Sky flower (was Re: FYI to Dharmatroll)
Tang Huyen
Love wrote:
> dharm...@my-deja.com:
>
> >Well, I work with whatever I've got, and I'm
> >going to have fun in some way or another, no
> >matter what folks post. I have no complaints;
> >but I'll complain anyway.
>
> I was wondering why I liked you, but now I
> know. :)
With all his ostentatious anger, bitterness and
agitation, DharmaTroll, like Fu, is only indulging
in a long-running joke (humour) and is merely
showing off his talent at play-acting, fluffing out
an extended fantasy. The Church, which is the
common target of their epic volcanic crusade, has
never done them wrong. Zip zero zilch. The
barrage of bombardment is mere cream-puff, all
for fun, good, clean fun, to avenge purely
imagined offences. Everything is just for show.
Mere fluff. Online shadow boxing at its finest
(and flimsiest). There is no reality to it. It only
appears to appear. A sky flower.
<<I work with whatever I've got>>. They should
go to Hollywood.
Tang Huyen
Charles E Hardwidge
--
Charles E Hardwidge
DharmaTroll
wrote:
> Love wrote:
> > dharmatr...@my-deja.com:
>
> > >Well, I work with whatever I've got, and I'm
> > >going to have fun in some way or another, no
> > >matter what folks post. I have no complaints;
> > >but I'll complain anyway.
>
> > I was wondering why I liked you, but now I
> > know. :)
>
> With all his ostentatious anger, bitterness and
> agitation, DharmaTroll, like Fu,
Well, there's no anger, no bitterness, and no agitation: just boredom,
an obnoxious streak, and a lot of irony and satire.
And I don't see any of those awful traits in Fu either. Not only the
God stuff, but now the Tang-Banger is projecting all sorts of emotions
that he's probably feeling himself but won't express because he has to
keep up his appearance of serenity so that he can pretend he's more
enlightened than anyone else. Poor Fluff-boy!
Tang, what have you to say of yourself?
> Zip zero zilch.
What about all the silly things you make up about Fu and me?
> The barrage of bombardment is mere cream-puff,
> all for fun, good, clean fun, to avenge purely
> imagined offences. Everything is just for show.
> Mere fluff. Online shadow boxing at its finest
> (and flimsiest). There is no reality to it. It only
> appears to appear. A sky flower.
Ever tried being authentic and making real friends instead of just
babbling mere fluff and making up fake bios "just for show"? I mean,
you've even admitted that you just make this crap up, "in closed loop"
as you say.
> <<I work with whatever I've got>>.
> They should go to Hollywood.
>
> Tang Huyen
Well, it's been done: the Hollywood version of Fu and DharmaTroll are
Penn and Teller; and their show, now in a successful fifth season, is
aptly titled "Bullshit!"
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/about.do
<<Renowned master showmen Penn & Teller deliver a high-octane, weird,
wacky, entertaining journey through some bizarre territory that no one
else is brave enough to touch, with this Showtime reality series. By
their own admission, Penn & Teller have been dying to do a show like
this.
Confirmed skeptics and pro-science atheists (they refer to God as "an
imaginary friend"), these magicians are big fans of the art of
debunking. Whether demonstrating how history's most perplexing magic
acts are performed in their sell-out Las Vegas show and TV specials,
or producing their own series that pulls the wool off the public's
eyes, Penn & Teller's mission is to expose the truth to an otherwise
desperate and gullible public.
In Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, the crusaders utilize principles of magic
and trickery, as well as good old fashioned "hidden camera" sting
operations, to smoke out these nonsense peddlers and reveal how they
operate. They also call upon the scientific community for back-up.
Penn & Teller have discovered that the evidence debunking bogus
operatives exists in countless books, scientific papers, and
government-sponsored exposés — research that nobody else has presented
to the public with such zeal, passion, and conviction.
As our increasingly anti-intellectual, anti-science culture moves on
each day to new crackpot subject matters, Penn & Teller are there to
aggressively shoot down whack-jobs and fuzzy thinkers, no matter where
they originate. Their attitude of serious, sober contemplation can be
summed up in this quote about their current Las Vegas stage program:
"We have been doing magic together for 25 years and are so sick of it
we could spit. So, in the new show, we are moving into the field of
religion and will be performing real miracles!"
No matter how popular a form of bullshit is — and regardless of what
deep pockets or beloved figures support it — Penn & Teller are pit
bulls for the truth, poised to tear down these myths in the most jaw-
dropping fashion possible with their trademark wit and off-center
comic sensibilities. Beware faux miracle workers, yogis, dervishes,
televangelists, zealots and cult leaders. Penn & Teller have you in
their cross-hairs with a new series that strives to spark controversy,
headlines and water cooler fisticuffs!>>
As we just had a discussion here about tap water, here is a great
Penn&Teller skit on the silliness of buying bottled water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfPAjUvvnIc
--DharmaTroll
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > With all his ostentatious anger, bitterness and
> > agitation, DharmaTroll, like Fu,
>
> Well, there's no anger, no bitterness, and no agitation:
> just boredom, an obnoxious streak, and a lot of irony
> and satire.
>
> And I don't see any of those awful traits in Fu either.
> Not only the God stuff, but now the Tang-Banger is
> projecting all sorts of emotions that he's probably
> feeling himself but won't express because he has to
> keep up his appearance of serenity so that he can
> pretend he's more enlightened than anyone else.
> Poor Fluff-boy!
>
> Tang, what have you to say of yourself?
>
> > Zip zero zilch.
>
> What about all the silly things you make up about
> Fu and me?
<<a lot of irony and satire.>>
If what I say about Fu and you is because I "just
make this crap up", why should you resent and
begrudge it so much? I present what I say about
other people on these boards as satire and
caricature. You post anonymously, probably have
not met anybody here face to face, probably
nobody knows your legal name and address, so
why should you care about mere words on the
screen? I post with my legal name, people go to
the web site of my employer to look me up, and
I don't bother. I even have consistently invited
people to say whatever they want to say to me
and about me, so long as everything is kept
onboard and to mere words on the screen.
Fu goes offboard to turn people in to authorities,
like the FBI, then goes onboard to boast about it.
Now that is legitimate cause for complaint. (This
side of him -- gun-owning, law-and-order
redneck -- is directly opposite to the anarchist,
anti-government side that he often puts up and
makes such a show of; Texans say about the
Texas weather that if you don't like it, just wait
five minutes, so if you don't like Fu at any moment,
just wait five minutes).
With all your claimed training in vipassana, and
from a famous master, you may want to learn how
to take mere words on the screen. It takes nothing.
Tang Huyen
Keynes
wrote:
>As we just had a discussion here about tap water, here is a great
>Penn&Teller skit on the silliness of buying bottled water:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfPAjUvvnIc
Bottled water is healthier than soft drinks or beer.
That may be how some folks got into it. But then
came the hype. The emperor is naked - and ugly!
My son worked briefly at a water bottler in Champagne
which sells to walmart. They made two kinds, tap and distilled.
My wife and son filter their water by the pitcher full.
Our tap water smells fishy from time to time. (Strange
because it comes from a deep well miles from the lake.)
The town water comes from the lake, and has boil orders
from time to time, and excessive sediment in spite of a
brand new treatment plant here on the lake. That may be
the reason our local coke bottling plant closed.
I don't even drink water. Just coffee (from tap water),
dr.pepper, and sherry. Sometimes I open a can and see oil
floating on the soda. But it's at no charge so I don't complain.
Nobody in Particular
Troll to Keynes:
"Ya drive your own spawn to near suicide and -I'm- the sociopath?"
That doesn't sound like a joke to me.
That's a vicious, hateful remark, something cupcake would have said.
DharmaTroll
> Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote:
>
> > Love wrote:
>
> >> dharmatr...@my-deja.com:
>
Nah, you're the one trying to spread hatred by quoting me out of
context, Mr. Cupcake 2.0. If anyone reads the posts between Keynes and
me for years, Keynes has said much, much harsher things to me, and he
doesn't mean anything hateful either. You just wanna stir up hatred
and spread gossip, Nobody. The only hater around here is you.
--DharmaTroll
Evelyn
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:k3h6l5dmhurjo1npn...@4ax.com...
There are citrus oils in soda. Minicule amounts, but enough to see on the
top.
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
Evelyn
"Nobody in Particular" <nob...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hivij0$d35$5...@news.eternal-september.org...
Cupcake could be mean, but not really mean in his heart.
DharmaTroll
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:46:07 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >As we just had a discussion here about tap water, here is a great
> >Penn&Teller skit on the silliness of buying bottled water:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfPAjUvvnIc
>
> Bottled water is healthier than soft drinks or beer.
The Mayflower landed at Plymouth and didn't keep going because they
ran out of beer! Water had a bad reputation in seventeenth-century
Europe, where much of it was polluted, and many colonists expected a
similar situation in America. Also, beer kept well at sea, whereas
water fouled in wooden barrels. "We could not take time for further
search or consideration; our victuals being much spent, especially our
beer". Just about anything is healthier than soft drinks, but beer (in
small amounts) is quite good for you.
> That may be how some folks got into it. But then
> came the hype. The emperor is naked - and ugly!
>
> My son worked briefly at a water bottler in Champagne
> which sells to walmart. They made two kinds, tap and distilled.
>
> My wife and son filter their water by the pitcher full.
That's cheap to do, and folks tend to think it tastes better, and it
filters out lots of stuff which may be harmful over decades of
ingesting it.
> Our tap water smells fishy from time to time. (Strange
> because it comes from a deep well miles from the lake.)
> The town water comes from the lake, and has boil orders
> from time to time, and excessive sediment in spite of a
> brand new treatment plant here on the lake. That may be
> the reason our local coke bottling plant closed.
>
> I don't even drink water. Just coffee (from tap water),
> dr.pepper, and sherry. Sometimes I open a can and see oil
> floating on the soda. But it's at no charge so I don't complain.
