done some research and can think. Thank you for sharing this.

Better than usual, but you're not quite there yet. This is a fair response to your post and you are welcome.

Borommakot,

I'm not sure why you're asking me to start a new thread about something. You can do that yourself any time you want.

Elizabeth,

I already knew Kow was intelligent and could do research. The quote I asked him to source is something he used in his sig at another eastern philosophy board a while back. It's not hard to put a person's usename in Google and track their history, should they have any.

Kow,

Just so you know, I made the remark about the Dalai Lama because I have little regard for Tibetan Buddhism. Because of the quality of Buddhism in general it certainly contains some valuable material but by and large I think it's probably the crappiest form of Buddhism in existence. And before you ask I think Zen is the best (and no, I don't mean westernised Zen).

Dan Rowden

Dan,

The reason for your remark was a given. We agree. Even though some of the mystic poets wrote some truly profound and beautiful stuff (Sarahas Treasury of Song etc.); there's no evidence that the "There is self and there is truth" piece came from Tibetan Buddhism.

Tibetan Buddhism never really cast off the influences of indigenous religions (e.g. Bon) which left it embracing many rather insipid and foolish superstitions, whereas a tradition like Zen was fortunate enough to have been influenced by something of the quality of Taoism (yeah, I know I should now be calling it Daoism but some habits die hard).

Dan Rowden wrote:
Elizabeth,

I already knew Kow was intelligent and could do research... It's not hard to put a person's usename in Google and track their history, should they have any.

Dan,

I did not know. I was making an acknowledgement to kow as a form of apology. I did not mean this as any kind of sleight against you.

I did a google search too, mostly to find out what, if anything, "kowtaaia" means. I thought there might be a philosophical reference. I did not assume that other posters with the SN kowtaaia were the same one. I google my own SN sometimes, and not every wannabealot out there is me.

Liz,

All that you had to do was ask. Keep on wiping thought away as it arises.

I believe "kowtaaia" is a Pali word, the literal translation of which is: "smartarse Buddhistic guy from Quebec"

But I might just be guessing ;)