So_crates

So instead of looking at the fact that its your ego, we'll accuse dissenters of damage control, right? You say you stand for truth, yet your chosen method of truth means nothing to you. Note: The context was how Jesus adjusted his language according to his audience so they would better recieve his message: From the Batteries not included thread in About the Way: Hmmm. Commandment. Because God so loved the world He commanded his only begotten son...doesn't work either, yet gee, that's what he wrote in the book. Charity is kind, and that's commanded.. hey, I'm trying my best to use your logic, Johniam, but it keeps breaking down. But then thats what happens when you try to make facts fit preconcieved notions, rather than looking at the facts objectively and then developing opinions from out of the facts. Also, here's command's definition in its verbal form: ...to issue an order or orders (source). Wall, stomp on puppies and call me Lucky, that almost sounds like what I said. SoCrates Quite a few contradictions there. I find it interesting a person who talks about the power of words would refuse to adjust his commun ication to serve his purpose, yet has no qualm about adjusting his words to serve his purpose. I also find it interesting that a person who is the self appointed defender of the truth would even change meanings in the bible when it suits his ability to continue an argument. Which proves to me that this isn't about wanting the truth to be known or about wanting the other side of the story to be heard. This is about your ego. You an ego boost from derailing threads: "Look I can take the focus off the subject and put it on me." Let me guess, you don't get enough attention at IRL, so you come here and derail threads to "be in the limelight." It helps to explain why you take general statements personally. That would, also, go a long way to explain why you think everybody misrepresents you: its not about the thread is it? Its about YOU. AS I said in an earlier post, none of this helps your credibility. SoCrates

Nothing at all. It just puts everything in perspective. As I said many times, everything we have is on loan--its not going with us when we die--so how important is it, really? When we're gone, things will continue as they always have, so how important is politics, or philosophy, or economics? That we would waste our time--nothing more than a fast and furious footrace when you think about it-- putting so much emphasis on shadows--things that really have no substance--I guess is part of that grand cosmic practical joke. I mean consider: the people we meet on this forum are shadows. Oh they have names, families, jobs, ect. But what do we really know of them? A screen name and whatever information they offer. Think of life as being a forum in virtual reality. They too have things that are unknown to us. Some have whole lives we never see. Yet, like this forum, the people in it are real, but we only know of them what they offer. SoCrates

Or as someone else put it, don't take life seriously, you'll never get out of it alive. SoCrates

Here's another person who had it figured out, for a brief moment... SoCrates

SoCrates

Rascal Wars? It certainly would go pretty far in explaining why Rascal's avatar is Yoda. :) SoCrates

I can see the Saint Vic fruit doesn't fall very far from the tree. Stepping on people? Getting others to join them in stomping? God? To use an old ministry chestnut: which god? SoCrates

Divert, divert, divert. It doesn't say anything about me: as you recall, your the one that brought up personal attacks, not me. Remember: Just giving you both sides of the story. Your response to Bramble tells me you were unaware of the other side. Speaking of the other side of the story, as I said, given time I could come up with more examples of Johniam being abusive: In the time I've been on this forum, the first of December of last year, he's also called people that disagree with him "bitter" and "butt kissers." Not to mention accusing people of having a "forked tongue." So, if your trying to get rid of personal attacks, maybe you should talk to the other side, huh? SoCrates

And, of course, since you "disagree with extreme prejudice" (your words, not mine), Johniam has never made a personal attack, right? These are just two. If I worked at it I could come up with more. Pot and kettle, dude. Pot and kettle. Refresh my memory: what was that you were saying about intellectual honesty? SoCrates

Another strawman argument. Did I say you? As Shakespeare said, "Methinks thouist protests too much." What's up? Guilty conscious? And I will concede: I made an error. It shouldn't be "As God ordered us to" it should be "As God commanded us to" Two commandments remember: Love God, Love your neighbor. (Matt. 22:37-40): Hmmm. Commandment. Because God so loved the world He commanded his only begotten son...doesn't work either, yet gee, that's what he wrote in the book. Charity is kind, and that's commanded.. hey, I'm trying my best to use your logic, Johniam, but it keeps breaking down. But then thats what happens when you try to make facts fit preconcieved notions, rather than looking at the facts objectively and then developing opinions from out of the facts. Also, here's command's definition in its verbal form: ...to issue an order or orders (source). Wall, stomp on puppies and call me Lucky, that almost sounds like what I said. SoCrates