Soft drinks have high fructose corn syrup, which is not only just
empty calories with no nutrients, but a good way to get diabetes, as
normal sugar or honey is a disaccharide, broken down by enzymes into
equal amounts of glucose and fructose; so when you dump all that
already broken-down sugar, and an over-abundance of just the fructose,
it really makes your body stress over metabolizing it. But it's cheap
and made from corn, and that's why it's in soft drinks. I avoid it
just like I avoid trans-fats, and I never drink sodas, only beers, and
preferably dark ones.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
wrote:
> DharmaTroll wrote:
> > Tang Huyen:
>
> > > With all his ostentatious anger, bitterness and
> > > agitation, DharmaTroll, like Fu,
>
> > Well, there's no anger, no bitterness, and no agitation:
> > just boredom, an obnoxious streak, and a lot of irony
> > and satire.
>
> > And I don't see any of those awful traits in Fu either.
> > Not only the God stuff, but now the Tang-Banger is
> > projecting all sorts of emotions that he's probably
> > feeling himself but won't express because he has to
> > keep up his appearance of serenity so that he can
> > pretend he's more enlightened than anyone else.
> > Poor Fluff-boy!
>
> > Tang, what have you to say of yourself?
>
> > > Zip zero zilch.
>
> > What about all the silly things you make up about
> > Fu and me?
>
>> all for fun, good, clean fun, to avenge purely
>> imagined offences. Everything is just for show.
>> Mere fluff. Online shadow boxing at its finest
>> (and flimsiest). There is no reality to it. It only
>> appears to appear. A sky flower.
>
>
> If what I say about Fu and you is because I "just
> make this crap up", why should you resent and
> begrudge it so much?
I don't "resent or begrudge". I make fun of your neurotic rants. Your
explanation as to why I reply is simply wrong. You try to play the
game of "if you point out that I'm full of shit, than I win, because
that means that you have 'crashed' or 'blown up'." But that's as
nonsensical as your original misinterpretation! Rather, I'm having fun
making fun of your mock-slander. And my making fun of it isn't
evidence that it must be true, as you try to spin it.
> I present what I say about other people on these
> boards as satire and caricature.
As do I.
> You post anonymously, probably have
> not met anybody here face to face, probably
> nobody knows your legal name and address,
At least a half dozen posters know my real name and my real address,
because they've added me as a friend on Facebook. Besides Evelyn and
Jigme, Robbie, Raan, Julian, Davinci, Lita (liltara from 10 years ago)
and a couple more posters here all are facebook friends of mine and
know my real name and address. You can friend me to if you wish:
http://www.facebook.com/tvtom
or just search for "dharmatroll", as I think I put DharmaTroll as my
maiden name, so it wouldn't be visible but would show up in a search.
Or try 'tvtom' if that doesn't work.
> I post with my legal name, people go to
> the web site of my employer to look me up,
I don't share Facebook with employers or co-workers, as I don't want
them to know that I smoke pot and so forth. Here I say whatever I
wish. And didn't you have all sorts of paranoia and think usenet folks
were following you and all that, Tang? I've never had any problems
like that. Really, Tang, all this effort to discredit me, and then
your claims that I'm some kind of brainwashed operative for the Pope.
I'm surprised you don't still call me Jigme!
> I even have consistently invited
> people to say whatever they want to say to me
> and about me, so long as everything is kept
> onboard and to mere words on the screen.
>
> Fu goes offboard to turn people in to authorities,
> like the FBI, then goes onboard to boast about it.
> Now that is legitimate cause for complaint. (This
> side of him -- gun-owning, law-and-order
> redneck -- is directly opposite to the anarchist,
> anti-government side that he often puts up and
> makes such a show of; Texans say about the
> Texas weather that if you don't like it, just wait
> five minutes, so if you don't like Fu at any moment,
> just wait five minutes).
I have no idea what you're talking about, or who Fu has turned in to
the FBI. As for me, I often online threaten to shoot people, to kick
their butts, drop anvils on them, make swiss cheese out of them with
my shotgun, and so forth; but in real life I don't own any guns, and
in fact I've never shot or even held a gun in my life. When I was 12
years old in summer camp I took an archery class and shot straw
targets with colored concentric circles with a bow and arrow, and
that's the extent of it. And I don't even eat dead animals, with the
exception of fish, out of concern for violence against animals, as
well as nutrition and environmental concerns.
> With all your claimed training in vipassana, and
> from a famous master, you may want to learn how
> to take mere words on the screen. It takes nothing.
>
> Tang Huyen
But I already take them as 'fluff', and I laugh at everyone, but I
like to play hard and argue intensely and stifle the bad guys anyway.
It's fun. Like that whack job 'Nobody' who claims to not read my posts
yet still responds to me, and quotes me out of context. It doesn't
really bother me, and in real life I ignore bitter folks who gossip
about me, but here I do enjoy embarrassing him and pointing out that
it's his own bitterness and hate that he reads into my satire, and I
enjoy getting him to freak out even more, just as Bugs Bunny likes to
make Elmer red in the face. So far these last few months posting, I
haven't been the least bit upset and anyone, but I make sure I respond
intensely and stir up trouble, because it's fun to do so.
And I don't go around paranoid that Fu is a redneck who's gonna turn
me in to the FBI, the way you do. Sometimes I really think you're a
fruitcake, Tang!
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
> "Nobody in Particular" <nob...@invalid.com> wrote in messagenews:hivij0$d35$5...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>> dharmatr...@my-deja.com:
>
> >>> >Well, I work with whatever I've got, and I'm
> >>> >going to have fun in some way or another, no
> >>> >matter what folks post. I have no complaints;
> >>> >but I'll complain anyway.
>
> >>> I was wondering why I liked you, but now I
> >>> know. :)
>
> >> They should go to Hollywood.
>
> > Troll to Keynes:
> > "Ya drive your own spawn to near suicide and -I'm- the sociopath?"
>
> > That doesn't sound like a joke to me.
> > That's a vicious, hateful remark, something cupcake would have said.
>
> Cupcake could be mean, but not really mean in his heart.
>
> --
>
> Evelyn
>
> "Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
> heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
Nah, Evelyn, just as Bill Nobody radiates his own hatred with his
gossip about others, you just radiate your own granny compassion into
rat bastards like Cupcake. Yeah, of course he had redeeming value, as
everyone does, but like Bill Nobody, he was a jerk. And Tang just
enabled him, praising Cupcake as being near-enlightened every time he
would insult you or other Tibetan practitioners. Nice of you to be so
loving and forgiving, Granny, but Petie Cupcake and Bill Nobody can be
rat bastard scumbags nonetheless.
Petie Cupcake:
<<Pema, you scum! -- the point is that you vajrayani, murderous
cut-throats did that to Tang!>>
Granny Ev:
<<Cuppie my little deluded little pumpkin...... I have not heard of
ANY vajrayana practitioner who did this, or who even would contemplate
doing this. I never got the word that anyone ever owned up to it but I
highly doubt it was a "vajrayani". You see, such behavior is waaaay
against our vajrayana principles. OTOH, you well know that Tang has
been harassing us on ALL the tibetan newsgroups, singling tibetan
practitioners out for his special harassment for a long long time.
So if anybody has been a 'cutthroat' he has been one himself. He has
been rather (ahem) 'provocative' you know.....Hey, cups......What goes
around comes around.>>
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
wrote:
>On Jan 17, 11:47 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
>wrote:
>
>> With all your claimed training in vipassana, and
>> from a famous master, you may want to learn how
>> to take mere words on the screen. It takes nothing.
>>
>> Tang Huyen
>
>But I already take them as 'fluff', and I laugh at everyone, but I
>like to play hard and argue intensely and stifle the bad guys anyway.
>It's fun. Like that whack job 'Nobody' who claims to not read my posts
>yet still responds to me, and quotes me out of context. It doesn't
>really bother me, and in real life I ignore bitter folks who gossip
>about me, but here I do enjoy embarrassing him and pointing out that
>it's his own bitterness and hate that he reads into my satire, and I
>enjoy getting him to freak out even more, just as Bugs Bunny likes to
>make Elmer red in the face. So far these last few months posting, I
>haven't been the least bit upset and anyone, but I make sure I respond
>intensely and stir up trouble, because it's fun to do so.
>
Nobody believes that you have any self control.
You actually are what you pretend to be. And in any
case, your behavior is not buddhist right speech nor
compassionate.
You claim to hurt others just for fun, just like the
mythical devil. We don't need him if we have you, eh?
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll wrote:
> But I already take them as 'fluff', and I laugh at everyone, but I
> like to play hard and argue intensely and stifle the bad guys anyway.
> It's fun. Like that whack job 'Nobody' who claims to not read my posts
> yet still responds to me, and quotes me out of context. It doesn't
> really bother me, and in real life I ignore bitter folks who gossip
> about me, but here I do enjoy embarrassing him and pointing out that
> it's his own bitterness and hate that he reads into my satire, and I
> enjoy getting him to freak out even more, just as Bugs Bunny likes to
> make Elmer red in the face. So far these last few months posting, I
> haven't been the least bit upset and anyone, but I make sure I respond
> intensely and stir up trouble, because it's fun to do so.
>
> And I don't go around paranoid that Fu is a redneck who's gonna turn
> me in to the FBI, the way you do. Sometimes I really think you're a
> fruitcake, Tang!
Fu and you seem like cases of the survival
regimen, but in exacerbated form, something
like the survival regimen on steroids. Keep
up the good work. You'll join him in a few
years.
Tang Huyen
zenworm
Appledog
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:35:23 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
At least he's honest. You and some of the others here are snakes in
the grass all the same, but you hide your evil - even, at times, from
yourselves - such are the depths to which you have fallen and cannot
get up.
-
Nobody in Particular
Hurting others just for fun....
Like pulling the wings off flies or drowning kittens, and laughing.
That's how I picture that guy.
Oh, yeah, and accusing others of hating him when they point out his
actions.
zenworm
Tag Team Trolling?
^~
DharmaTroll
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:35:23 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 17, 11:47 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
> >wrote:
>
> >> With all your claimed training in vipassana, and
> >> from a famous master, you may want to learn how
> >> to take mere words on the screen. It takes nothing.
>
> >> Tang Huyen
>
> >But I already take them as 'fluff', and I laugh at everyone, but I
> >like to play hard and argue intensely and stifle the bad guys anyway.
