Swami said:

The idea of a religious leader having any more insight into the mystery of life is hogwash. There are NO experts.

---

Swami said:

The idea of a religious leader having any more insight into the mystery of life is hogwash. There are NO experts.

---

spud said:

Swami said:

The idea of a religious leader having any more insight into the mystery of life is hogwash. There are NO experts.

---

Almost as much hogwash as a socially inept logician with a superiority complex who trolls drug inspired forums to feed some starved ego.

---

That burned so hard I had to let go of my mouse. 

spud said:

Almost as much hogwash as a socially inept logician with a superiority complex who trolls drug inspired forums to feed some starved ego.

---

Nowhere as near as much hogwash as some random moron who thinks they have some ability to analyze the innerworkings of someone's mind on the internet.

No, seriously, you must be so clever to think you know who we all actually are as a result of our posting here.

Way to go, man.


Peace.

spud said:

I know Swami far better than you imagine, so it seems.

---

Quote:

Your concern is...cute, however. I'll give you that 

---

Disregarding my points in response to your own by alluding to my concern being cute is not an effective means of debate. Demonstrate that your claim that I was engaging in the same behavior as you was a valid point, as I have worked towards demonstrating that it is not, or shut the fuck up and move on. My intentions for my responses cannot be evidenced within said responses themselves.

If you can't play the game, then why even begin to act as if you can?


Peace.

spud said:

I am not here to debate, I am here to observe.

---

False. If you were purely in a state of observation, you would have not participated in this thread. You would have not specifically expressed points in response to others.

It would be more appropriate to state that you are not here to debate, you are simply hear to add your little commentary and then to avoid any responsibility of having to validate them or support them. Why should we then take into consideration your opinion? It stands rather meaningless when you cannot substantiate it for what it is.

Quote:

And what I observe is your cute and admirable puppy love for Swami.

---

Incorrect. What you observed was my replies and that which concerns my replies. "Cute and admirable puppy love" is not an observation, it is your own projection that is not based in anything that can be observed.

But wait! You don't need to actually regard my point for what can be observed to be! You simply have to create hypothetical, unsubstantiated explanations for why I would make that point! Then you can quite possibly create for yourself a sense of superiority and act as though you are clever!

I seriously think that you are the great contributor that this forum has ever seen.


Peace.

fireworks_god said:

spud said:

I am not here to debate, I am here to observe.

---

False. If you were purely in a state of observation, you would have not participated in this thread. You would have not specifically expressed points in response to others.

---

Then it's a good thing I'm not purely in a state of observation, eh?

You are my actor on a stage, your performance was well. It's amazing how much entertainment one can bring about by simply throwing out an arbitrary statement. Your undying and eternal love for Swami is praiseworthy. Inspiring, even.

Thank you for the grace of your presence. And the many laughs that followed 

spud said:

You are my actor on a stage, your performance was well.

---

Implications that I am a system that has corresponded in a manner that befitted what you sought from myself are not reflective of the reality of the situation. I am an actor on a stage in the sense that I am within my situation and I exhibit behavior. To reduce our exchange down to implying that my actions were what you sought and that you are some puppet-master is further evidence that you have not (perhaps because one is not capable) engaged in discussion of the points you raised.

Quote:

It's amazing how much entertainment one can bring about by simply throwing out an arbitrary statement. Your undying and eternal love for Swami is praiseworthy. Inspiring, even.

---

Continual reference to your abstract sense of some great love that is manifested in my behavior outlines the fact that your observational skills are apparently lacking, as nothing within my behavior implies the existance of such. You project that someone who argues a point that happens to have sprung forth from a discussion involving Swami only does so out of love for Swami, and I am curious as to whether or not this is evident in your perspective because you yourself are madly in love with him? Seeings as how it isn't evident in my reponses themselves....

But no, you seriously are this great wizard/puppet master who is intimately responsible for all occurences within reality. Its like someone on mushrooms, enjoying the delusion of all phenomenon resulting from themself. I only acted because of your own action, right? As if you created my reaction? I realize that you might have a sadistic pleasure in the sort, but I have just as much a hand in creating your responses. You are actually within my command because you have no choice, my replies define your subsequent response (or lack thereof ) to said replies, eh?

I wonder how this thread would have unfolded if you would have employed productive debate tactics instead of immature avoidance and attempts to divert attention away from the fact that you were being specifically addressed with points that you apparently weren't able to respond to.


Peace.

spud said:

You desire me to debate, when in actuality I have nothing I want to convey. I'm just here for a good time, mang. Not here to argue a darn thing.

---

You have nothing you want to convey? Considering your initial responses, it is evident that you have. You simply do not wish to engage in discussion of the ideas you expressed when others question it. The first setence in the rules states that this place is intended for open discussion. This certainly doesn't imply that you have to respond in any way, shape, or form, but the intentions of the forum would suggest that it is most effectively used for open discussion.

This isn't the Mysticism forum. If you wish to express your opinions here, great. Superb. Don't be shocked when others wish to use this forum for its intended purpose, instead of simply making jabs at people here and then avoiding any confrontation as a result of others properly utilizing the forum.

the rules said:

be prepared to have your ideas and opinions challenged, refuted, disputed, rebutted, analyzed, shredded, pooh-poohed, and yes - even supported.

---

As I stated earlier, "Demonstrate that your claim that I was engaging in the same behavior as you was a valid point, as I have worked towards demonstrating that it is not, or shut the fuck up and move on.".

Quote:

Can we not be friends and laugh alongside each other?

---

Sure, as long as "alongside" implies that we are engaging in discussion of topics of a philosophical and spiritual nature. If you simply seek to be friends and laugh on its own, then find the proper avenue through which to do so. This is business.


Peace.