He would probably commend me for having the proper boundries: allowing you to be free to do what you choose to do, but being assertive enough to not allow you to infringe on my rights and leaving myself free to choose. SoCrates

Which is a lot of why he gets flamed. He just too subborn to admit it to himself. SoCrates

No, I'm not a doctor, nor was a a doctor. Being a writer, I've studied a lot of psychology. Being highly sensitive, I usually recognize pattern others don't. As you recall, this whole thing started because Johniam challanged me, saying I didn't have any ideas what his belif system was. As he's learned, hopefully, I have a better idea than he's giving me credit for. @Tony, its an interesting game: you have to be an expert or carry some sort degree to be able to offer a qualified opinion. In that spirit, let's follow your logic: One of your first post was on how much you loved us and wanted us to have eternal life. In this thread you've expressed concern that we've thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Are you an ordained minister? What qualifies you to be concerned about my personal affairs? Then, by your logic, its not your problem whether or not I have eternal life or whether or not I've thrown out the baby with the bathwater. That's between me and God. Johniam, keeps trying to sell us on how, though he did some bad things, Saint Vic was just a human being that made mistakes. Is Johniam a psychiatrist? What qualifies him to present that opinion? Does Johniam know any of the victims? Then what qualifies him to poo-poo people when they speak of the pain Saint Vic caused? Also, according to you logic, he's in no position to render a judgement. So where are we? Here's where I stand: you want to drink Saint Vic's Kool-Aid, feel free to. Its your problem. But don't expect me to drink it and certainly don't try and ram it down my throat. I don't appreciate it. SoCrates

Did you check the source site in #61? Bet you didn't. Experience teaches me your not one to verify information. Which search engine did you use? I googled "polarity response" and the first article was by Dr. Rick Kirschner. The next was a microphone definition in Wikipedia. The next led to an NLP site (No mention of Tony Robbins, however). Just for your edification Tony Robbins isn't NLP, he is however the most recognized face of NLP. NLP was started by psychatrist Richard Bandler and a linguist John Grinder. Also, are you saying the source makes the information or phenomenon invalid? In the old political forum, you admitted you disagreed with people with "extreme prejudice." Is that the case here? Remember this from the political pushing and shoving thread? Because, if your using extreme prejudice,disagreeing to disagree because of the person, that pretty much invalidates any argument you can offer. Also: You tried to tell me Charlie Sykes was a liar, it was confirmed he was telling the truth. You tried to tell me the WI legislatures getting threatening emails was a false flag operation, it was later confirmed a teacher sent the emails (source). You tried to tell me Lerner was no longer with SEIU, Wade Rathke later confirmed he was still with SEIU in something like "injury reserve" in the NFL. (source) Your batting 1.000 SoCrates

Both in the mix right. But what's the focus? Are you doing what your doing out of greed (wanting greater and greater rewards) and possibly ego (I worked for my rewards harder than you did) or out of love (as God orders us to). SoCrates

Strategy, adjustment. Potato, poetatoe. Its all the same. I don't know if you realize how much your polarity response is damaging your credibility. Just in this thread: Then a few posts later: Now its: You don't see the contradictions here? Before you act on the urge to tell people the truth, don't you think you should get you story straight? Like I said, it not only damages credibility, but it makes you very predictable. I know whatever I tell you, you going to try to say the opposite is true. I told you you were a polarity responder not to put you down, but so you would be aware of the behavior and have some control over it. For years and years I had a fierce temper. Then one day I picked up The Gifted Adult and reallized I was a highly sensitive person. Being highly sensitive, which is borderline autistic, I take in more information than the average joe. As a result, its an easy system to overwhelm. Once I realized my temper came from being overwhelmed, I gained more control over it. If I was feeling irratable, it was a simple matter of letting someone know I was being overwhelmed or withdrawing myself from the situation for a few minutes. Knowing the problem, gave me greater control over the problem. The same thing I'm trying to do for you. SoCrates

Oh, way back with Colin Baker and Jelly Babies. Guess I still got the wrong Doctor: SoCrates

Was it when the Doctor and Martha went back to Shakespeares time? SoCrates

Or from Yeats' The Second Coming: TURNING and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; SoCrates

Of course, its called enthropy (definition). Or as someone once put it to me: the universe has a tendancy toward maximum randomness. It takes energy to organize (have things in their right place) As less and less energy becomes available (enthropy: things moving to their lowest level of energy) more and more disorder occurs. Things get more and more out of their place. SoCrates