> >It's fun. Like that whack job 'Nobody' who claims to not read my posts
> >yet still responds to me, and quotes me out of context. It doesn't
> >really bother me, and in real life I ignore bitter folks who gossip
> >about me, but here I do enjoy embarrassing him and pointing out that
> >it's his own bitterness and hate that he reads into my satire, and I
> >enjoy getting him to freak out even more, just as Bugs Bunny likes to
> >make Elmer red in the face. So far these last few months posting, I
> >haven't been the least bit upset and anyone, but I make sure I respond
> >intensely and stir up trouble, because it's fun to do so.
>
> Nobody believes that you have any self control.
I don't even believe that I have a self.
> You actually are what you pretend to be.
Nah, you actually are what you pretend to be.
A kook who thinks the world is an illusion.
> And in any case, your behavior is not
> buddhist right speech nor compassionate.
I don't accept your nutter judgments.
They are as worthless as your nutter opinions.
> You claim to hurt others just for fun,
No, I claim that I don't hurt anyone.
Tang's right: I just type words on a screen.
Nice try, to try to get the whiners after me.
Won't work, nutter dude.
You have gone from night to day, claiming that rocks and stars don't
exist; and now you're making all sorts of stuff up that you read into
words: almost as much of a fruitcake as Tang. Ya better start trusting
the docs and takin' your meds.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
>
> Hurting others just for fun....
> Like pulling the wings off flies or drowning kittens, and laughing.
Nah, you're the kitten drowner, Bill -- Keynes sucked you in, and
you're spilling the dirty laundry of your own mind. Go ahead, keep
the hate images, feed that caricature so you can project more of your
fantasies. Go for it, Cupcake 2.0!
> That's how I picture that guy.
That's the picture you draw on the empty screen I give you. Keep
going, cuppie.
> Oh, yeah, and accusing others of hating him when
> they point out his actions.
I don't need to accuse you of anything. You say:
> That's how I picture that guy.
> Like pulling the wings off flies or drowning kittens
That's how Nazi's picture Jews.
I don't need to add anything to that.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
wrote:
I'll join Fu in a few years?
Ya mean you're gonna call me "Fu (The Fake DharmaTroll)"?
--DharmaTroll
zenworm
fubar
mud wrestling and steroids don't mix
(think of a bar of soap in very strong hands)
*pop* goes the weasel
^~
Keynes
wrote:
>On Jan 17, 4:52 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:35:23 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jan 17, 11:47 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> With all your claimed training in vipassana, and
>> >> from a famous master, you may want to learn how
>> >> to take mere words on the screen. It takes nothing.
>>
>> >> Tang Huyen
>>
>> >But I already take them as 'fluff', and I laugh at everyone, but I
>> >like to play hard and argue intensely and stifle the bad guys anyway.
>> >It's fun. Like that whack job 'Nobody' who claims to not read my posts
>> >yet still responds to me, and quotes me out of context. It doesn't
>> >really bother me, and in real life I ignore bitter folks who gossip
>> >about me, but here I do enjoy embarrassing him and pointing out that
>> >it's his own bitterness and hate that he reads into my satire, and I
>> >enjoy getting him to freak out even more, just as Bugs Bunny likes to
>> >make Elmer red in the face. So far these last few months posting, I
>> >haven't been the least bit upset and anyone, but I make sure I respond
>> >intensely and stir up trouble, because it's fun to do so.
>>
>> Nobody believes that you have any self control.
>
>I don't even believe that I have a self.
Right. That's why you're so self defensive,
as sensitive as a fat adolescent girl with zits.
As ready to pop as an overblown ego balloon.
>> You actually are what you pretend to be.
>
>Nah, you actually are what you pretend to be.
>A kook who thinks the world is an illusion.
>
>> And in any case, your behavior is not
>> buddhist right speech nor compassionate.
>
>I don't accept your nutter judgments.
>They are as worthless as your nutter opinions.
And for you, buddhism is worthless too.
Apparently, buddhism has made you an asshole.
Fear and force are your ideals, but you are
overmatched by just about everybody.
>> You claim to hurt others just for fun,
>
>No, I claim that I don't hurt anyone.
Ah. The Bart Simpson Defense.
That is incredible. I bet you don't think you're lying.
And that somebody somewhere will believe you.
Hell. You don't even believe it yourself.
>Tang's right: I just type words on a screen.
>Nice try, to try to get the whiners after me.
>Won't work, nutter dude.
If words on the screen don't work, why do you read them,
completely lose your mind, and then write them?
You are flailing around for any theory (that you don't
even believe) to excuse your ignorant hateful behavior.
It won't work. Try something else. Like being an adult.
>You have gone from night to day, claiming that rocks and stars don't
>exist; and now you're making all sorts of stuff up that you read into
>words: almost as much of a fruitcake as Tang. Ya better start trusting
>the docs and takin' your meds.
>
>--DharmaTroll
If you were half as smart as you think you are
you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.
But here you go, acting out mindlessly your
ignorance and hate. You say you don't hate?
Then why do you keep posting so hatefully?
Just how out to lunch can you possibly be?
You're not pretending to be an asshole.
You ARE an asshole. Own up to it, Tin Man.
DharmaTroll
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:38:18 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> >On Jan 17, 4:52 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:35:23 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> Nobody believes that you have any self control.
>
> >I don't even believe that I have a self.
>
> Right. That's why you're so self defensive,
> as sensitive as a fat adolescent girl with zits.
Nah, I just kick your butt for the fun of it, Nutter-d00d.
Tang already tried that one, the old "if you respond to my pooh-
flinging, then that means I must be right." Nope, Tang's
interpretation of my calling him on his poop is just more pooh-
flinging, and the same goes for you, Nutter-d00d. What's next?
> And for you, buddhism is worthless too.
> Apparently, buddhism has made you an asshole.
Just say that my Buddhist practice is worthless and that I'm an
asshole. That kind of stuff is probably what for years you've been
telling your depressed daughter and your schizophrenic son and your
narcissistic nephew and your autistic aunt and your catatonic cousins.
Once again, Nutter-d00d, your calling me an asshole just gives me more
information about your silly psyche.
> If words on the screen don't work, why do you read them,
Because you're always good for a laugh, Nutter-d00d, and I enjoy
making fun of and refuting your anti-rationality, anti-nature
solipsistic buffoonery. When you're too stupid, I ignore you.
> >You have gone from night to day, claiming that rocks and stars don't
> >exist; and now you're making all sorts of stuff up that you read into
> >words: almost as much of a fruitcake as Tang. Ya better start trusting
> >the docs and takin' your meds.
>
> If you were half as smart as you think you are
> you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.
> But here you go, acting out mindlessly your
> ignorance and hate. You say you don't hate?
> Then why do you keep posting so hatefully?
There you go question-begging again. Hateful folks interpret what I
say as hate. Satirical folks interpret me satirically. You're once
again describing your own interpretations of the Rorschach blots which
you see on the screen -- interpretations which come from, um, you. So
you've got to ask yourself, why do you project hatred into others?
Isn't it so that you may have an excuse to hate, to express that which
you first project? As Tang says, it's all "in closed loop". And I'm
happy to encourage you, Nutter-d00d. And I kick Tang's ass as a bonus,
by getting you and other whack jobs to 'crash' even more efficiently
than he can. You lose; Tang is lame. And I rule.
Muahahahahahhahahah
--DharmaTroll
halfawake
I'm drinking natural fructose or raw-sugar-based cola. and give it to
my kid too. yum. the raw sugar is still somewhat hard to break down,
but at least it ain't corn syrup!
Robert
= = = = =
Charles E Hardwidge
news:bc900a22-cdaa-457e...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> There you go question-begging again. Hateful folks interpret what I
> say as hate. Satirical folks interpret me satirically. You're once
> again describing your own interpretations of the Rorschach blots which
> you see on the screen -- interpretations which come from, um, you. So
> you've got to ask yourself, why do you project hatred into others?
> Isn't it so that you may have an excuse to hate, to express that which
> you first project? As Tang says, it's all "in closed loop". And I'm
> happy to encourage you, Nutter-d00d. And I kick Tang's ass as a bonus,
> by getting you and other whack jobs to 'crash' even more efficiently
> than he can. You lose; Tang is lame. And I rule.
>
> Muahahahahahhahahah
Tang misdirected everyone a few days ago now he's got you all arguing and
taking chunks out of each other again. The narcissistic piece of shit must
be giggling like a loon at fucking over these groups one more time. How many
more times before they're dead and *everyone* has left for good?
Oh, yeah. And leave that ego shit off. You're not as hot as you think you
are and it just gets annoying.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
DharmaTroll
wrote:
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
Charles, the 'ego shit' is satire, and I'm just waving a red towel to
get the flamers and nutters to take me at face value and hang
themselves with more accusations. Self-hating folks will confess their
dark shadowy sides by projecting it onto an 'other' to push off
against, and I'm good at providing that blank screen for them. They do
all the work, just like in aikido or judo.
The other key here is that after Tang 'misdirected' as you correctly
point out, I slipped in a genuine offer, and told him he's welcome to
add me as a friend on Facebook, as have a bunch of other folks (you'd
approve: on my FB page I post all the articles I've read that I like,
but only a single paragraph synopsis of them and a link). Anyway, in
his reply, Tang deleted my offer and just went back to repeating the
same old same old character attacks, hiding away in his 'closed loop'.
The dude can't handle real friends, and after meeting Fu in person, he
has to endlessly bash Fu and make up his own demonized caricature of
Fu to push him away. Tang truly is isolated "in closed loop".
And I simply don't think your fear is warranted, that stupid insulting
threads are going to chase away intelligent posters. There are always
stupid, insulting, and banal threads on Buddhist groups. Posters learn
to quickly glance at a thread or skip down and skim a post and then
move on when they aren't interested. There's no reason to read every
thread. Better for the end-user to do more editing than demand that
the posters stop posting crap. We all learn to do that after a while.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
It is not merely that sugar and other sweets are harmful, Robert; it
is what we are not eating that is causing us problems. Even natural
fructose or raw-sugar-based drinks cause us to be malnourished in
direct proportion to how much we consume them. They are partially to
blame for the high cancer and heart attack rates we see in America.
Even the bottled and boxed fruit juices that many children drink are a
poor food, with no significant nutrient density, which is the key
factor you should be looking at.
We need to enjoy sweets from fresh natural fruits and other plant
substances that supply us not just with carbohydrates for energy but
also with the full complement of indispensable substances (literally
thousands of phytochemicals) that prevent illnesses. Fruit is an
essential part of our diets. We have such a large area of our tongue
to taste sweets and a natural inclination to enjoy them because they
are a natural food for our species. Eating fresh fruit is an
indispensable requirement for us to maintain a high level of health.
Fruit consumption has been shown in numerous studies to offer our
strongest protection against certain cancers, especially oral and
esophageal, lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancer.
Researchers have discovered substances in fruit that have unique
effects on preventing aging and deterioration of the brain. Some
fruits, especially blueberries, are rich in anthocyanins and other
compounds having anti-aging effects (I just bought a ton of fresh
blueberries at Costco yesterday -- and no sodas! When they get
expensive I buy the frozen ones and use them in smoothies.) Studies
continue to provide evidence that fruit consumption is associated with
lowered mortality from all cancers combined. Eating fruit instead of
empty calorie sugars is vital to your health and longevity, and your
kid's too.
Just to illustrate how beneficial eating fruit is, consider this
important study. A sixty year study of about 5000 participants found
that those who were in the highest quartile of fruit consumption
during childhood were found to have 38 percent lower incidence of all
types of cancer as adults. Think about that next time you want to give
something sweet to your kid.
Try this one instead for your kid, Robert. Frozen mango, blended with
a little dried mango, soaked overnight in soy milk, blend up in a high
quality blender (I have an old 70's vita-mix I got on eBay which is
still going strong) with a little lemon and shredded coconut. You can
substitute many other fruits in place of the mango, too. Sometimes I
add a couple of tablespoons of peanut butter and unsweetened cocoa
powder to the mix as well, and it's insanely delicious.
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
wrote:
>On Jan 17, 11:31 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
Not a trace of self-righteousness in you.
Not a bit of striking out at others either.
As this reply clearly shows. Thanks for
clearing everything up.
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll wrote:
> "Kitty P"
>
> > Satire is something that usually has a point of holding
> > a mirror up to an audience. When it is done on an
> > individual level, it often seems to carry aggression on
> > the part of the speaker. I am just not that posts about
> > Keynes daughter or Nobody (who is Bill and lives near
> > where I do - and is by the way not a scumbag or rat
> > bastard) meets satirical criteria. You happened to pick
> > two particularly introspective people who don't really
> > need your help. I seriously doubt that it either helps,
> > or actually bothers, either one of those people very
> > much, and it really does get tiresome.
> >
> > Kitty
> > Truth was the only daughter of Time. - Leonardo da
> > Vinci
>
> I'm not trying to give them any help (the only one I'm
> trying to help in this thread is Robert with his nasty sugar
> habits). Nor do I think either are rat bastards, just rather
> pathetic buffoons who project their neuroses onto others
> and are quick to make judgments. As for the fools, if they
> want to continue to be fools, then I'll make fun of them. If
> they shut up I'll forget about them and reply to other
> threads. If they want to be punching bags, I'll be happy to
> oblige them. If it gets tiresome, tell them to shut up. I 'lock
> in' DharmaTroll, so that he doesn't make choices. That's
> DharmaTroll's character: he bashes flamers until they shut
> up or run away. Once I create a character, I let the
> character be that character.
Like moths diving into the flame, the blowhards on
these boards keep charging in head first to bash
others in a totally unsophisticated, unsubtle manner,
in what I call "body combat", using their own
energy to beat up on others. This, as opposed to
the spiritual Judo that only uses energy of the
opponent to flip him or her. So the blowhards, like
Fu, DharmaTroll and Renli/Appledog, know only to
use their own energy to beat up on others, and at
length, they will burn out and crash in a huge and
spectacular crash. Fu's crash occurred six years
ago, minus a month (in Feb 2004). DharmaTroll
and Renli/Appledog will follow in his path in a few
years. Give them time, and they will hoist themselves
up with their own petard. Nobody is forcing
anything on them -- it is impossible to force anything
on anybody by mere words on the screen -- but they
themselves take it upon themselves to break
themselves voluntarily, in closed circle, by their own
energy. These boards are good demolition derbies,
and they fully intend to us them that way. Very
convenient and very neat. Nothing to complain about.
Everything fits. Everything co-breathes (conspires).
That said, satire and caricature, when used effectively,
can be used as spiritual Judo to get their intended
targets to flip on their own energy. A few mere words
on the screen, and the blowhards will flip themselves
on their own energy.
The people who are most enigmatic, like zenworm
and oxtail/Stumper, scarcely reveal anything about
themselves, other than their humour and levity, and
are very skilful at flipping the blowhards, with just a
few mere words on the screen. They put themselves
up as blank ciphers and merely mirror the blowhards
back to them, and the blowhards (who by definition
cannot stand their own images reflected back to them
by such empty mirros) ache at charging in to flip
themselves with their own energy in front of such
blank slates.
In that sense, Bill Pfeiffer (Nobody in Particular) and
Keynes are vastly less good at flipping the blowhards
than zenworm and oxtail/Stumper.
Tang Huyen
Keynes
<tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote:
If brevity is the soul of wit, you and I are out of luck.
Those who fail to perceive advice long or short
will not be moved. But it can be instructive to
more or less innocent bystanders. It's a fact of
nature that we can see others fairly well, and
ourselves not at all.
Lee Rudolph
>Like moths diving into the flame, the blowhards on
>these boards keep charging in head first to bash
>others in a totally unsophisticated, unsubtle manner,
>in what I call "body combat", using their own
>energy to beat up on others.
The simile which you invoke to begin this sentence
suggests an interesting direction for investigation.
I have read (and have no reason to doubt) that the
"light-circling" behavior of nocturnal moths, which
in the days of candles (or oil lamps without chimneys)
led to countless moth _autos da fe_, though now it
mostly annoys suburban householders, is an epiphenomenon
of an evolutionarily selected adaptive behavior, namely,
the use of the moon (whose light, when present, shines
essentially "from infinity") to navigate: presented with
a light source at finite (close) distance, the algorithm
("to fly in a straight line, keep the light-source at a
constant angle") that helps navigate correctly in the
conditions in which it was evolved fails inconveniently
(by producing loxodromic spirals, not straight lines)
and sometimes disastrously. Is some similar explanation
applicable to "the blowhards on these boards"? Is there
any way their firmware could be updated, do you think?
(I believe I reported here, some years back, on a talk
I'd heard by a fellow from Washington State who investigates
moth hovering. For his research, he cut antennae off
some moths, and demonstrated to his satisfaction that
they can't hover without the nanobiological gyroscopic
stabilizers contained therein. And *then* he restored
the antennae, and the moths' functionality--a miracle
of microsurgery, as it seemed to me, though I think
mostly glue was involved--and careful lining-up of
careful cuts. No firmware upgrades were available at
that time, but we live in hope.)
...
>In that sense, Bill Pfeiffer (Nobody in Particular) and
>Keynes are vastly less good at flipping the blowhards
>than zenworm and oxtail/Stumper.
The roads they are so muddy, We canna' gang about,
So roll me in your arms, love, And blow the candle out.
Lee Rudolph
Charles E Hardwidge
> And I simply don't think your fear is warranted, that stupid insulting
> threads are going to chase away intelligent posters. There are always
> stupid, insulting, and banal threads on Buddhist groups. Posters learn
> to quickly glance at a thread or skip down and skim a post and then
> move on when they aren't interested. There's no reason to read every
> thread. Better for the end-user to do more editing than demand that
> the posters stop posting crap. We all learn to do that after a while.
There is no market in a failed state.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Lee Rudolph
There were surely markets before (and therefore in the absence of)
states. Of course, a "failed state" is not the absence of a state.
But I think that the mode of failure could make a difference to the
persistence or re-emergence of markets (plural: of course the
existence of *a* totalizing market probably depends on the existence
of an active, totalizing, and in-its-own-terms non-failed, state).
All that literal analysis of your interesting axiom aside:
how do you see it (necessarily figuratively) applying to
these (or other) "Buddhist groups", which are in no way
literal states and in no way literal markets?
Lee Rudolph
Kitty P
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:KoydnfyzPawLH8nW...@supernews.com...
Perhaps it is because they are actually brave enough to be authentic.
Kitty
Wompom
news:d415n.18153$V_3...@newsfe09.iad...
TILT!
(Are girls actually allowed to play around here?)
;-)
>
> Kitty
Ever since I was a young boy,
I've played the silver ball.
From Soho down to Brighton
I must have played them all.
but I ain't seen nothing like him
In any amusement hall.
That deaf, dumb and blind kid
Sure plays a mean pinball!
He stands like a statue,
Becomes part of the machine.
Feeling all the bumpers
Always playing clean.
plays by intuition,
The digit counters fall
That deaf, dumb and blind kid
Sure plays a mean pinball!
He's a pinball wizard
There has to be a twist.
A pin ball wizard,
S'got such a supple wrist.
How do you think he does it?
I don't know!
What makes him so good?
ain't got no distractions
Can't hear no buzzers and bells,
Don't see no lights a flashin'
Plays by sense of smell.
Always gets the replay,
Never seen him fall,
That deaf, dumb and blind kid
Sure plays a mean pinball.
I thought I was
The Bally table king.
But I just handed
My pinball crown to him.
Even on my favorite table
He can beat my best.
His disciples lead him in
And he just does the rest.
He's got crazy flipper fingers
Never seen him fall.
That deaf, dumb and blind kid
Sure plays a mean pinball!
DharmaTroll
wrote:
>
> So the blowhards, like
> Fu, DharmaTroll and Renli/Appledog, know only to
> use their own energy to beat up on others, and at
> length, they will burn out and crash in a huge and
> spectacular crash. Fu's crash occurred six years
> ago, minus a month (in Feb 2004). DharmaTroll
> and Renli/Appledog will follow in his path
The biggest blowhard, the Tang-banger, spends most of his energy
trying to beat up on others, but he only beats up on fantasy
caricatures he creates, in closed loop, and make-believe bios, full of
alleged 'crashes' six years ago. What a bozo.
> zenworm and oxtail/Stumper, scarcely reveal
> anything about themselves, other than their
> humour and levity, and are very skilful at flipping
> the blowhards, with just a few mere words
On the contrary, these yipping pups just make cutesy fortune cookie
remarks, and are easily punted over the fence. Their little barbs and
insults are rather boring, and their one-liners not even worth
responding to.
However, they are useful to you as you praise them then they make one-
liner insults, which you follow up with long diatribes and
biographies, so they make good stooges for you.
> They put themselves up as blank ciphers and merely
> mirror the blowhards back to them,
Actually, that's my role and it works well, thank you.
With you especially, Tang-Banger, as you can't help but post long and
boring made-up stories about folks when you lose your serenity and go
into your Asperger's ranting mode, like, um, this post.
I suppose in real life you don't say a word to anyone, and are found
sneaking around in the stacks of libraries on Saturday nights, eh?
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
Tang takes ten paragraphs to say "I praise anyone who attacks my
mortal enemy, that alpha-male DharmaTroll, who one-ups me and gets me
to blow up get bent out of shape and rant for pages and pages about my
fantasy of his being the Pope's secret spy."
--DharmaTroll
Julian
Mentioning "brave" in the presence of Tang is a low blow.
Although he displays an admirable mastery of the Sutras and philosophy
he lacks the moral and physical courage to do more than take pot shots
from behind his safety blanket of the internet.
> Kitty
>
>
Wompom
--DharmaTroll
You see, not a game for girls...
(Unless of course you disagree?)
DharmaTroll
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
That's the problem I have playing with Tang, just as it was in high
school when my only social activity were the chess club on Friday
nights and Dungeons'n'Dragons on Saturday afternoons: when I play with
Asperger geeks and nerds all the time, we never get to meet girls, and
they don't wanna play with us.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
> "Kitty P" <kittyp2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d415n.18153$V_3...@newsfe09.iad...
> > "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
> >news:KoydnfyzPawLH8nW...@supernews.com...
> >> DharmaTroll wrote:
> >>> "Kitty P"
<Tang's drivel snipped>
>
> TILT!
>
> (Are girls actually allowed to play around here?)
>
> ;-)
I can't help but picture Tang and me as Leonard and Sheldon, and then
Penny walking into the room (The Big Bang Theory is the only comedy I
watch on TV):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMIxHaZzzJI
And here's one where Sheldon channels DharmaTroll:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eTUz61LNjo
And one where Sheldon channels Tang:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xgjUhEG3U
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
>
> Mentioning "brave" in the presence of Tang is a low blow.
>
> Although he displays an admirable mastery of the Sutras and philosophy
> he lacks the moral and physical courage to do more than take pot shots
> from behind his safety blanket of the internet.
Yeah, too bad the Tang-banger won't be a real person once in a while
and add me as a Facebook friend as some of the rest of you crazy folks
have.
--DharmaTroll
Lee Rudolph
Adding someone "as a Facebook friend" (particularly, perhaps, someone
known to one only by a pseudonym) is a notion of being "a real person"
with which I am happily unfamiliar. Perhaps Tang is too.
Lee Rudolph (but I see, of course, that you jest, ha ha)
DharmaTroll
Hah. But it would still probably be the closest Tang has ever got to
having a friend, eh?
--DharmaTroll
"While Mr. Kim, by virtue of youth and naiveté, has fallen prey to the
inexplicable need for human contact, let me step in and assure you
that my research will go on uninterrupted, and that social
relationships will continue to baffle and repulse me."
-Sheldon Cooper
Nobody in Particular
>
> In that sense, Bill Pfeiffer (Nobody in Particular)...
That's "Pfeifer" with one "f".
Most Pfeiffers spell it with 2 f's, which makes me a minority, but not
a federally recognized one.
zenworm
faceless
^~
Nobody in Particular
>
> I'm drinking natural fructose or raw-sugar-based cola. and give it
> to
> my kid too. yum. the raw sugar is still somewhat hard to break
> down, but at least it ain't corn syrup!
Try "Sucanat" - unprocessed evaporated cane juice.
Probably not any better than plain sugar, but great flavor.
Makes Indian Chai taste much more authentic.
zenworm
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
to be
or not to be
julian?
^~
zenworm
tractionless
^~
zenworm
> Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote:
>
> > In that sense, Bill Pfeiffer (Nobody in Particular)...
>
> That's "Pfeifer" with one "f".
> Most Pfeiffers spell it with 2 f's, which makes me a minority, but not
> a federally recognized one.
Pfff
^~
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll wrote:
> No, I claim that I don't hurt anyone.
> Tang's right: I just type words on a screen.
Right, you only type mere words on the
screen. Whatever you intention is or is not,
if somebody else (who may or may not be
your intended recipient) gets hurt or
harmed, only he or she is causing hurt or
harm to himself or herself. Your mere
words on the screen still have to be
interpreted by said person to cause hurt or
harm to said person, who then goes ahead
on his or her own to effect the hurt or
harm on himself or herself. You cannot
cause such hurt or harm, surely not
directly, by mere words on the screen. We
are all adults, we are all responsible for
ourselves. Nobody else is responsible for
us, especially if we play biggies and
meanies and barge around to beat up on
people. For their own interests, those who
cannot take mere words on the screen
should not be here, or if they insist on being
here, they should hire babysitters and suck
pacifiers. Mere words on the screen, when
used to describe somebody, can only be
satire, parody or caricature.
Who knows what truth is, even within
ourselves? Perhaps within himself, Fu knows
that the Church never perpetrated anything
vile and odious on him, that he has a part of
him (or even all of him) that is faithful to the
Church and upholds all its claims of monopoly
and exclusivity and enforces them on heretics,
that his own thinking is not just tinged but
deeply imbued with magical thinking, like in
the case of Gene Roddenberry's ash falling
from the sky in finely scattered manner and
still being able to stupefy Christians who
accept Christ as their saviour (even if piled up
en masse, such ash, to a physicalist like Fu's
other side, the anti-Christian rebel, can
perhaps suffocate people physically but not
stupefy them spiritually and religiously, and
only a religious person can believe in such
magical influence, which is all-out woo-woo).
Perhaps all his long-running, noisy and angry
crusade against the Church is pure play-acting,
fluffing out an extended fantasy, with no
substance behind it. Who knows what truth is?
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Julian wrote:
> Mentioning "brave" in the presence of Tang is
> a low blow.
>
> Although he displays an admirable mastery of
> the Sutras and philosophy he lacks the moral
> and physical courage to do more than take pot
> shots from behind his safety blanket of the
> internet.
Right on and spot on, Julian. Keep up the
good work. Do not let me be a wimp.
That said, all of us enjoy the safety blanket of
the Internet. All of us enjoy the protection of
asynchronicity. On these boards everything is
free and everything is voluntary. Nothing can
be forced on anybody be mere words on the
screen (but going offboard to report people to
real-life authorities like the FBI is something
else entirely).
Tang Huyen
zenworm
Julian
The insistence of things being kept exclusively
online isn't my idea of freedom. The avoidance
of fear and loathing is akin to using a wellington
boot as a condom.
Lee Rudolph
>The insistence of things being kept exclusively
>online isn't my idea of freedom. The avoidance
>of fear and loathing is akin to using a wellington
>boot as a condom.
Braggart.
Lee Rudolph
Julian
Just like the so called "Zen Buddhists."
Once they set foot out of the artificial environment
of their exquisite temples their peace and serenity
evaporates like the morning dew.
It's not the real thing.
*Anarcissie*
> [anarchism groups added, in hopes of snaring a fitchew]
>
> "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
Newsgroups used to have ruling classes. And
there's always the great free marketplace of ideas.
So we're out in metaphor country as the sun goes
down. Light up a metaphor and relax, Buddha-
babes.
Tang Huyen
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> Newsgroups used to have ruling classes. And
> there's always the great free marketplace of ideas.
> So we're out in metaphor country as the sun goes
> down. Light up a metaphor and relax, Buddha-
> babes.
Or get hot and nasty and fight like hell.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Julian wrote:
> Julian:
>
> > The insistence of things being kept exclusively
> > online isn't my idea of freedom. The avoidance
> > of fear and loathing is akin to using a wellington
> > boot as a condom.
>
> Just like the so called "Zen Buddhists."
>
> Once they set foot out of the artificial environment
> of their exquisite temples their peace and serenity
> evaporates like the morning dew.
>
> It's not the real thing.
Of course I do not insist that all dealings be kept
strictly onboard. If people like each other they
can arrange to correspond on e-mail or even
meet face to face, but everything must be by
mutual consent. You, Julian, know that some
people charge in to stuff nasty stuff in my e-mail
box unasked.
As to the real thing in spiritual attainment, I settle
for fluff, namely peace and serenity, to the
extent that I can ease into them, which is not
always and not in all circumstances. Other than
that and beyond that, what is real? To be able to
flip zany quips? Some such people get wrecked
right in front of us. To be able to sit in full lotus
for hours on ends, year after year? Some such
people go mad in front of us. The best bang for
the buck to me is just to relax and be serene.
Quite wimpy, but it's the path of least resistance.
There is no reward for aggravation. I don't see
what good being angry, bitter and agitated all the
time like Fu, Renli/Appledog and DharmaTroll
does. But it is their choice.
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll
So tell us how Fu turned you into the FBI, Tang.
Zheesh. Your paranoia knows no bounds!
--DharmaTroll
Charles E Hardwidge
the damage you've caused over the years and are still causing today. You're
an obsessive, manipulating, useless wanker. In another time or place you'd
get the shit kicked out of you. I'm surprised you haven't already.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Appledog
> > Fu, DharmaTroll and Renli/Appledog, know only to
> > use their own energy to beat up on others, and at
> > length, they will burn out and crash in a huge and
> > spectacular crash. Fu's crash occurred six years
> > ago, minus a month (in Feb 2004). DharmaTroll
> > years. Give them time, and they will hoist themselves
> > up with their own petard. Nobody is forcing
> > anything on them -- it is impossible to force anything
> > on anybody by mere words on the screen -- but they
> > themselves take it upon themselves to break
> > themselves voluntarily, in closed circle, by their own
> > energy. These boards are good demolition derbies,
> > and they fully intend to us them that way. Very
> > convenient and very neat. Nothing to complain about.
> > Everything fits. Everything co-breathes (conspires).
>
> > That said, satire and caricature, when used effectively,
> > can be used as spiritual Judo to get their intended
> > targets to flip on their own energy. A few mere words
> > on the screen, and the blowhards will flip themselves
> > on their own energy.
>
> > and oxtail/Stumper, scarcely reveal anything about
> > themselves, other than their humour and levity, and
> > are very skilful at flipping the blowhards, with just a
> > up as blank ciphers and merely mirror the blowhards
> > cannot stand their own images reflected back to them
> > by such empty mirros) ache at charging in to flip
> > themselves with their own energy in front of such
> > blank slates.
>
> > In that sense, Bill Pfeiffer (Nobody in Particular) and
> > Keynes are vastly less good at flipping the blowhards
> > than zenworm and oxtail/Stumper.
>
> > Tang Huyen
>
> Perhaps it is because they are actually brave enough to be authentic.
>
> Kitty
Come on Kitty, you know Tang won't participate in an honest debate. If
you're not slinging mud with him, you're (apparently) slinging mud
against him.
-
Hollywood Lee
Here's the thing. While Tang's ongoing obsession with Fu and DT is
silly, no one really gets wound up about it - certainly not enough to
threaten or actualize physical violence.
And outside of you, Appledog, and Rob, few here consistently engage in
violent language.
So chill out, bub. If you can.
Déjà Flu
> And I don't go around paranoid that Fu is a redneck who's gonna turn
> me in to the FBI, the way you do. Sometimes I really think you're a
> fruitcake, Tang!
No, I never "turned anybody in to the FBI". I did bitch
about a few spammers to their ISP's, though. And shouted
BOO! to a few - does that count?
liaM
Déjà Flu
ummm...it *is* plain sugar...
Déjà Flu
> Kitty P wrote:
>> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
>
> Although he displays an admirable mastery of the Sutras and philosophy
> he lacks the moral and physical courage to do more than take pot shots
> from behind his safety blanket of the internet.
You are locked
in a room
with a hungry duck
and a mirror
When you pause to look into it,
a hollow voice says,
"Dha suay...m'urn bphet."*
The duck pecks at your foot.
* Thai insult: "Beautiful eyes - like a duck."
Déjà Flu
> There is no reward for aggravation. I don't see
> what good being angry, bitter and agitated all the
> time like Fu, Renli/Appledog and DharmaTroll
> does. But it is their choice.
Aggravation? Who said anything about "aggravation"?
Where do you get "angry" and "bitter"?
You could tie a whole line of Pat Robertsons, politicians,
lawyers, popes, masters, generals, gurus, pundits, judges,
religionists, believers, etc., onto folding chairs and I
would strangle each - one by one - with my own hands,
without a bit of aggravation or a second thought. And with,
I assure you, the utmost serenity - no bitterness or
anger at all.
I thank Julian for teaching me about Nichiren.
The weather in Texas isn't what it used to be.
Appledog
wrote:
>
> There is no reward for aggravation. I don't see
> what good being angry, bitter and agitated all the
> time like Fu, Renli/Appledog and DharmaTroll
> does. But it is their choice.
>
> Tang Huyen
I'll say this, you certainly type a lot more on the subject than I do,
for all your peace and relaxation ;-)
-
Appledog
I don't initiate such language, either.
> So chill out, bub. If you can.
Charles is like a soldier with shell shock. Or like a monk with
tourette's. Or perhaps like Stephen Hawking. If you can get past his
dancing girls you can be his disciple.
-
Wilson
"D�j� Flu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:v-qdnRswA45Si8jW...@posted.toastnet...
The unprocessed evaporated stuff has more flavor and it's usually a
darker color. It's not as refined as most table sugars.
--
Wilson
http://puddinheadwilson.tumblr.com/
Déjà Flu
Charles does quit well, thank you.
It may be a task to understand his linguistic paradigms,
but his perception is good and his intentions are excellent.
I wouldn't ask him to be any other way. I enjoy his puzzles
and perspectives.
possum
> > Julian<Julianlz...@gmail.com> writes:
lol! reminds me of a silly old joke.
... sorry sir, we don't sell condoms... have you tried Boots?
yes, but it leaks out the lace-holes...
Hollywood Lee
> On Jan 19, 9:47 am, Hollywood Lee<hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/18/2010 6:25 PM, Charles E Hardwidge venting a spleen about Tang:
>>
>>> You're an asshole. Seriously, a big fucking asshole because you can't see
>>> the damage you've caused over the years and are still causing today. You're
>>> an obsessive, manipulating, useless wanker. In another time or place you'd
>>> get the shit kicked out of you. I'm surprised you haven't already.
>>
>> Here's the thing. While Tang's ongoing obsession with Fu and DT is
>> silly, no one really gets wound up about it - certainly not enough to
>> threaten or actualize physical violence.
>>
>> And outside of you, Appledog, and Rob, few here consistently engage in
>> violent language.
>
> I don't initiate such language, either.
The last lemming over the cliff doesn't initiate the rush to the edge.
But it is dead, nonetheless. So, your point?
Déjà Flu
GRAB THAT FIRST LEMMING! We'll make him talk...
Appledog
Quite simple - I'm not a lemming. I can, and have demonstrated an
ability, to stop when I feel it is necessary. No other poster in
dealing with me has ever been able to do that. Even in my dealings
with you - and I admit you are better than most around here. I now
give you a second chance, Hollywood. In the past you've said some
pretty nasty things in response to some pretty innocuous posts of
mine. But it is very infrequent. So I complement you on that.
Herbzet, before he stopped posting here (I now guess that was his new
year's resolution), once told me that "tu quoque" was a deflection. It
isn't, of course, but using it as a deflection is a secondary (and
also intellectually dishonest) argument. What Tu quoque is honestly
used as is a plea for fair treatment, and nothing more. In the sense
that I do not initiate such language, I merely claim "tu
quoque" (although never so directly as I had to with herbzet, who was
well-versed in logic) as a means of pointing out that it is improper
to deride me or what I am saying when I was not the initiator of such
behavior.
The most recent example is in the "introduction" thread where Bill
came in and started belittling me about not knowing what a killfile is
and so forth, and when it was patiently explained to him, he began
assaulting me further, accusing me of slinging insults. "Tu quoque".
If I tell you I'm not a lemming, are you going to get angry because I
disagree with your assessment, Mr. Lee? :)
If not, kudos. At any rate, the only point I am making is that when
you focus on the language, you miss the point. In Charle's case, what
he is saying is about 96% obscured by misrepresentation and foul
language. In my case it might be as little as 1% or less. And yet,
posters such as you will seize upon that and ignore /everything/ else
I said.
Look at yourself, referring in a very general sense to something I may
have said before. Bill wa the same in the example above. For most
people here it is no longer about the actual subject matter but about
proving via intellectually dishonest arguments how big their penis is.
Even the girls do it to a degree. You don't listen, you just posture
and pidgeonhole. For example, I'm a lemming. No, I'm not. Lemmings
kill themselves. I don't do that. Why even bring it up, Hollywood? It
doesn't mean anything. If you have something to say, really, then
please - I invite you to respond to the OP in the "introduction"
thread. Because if you have something real to say, I want to learn
from you.
-
Nobody in Particular
"Plain" sugar is the processed white stuff. Only sweetness, no
distinctive flavor.
Appledog
> I merely claim "tu
> quoque" (although never so directly as I had to with herbzet, who was
> well-versed in logic) as a means of pointing out that it is improper
> to deride me or what I am saying when I was not the initiator of such
> behavior.
Correction - I meant it is NOT improper; that is, it is besides the
point of what is being said. Misplaced "not".
This should be obvious due to the context i.e. the statements that the
person who is doing the derision is operating under the delusion that
the derision is a worthy or important endeavour, and such thoughts are
a primary stumbling block for the unenlightened. But it's a long
passage and I don't want to have to deal with snippers (not you ;-) )
-
Déjà Flu
Yeah... that's, like, SO different...
Appledog
wrote:
> DharmaTroll wrote:
> > No, I claim that I don't hurt anyone.
> > Tang's right: I just type words on a screen.
>
> Right, you only type mere words on the
> screen. Whatever you intention is or is not,
> if somebody else (who may or may not be
> your intended recipient) gets hurt or
> harmed, only he or she is causing hurt or
> harm to himself or herself. Your mere
> words on the screen still have to be
> interpreted by said person to cause hurt or
> harm to said person, who then goes ahead
> on his or her own to effect the hurt or
> harm on himself or herself. You cannot
> cause such hurt or harm, surely not
> directly, by mere words on the screen. We
> are all adults, we are all responsible for
> ourselves. Nobody else is responsible for
> us, especially if we play biggies and
> meanies and barge around to beat up on
> people. For their own interests, those who
> cannot take mere words on the screen
> should not be here, or if they insist on being
> here, they should hire babysitters and suck
> pacifiers. Mere words on the screen, when
> used to describe somebody, can only be
> satire, parody or caricature.
>
> Who knows what truth is, even within
> ourselves? Perhaps within himself, Fu knows
> that the Church never perpetrated anything
> vile and odious on him, that he has a part of
> him (or even all of him) that is faithful to the
> Church and upholds all its claims of monopoly
> and exclusivity and enforces them on heretics,
> that his own thinking is not just tinged but
> deeply imbued with magical thinking, like in
> the case of Gene Roddenberry's ash falling
> from the sky in finely scattered manner and
> still being able to stupefy Christians who
> accept Christ as their saviour (even if piled up
> en masse, such ash, to a physicalist like Fu's
> other side, the anti-Christian rebel, can
> perhaps suffocate people physically but not
> stupefy them spiritually and religiously, and
> only a religious person can believe in such
> magical influence, which is all-out woo-woo).
> Perhaps all his long-running, noisy and angry
> crusade against the Church is pure play-acting,
> fluffing out an extended fantasy, with no
> substance behind it. Who knows what truth is?
>
> Tang Huyen
It's all words on the screen, unless of course it's not-Tang speaking,
in which case they are the revealed thoughts and emotions of the
posters which Tang then uses to evaluate the state of their spiritual
development and the approximate date they will "Crash" (for the
uninformed, this is a process which Tang invented and has nothing to
do with Zen. It is related in some ways to a nervous breakdown, as the
story goes.)
But no, the same idea can not be applied to what Tang says. With Tang,
it's all just words on the screen, dear ;-)
-
Hollywood Lee
No, I see no reason to get mad just because someone misses a fairly
simple Buddhist lesson and instead focuses on rhetoric and game theory.
When a person is ready, the lesson can be put to the test.
>
> If not, kudos. At any rate, the only point I am making is that when
> you focus on the language, you miss the point. In Charle's case, what
> he is saying is about 96% obscured by misrepresentation and foul
> language. In my case it might be as little as 1% or less. And yet,
> posters such as you will seize upon that and ignore /everything/ else
> I said.
A pinch too much of salt will ruin the soup.
possum
repulsive bully wants a fag?
Appledog
>
> > If I tell you I'm not a lemming, are you going to get angry because I
> > disagree with your assessment, Mr. Lee? :)
>
> No, I see no reason to get mad just because someone misses a fairly
> simple Buddhist lesson and instead focuses on rhetoric and game theory.
> When a person is ready, the lesson can be put to the test.
Good attitude. I'd only ask one more question. Why have you set this
up so that unless I agree to your proposition, I have not learned a
fairly basic Buddhist lesson? I am not chastizing you for presuming
you are my teacher. That's against my stated goal of learning from
you. Yet at the same time I do not accept the premise that you may be
right. I may go so far as to question why you are using an analogy at
all. Why do you feel the need to use an analogy? Why cannot you merely
state, "When you use foul language in response to foul language, you
are no better than the person who initiated the foul language"?
I suspect it is because doing so merely confirms what I said. It is
besides the point to accuse someone of using foul language. In the
case of someone who initiates foul language, using foul language back
at them is one level of error. But the point is that then, changing
one's argument towards accusing someone of using foul language, when
previously they disagreed with them on a completely different
argument, is akin to an admission of defeat. it is besides the point.
In the same way, I am not trying to, and also not trying not to, learn
anything from you. But really, my point was about how Charles has
something to offer despite his shit talking. If you don't agree with
me or if you do that's fine. But I am not here to explain to you why
it is not appropriate for you to jump in and call me a lemming. I
certainly wasn't being a lemming when I compared Charles to a monk
with tourettes. I was being accurate. Your post OTOH wasn't accurate,
and wasn't appropriate. It didn't deal. It didn't apply. It was
nothing more than you forcing your will upon nature.
So no, I don't accept your premise that I have to agree with you to
learn a basic buddhist lesson. I don't deal with things on that level,
I deal with them from far, far above that level, with the eye of an
Eagle. Please, join me, if you are able to, then do so. You're
invited!
> > If not, kudos. At any rate, the only point I am making is that when
> > you focus on the language, you miss the point. In Charle's case, what
> > he is saying is about 96% obscured by misrepresentation and foul
> > language. In my case it might be as little as 1% or less. And yet,
> > posters such as you will seize upon that and ignore /everything/ else
> > I said.
>
> A pinch too much of salt will ruin the soup.
I completely agree.
What I don't agree with is having to jump through several hoops and
"figure out" that what you are really trying to say is that a little
foul language ruins the zen. And then "believe" that the truth of what
you said regarding soup unequivocally applies to foul language. Why
don't you just say what you mean? Is it because if you do, the flaws
in your argument become obvious? Come on Hollywood! Don't serve me
platitudes. They're awfully nice, and yes it is the thought that
counts, but I have already invited you to post on "Introduction"! Go,
think carefully, and respond! You're invited!
-
Nobody in Particular
Hey, I was very patiently explaining killfiling to you, since you
wrote you'll respond to people even if you've killfiled them. I had
no intention to insult or belittle you, and I did not do so in that
post. My only intent was to clear up what I perceived as some
confusion. But in response you immediately called me an asshole,
which was completely uncalled for. *You* are the one who initiated
the slinging of insults. *You* are the one who initiated such
language. So don't lie.
Even after you initiated the use of foul language I refrained from
stooping to your level. I just called you an empty bag of inflated
ego, which you truly are.
Based on your past behavior, you'll try to spin this and lie about
some more. It is useless to waste time on a simpleton like you, so
I'll stop.
May you come to your senses.
DharmaTroll
I figured Tang was just making up fluff in closed loop, again.
Better watch out, Tang, or Charles will call the MI6 on you.
--DharmaTroll
Appledog
>
> Hey, I was very patiently explaining killfiling to you,
not required.
> since you wrote you'll respond to people even if you've killfiled them.
If you don't understand something, ask.
> I had no intention to insult or belittle you, and I did not do so in that
> post.
Yet you have done so on every other occasion you have responded to me
for as long as I can remember.
> My only intent was to clear up what I perceived as some confusion.
You don't know where to look. I am trying to help you, but you don't
want to talk about it. So I gave up.
> But in response you immediately called me an asshole,
> which was completely uncalled for. *You* are the one who initiated
> the slinging of insults. *You* are the one who initiated such
> language. So don't lie.
It was called for because in a greater perspective, you have been an
asshole to me for quite some time now. I certainly did initiate
insults towards you within the post I made. That's obvious. But you
initiated the insults to me months and years ago, and in that context
I am not lying - you are. I'm not going to play your little games. If
you can't deal with the subject at hand, then you're better off not
posting a reply. I'm not interested in your name calling and
accusations.
> Even after you initiated the use of foul language I refrained from
> stooping to your level. I just called you an empty bag of inflated
> ego, which you truly are.
No I'm not. You are.
> Based on your past behavior,
So now we're dealing with past behavior? You JUST said "I had no
intention to insult or belittle you, and I did not do so in that
post."
It seems you are the one who conveniently twists what is being said to
suit your desire to argue, and not me.
Your post in "Introductions" had NOTHING to do with what was being
said.
You stepped in and tried to start an argument. You have nothing to say
so you just spout nonsense. I don't have time for that.
> It is useless to waste time on a simpleton like you, so I'll stop.
You really mean it this time? Well hey, good for you. And, if you have
something *on topic* to say, you're more than welcome. Just - please -
as you say - stop wasting your time.
> May you come to your senses.
Any time you want to actually have an on topic discussion, don't tell
me about it - just do it. Keep the trollish bullshit to yourself.
-
Hollywood Lee
> On Jan 19, 11:50 am, Hollywood Lee<hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If I tell you I'm not a lemming, are you going to get angry because I
>>> disagree with your assessment, Mr. Lee? :)
>>
>> No, I see no reason to get mad just because someone misses a fairly
>> simple Buddhist lesson and instead focuses on rhetoric and game theory.
>> When a person is ready, the lesson can be put to the test.
>
> Good attitude. I'd only ask one more question. Why have you set this
> up so that unless I agree to your proposition, I have not learned a
> fairly basic Buddhist lesson? I am not chastizing you for presuming
> you are my teacher. That's against my stated goal of learning from
> you. Yet at the same time I do not accept the premise that you may be
> right. I may go so far as to question why you are using an analogy at
> all. Why do you feel the need to use an analogy? Why cannot you merely
> state, "When you use foul language in response to foul language, you
> are no better than the person who initiated the foul language"?
It isn't a question of being better or worse than someone and definitely
nothing about me being or not being your teacher.
It is really a combination of two points that have played out here for
years.
The first is that harsh language is generally indicative of an untrained
mind, a mind that is responding by reason of emotions run amok with
egoistic imaginings. Not always. But generally.
The second is that violence, by word, action, or intent, seems to breed
more violence. The "tit for tat" game theory is just that, a theory
that works well for distributive or zero-sum games or negotiations, but
not necessarily a theory well suited for a dialogue.
Both points are well-founded in Buddhist thought, but ignored here
without fail. It is what makes this place so fascinating.
So apply these to your dealings with others or not. If not, you have
the herd to keep you company, eh?
DharmaTroll
Yeah I enjoy a lot of what Charles contributes as well.
And sometimes he gets really annoyed and he gets harsh.
--DharmaTroll
Appledog
>
> > Why do you feel the need to use an analogy? Why cannot you merely
> > state, "When you use foul language in response to foul language, you
> > are no better than the person who initiated the foul language"?
>
> It isn't a question of being better or worse than someone and definitely
> nothing about me being or not being your teacher.
Ok, but why do you use an analogy instead of just stating what it was
I did?
> It is really a combination of two points that have played out here for
> years.
Ok, so the answer is a combination of two points I have played out
here for years?
> The first is that harsh language is generally indicative of an untrained
> mind, a mind that is responding by reason of emotions run amok with
> egoistic imaginings. Not always. But generally.
Ok. So in a general sense, harsh language is generally indicative of
an untrained mind. I get that, I said as much in my paraphrase of your
lemming analogy. But this is a generalization; you have not actually
said that I fall into the part of this generalization which represents
an untrained mind. You have here admitted that there is a possibility
that the language I used does not really mean I have an untrained mind
at all - and yet you are acting as if I have an untrained mind simply
because I used harsh language. You have not given me fair treatment at
all, but instead submitted to your own generalizations. I term such
generalizations as "preconceptions", I think that is exactly what they
are.
> The second is that violence, by word, action, or intent, seems to breed
> more violence. The "tit for tat" game theory is just that, a theory
> that works well for distributive or zero-sum games or negotiations, but
> not necessarily a theory well suited for a dialogue.
Okay. That is a good point, but your claim is unfounded. I'm certainly
not being odd to you here, I believe I've stated my case quite well.
Yet here we are, discussing me and my attitude. Why? Why do you want
to do that? Why can't you just discuss the subject matter at hand?
Charles wouldn't do that. Yet here I am, entertaining your proposals.
That makes me different from him. So this discussion really has no
place here. You're just accusing me of having an untrained mind and
using that as an excuse to not have to pay attention to or accept some
of the other points I've made. I don't see the point in playing that
kind of game with you. I have other more important things to discuss
besides your belief that I have an untrained mind because I have used
harsh language in the past.
> Both points are well-founded in Buddhist thought, but ignored here
> without fail. It is what makes this place so fascinating.
Yes, that's partly why I chose to come here.
> So apply these to your dealings with others or not. If not, you have
> the herd to keep you company, eh?
I think you will find that the herd here is far and away /against/ me.
I don't know what you are getting at that I am with the herd to keep
me company, or that I have not already applied what I need to apply to
my dealings with others. Certainly it doesn't work in your case, I
haven't used any harsh language here with you and yet you refuse to
talk about anything else other than me and my perceived
"attitude" (which doesn't exist here and now in this context).
Hollywood may I suggest that you should look into what Heron Stone has
said. Go look at his talkshoe station and listen to some of the
conversations he has had with people. His stuff is really good. I
suggest this because you don't know where to look and Heron Stone's
talkshoe recordings would be a great place for you.
-
Hollywood Lee
> On Jan 19, 12:30 pm, Hollywood Lee<hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you feel the need to use an analogy? Why cannot you merely
>>> state, "When you use foul language in response to foul language, you
>>> are no better than the person who initiated the foul language"?
>>
>> It isn't a question of being better or worse than someone and definitely
>> nothing about me being or not being your teacher.
>
> Ok, but why do you use an analogy instead of just stating what it was
> I did?
I like analogies, sunsets, and long walks on the beach. Go figure.
>
>> It is really a combination of two points that have played out here for
>> years.
>
> Ok, so the answer is a combination of two points I have played out
> here for years?
You are just a recent participant - it predates you by a long time.
>
>> The first is that harsh language is generally indicative of an untrained
>> mind, a mind that is responding by reason of emotions run amok with
>> egoistic imaginings. Not always. But generally.
>
> Ok. So in a general sense, harsh language is generally indicative of
> an untrained mind. I get that, I said as much in my paraphrase of your
> lemming analogy. But this is a generalization; you have not actually
> said that I fall into the part of this generalization which represents
> an untrained mind. You have here admitted that there is a possibility
> that the language I used does not really mean I have an untrained mind
> at all - and yet you are acting as if I have an untrained mind simply
> because I used harsh language. You have not given me fair treatment at
> all, but instead submitted to your own generalizations. I term such
> generalizations as "preconceptions", I think that is exactly what they
> are.
Then no reason to get offended if the mistake is mine, eh? But, if you
are honest with yourself and my words got you riled up a little or your
heart beating a bit faster, then it may be something to consider.
>
>> The second is that violence, by word, action, or intent, seems to breed
>> more violence. The "tit for tat" game theory is just that, a theory
>> that works well for distributive or zero-sum games or negotiations, but
>> not necessarily a theory well suited for a dialogue.
>
> Okay. That is a good point, but your claim is unfounded. I'm certainly
> not being odd to you here, I believe I've stated my case quite well.
> Yet here we are, discussing me and my attitude. Why? Why do you want
> to do that? Why can't you just discuss the subject matter at hand?
> Charles wouldn't do that. Yet here I am, entertaining your proposals.
> That makes me different from him. So this discussion really has no
> place here. You're just accusing me of having an untrained mind and
> using that as an excuse to not have to pay attention to or accept some
> of the other points I've made. I don't see the point in playing that
> kind of game with you. I have other more important things to discuss
> besides your belief that I have an untrained mind because I have used
> harsh language in the past.
That's fine. Just let it drop then.
DharmaTroll
Well, it's more like brown sugar, which is the plain sugar with the
molasses that was taken out added back in.
But of the various kinds of sugar, your best bet is neither sucanat,
nor brown sugar, but blue agave nectar/syrup.
Agave is cactus sugar, the stuff used to make tequila (as cane sugar
is used to make rum). It's got both the advantages of having a nicer
flavor when added to anything, as well as having more phytochemicals
and nutrients and not being pure empty calories. The best thing about
it is that it is the lowest on the glycemic index, so it doesn't burn
up so quickly when you digest it, as does high fructose corn syrup and
table sugar and honey. Here's the chart:
(White bread is given the glycemic index value of 100 by definition.
Foods that have a value less than 100 are converted into sugar more
slowly than white bread. Foods that have a glycemic index value
greater than 100 turn into sugar more quickly than white bread.)
SUGARS / Glycemic Index Rating:
Organic Agave Nectar 27
Fructose 32
Maple Syrup 54
Lactose 65
Honey 83
High fructose corn syrup 89
Sucrose 92
White Bread 100
Glucose 137
Glucose tablets 146
Maltodextrin 150
Maltose 150
Converting more slowly means you're putting a log instead of paper
onto a fire, so that it will burn slower and longer, and you won't get
immediate sugar highs, and are less at risk of diabetes eating the
stuff. Because of this, I recommend using blue agave instead of table
sugar or honey or pancake syrup whenever possible. Btw, if you like
pancake syrup, go for the 100% maple syrup, as it's better for you
than the fake kinds, which are mostly that nasty high fructose corn
syrup, and much lower on the glycemic index, though I actually prefer
agave syrup to maple syrup on pancakes. Of course, you're always
better off eating whole fruits, but we all tend to like to sweeten
things, and this is the best alternative.
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
I like fruit preserves or jellies on plain pancakes.
Ned Ludd
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11a3817e-3093-4ce5...@r26g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>> And I simply don't think your fear is warranted, that stupid insulting
>>>> threads are going to chase away intelligent posters. There are always
>>>> stupid, insulting, and banal threads on Buddhist groups. Posters learn
>>>> to quickly glance at a thread or skip down and skim a post and then
>>>> move on when they aren't interested. There's no reason to read every
>>>> thread. Better for the end-user to do more editing than demand that
>>>> the posters stop posting crap. We all learn to do that after a while.
>>
>>> There is no market in a failed state.
>>
>> There were surely markets before (and therefore in the absence of)
>> states. Of course, a "failed state" is not the absence of a state.
>> But I think that the mode of failure could make a difference to the
>> persistence or re-emergence of markets (plural: of course the
>> existence of *a* totalizing market probably depends on the existence
>> of an active, totalizing, and in-its-own-terms non-failed, state).
>> All that literal analysis of your interesting axiom aside:
>> how do you see it (necessarily figuratively) applying to
>> these (or other) "Buddhist groups", which are in no way
>> literal states and in no way literal markets?
>> Lee Rudolph
>
> Newsgroups used to have ruling classes. And
> there's always the great free marketplace of ideas.
> So we're out in metaphor country as the sun goes
> down. Light up a metaphor and relax, Buddha-
> babes.
>
In your dreams. Newsgroups are the primordial soup.
Newsgroups are the slime and filth and terror from which
we all aspire to emerge. The only ruling class of a
newsgroup was a 'moderator'. Are there any moderators
left on usenet? (How should I know - I've never been
in a moderated group?)
How's this? There's only one book. The book is the
net. The net is the book. There's only one book.
Ned
Wompom
news:ecc09635-7920-454e...@k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 18, 1:03 pm, "Wompom" <m...@stefangmaj.plus.com> wrote:
> "Kitty P" <kittyp2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d415n.18153$V_3...@newsfe09.iad...
> > "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
> >news:KoydnfyzPawLH8nW...@supernews.com...
> >> DharmaTroll wrote:
> >>> "Kitty P"
<Tang's drivel snipped>
>
> TILT!
>
> (Are girls actually allowed to play around here?)
>
> ;-)
I can't help but picture Tang and me as Leonard and Sheldon, and then
Penny walking into the room (The Big Bang Theory is the only comedy I
watch on TV):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMIxHaZzzJI
And here's one where Sheldon channels DharmaTroll:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eTUz61LNjo
And one where Sheldon channels Tang:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xgjUhEG3U
--DharmaTroll
EXCELLENT! So funny! That flowchart sketch is amazing. Sheldon is my hero!
zenworm
"The last lemming..."
great determination and great doubt
^~
Tang Huyen
zenworm wrote:
> Hollywood Lee:
>
> > The last lemming over the cliff doesn't initiate
> > the rush to the edge. But it is dead, nonetheless.
> > So, your point?
>
> "The last lemming..."
>
> great determination and great doubt
>
> ^~
It's a guy thing.
Tang Huyen
zenworm
only until the cliff...
^~
Tang Huyen
zenworm wrote:
> Hollywood Lee:
>
> > It isn't a question of being better or worse than someone and definitely
> > nothing about me being or not being your teacher.
> >
> > It is really a combination of two points that have played out here for
> > years.
> >
> > The first is that harsh language is generally indicative of an untrained
> > mind, a mind that is responding by reason of emotions run amok with
> > egoistic imaginings. Not always. But generally.
> >
> > The second is that violence, by word, action, or intent, seems to breed
> > more violence. The "tit for tat" game theory is just that, a theory
> > that works well for distributive or zero-sum games or negotiations, but
> > not necessarily a theory well suited for a dialogue.
> >
> > Both points are well-founded in Buddhist thought, but ignored here
> > without fail. It is what makes this place so fascinating.
> >
> > So apply these to your dealings with others or not. If not, you have
> > the herd to keep you company, eh?
>
> only until the cliff...
>
> ^~
Nah. Whether you believe in rebirth or not, those
who jumped over the cliff at Saipan (probably they
were civilians, as the soldiers might take anything
less than harakiri to be acts of cowardice) still had
each other for company until death did them part,
as they were falling. The herd instinct, which is the
Japanese national religion, still upheld them until
they splashed in water (or parhaps over other
bodies floating en masse -- perhaps you couldn't
slip a pin by).
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph
> You are locked
> in a room
> with a hungry duck
> and a mirror
>
> When you pause to look into it,
> a hollow voice says,
> "Dha suay...m'urn bphet."*
>
> The duck pecks at your foot.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>* Thai insult: "Beautiful eyes - like a duck."
I recognized it (well, luckily-guessed-at it) as Thai, but
thought it was a menu description: "Beautiful eyes, ducks',
in green curry."
Lee Rudolph