|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
psilocyberin said: I never made any other comments naming anyone else in my original post... fireworks god wished to make it personal.
And how did I do that? By actually wanting to discuss something based in reality? You allude to some mysterious "Swami cabal" as though it doesn't have personal connotations, and then accuse the person who wants to call you on your bullshit by systematically investigating into exactly who this cabal is and how they are related of being the one who wished to make it personal.
What is is with this forum and trolling, anyways? 
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
blaze2
The Witness


Registered: 12/20/02
Posts: 1,883
Loc: San Antonio, TX
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
|
|
I knew swami was gone I just missed it happeninng which is slightly disappointing. was there a thread I can look up or something?
-------------------- "Religion without science is blind, Science without religion is lame." Albert Einstein "peace is not maintained through force it is acheived through intelligence." Albert Einstein "Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." Thomas Jefferson "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Anything that is based in some sort of trait or aspect of reality, in order to even be perceived in the first place.
and exactly how does my perception of this topic become inferior to your perception of this topic? sounds like you think you have a superior grasp on reality.
See, right here in this very first sentence is a great example of swamiesque derailing, and every other aspect of the arguments you are presenting. It has no bearing on the topic at hand, and is merely fluff designed solely to invalidate my post. It is a great tactic, because, like I am doing now, it forces someone to respond to it.... and if you dont respond to this crap then comes the swamiesquw tactic part two: ignore all other posts until the person answers the ridiculous fluff question.
Quote:
Your allegation is more of a hypothesis as it stands. You recognize a suspossed change in the behavior of this forum (which is hard to determine in itself) and announce what is responsible for the occurence of this change.
like I said before, it was an observation, but because you vehemently disagree with it you use these very poor tactics to try and discredit my opinion and derail the thread. Then later on you prove even another point I made earlier about asking scientific factual data to back up completely abstract or immesurable qualities.... it is poor debating. Its an opinion, not a hypothesis... it doesnt have to stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny- because it is impossible to do so.
Quote:
Now, I ask you, how are you going to attempt testing this hypothesis, or giving us enough of a basis in order for our ownselves to take into consideration this idea and determine for ourselves that this reflects reality? That's the philosophical intent of sharing such, correct?
Is there a handbook that swami gave out? is there a point by point outline which you are following? 1) invalidate and discredit opinions through derailing and bounce back and forth between existentialist and scientific arguments of perception of reality. 2)slowly turn their posts with your words to fit into step 3. 3) turn the whole thread into a scientific advisory panel: dont worry if it deals with purely opinion and other completely abstracts. 4) refuse to answer questions and only return comments with repetition of steps 1-3.
How is anyone supposed to test this? its ridiculous/hilarious to even attempt to take this there. How does one measure the quality or worth of a thread? the level of copascetic(ness) that this forum has? lets graph that.... or lets show vinn diagrams of the post and pre swami era with regards to the relaxed nature of thread starters. yeah, genius.
Quote:
You simply formed a connection and brought forth discussion on this formed connection.
exactly, which is why it is not only futile, but juvenile to pursue trying to hold this to the scientific light. take it as an opinion.... say you disagree, show examples of why you disagree. Doesnt that seem like the better way to go about this than trying to follow the swami rhetoric manual?
Quote:
I'm sure you will speculate such, but I am wondering if you are going to demonstrate exactly what it is that causes you to bring yourself to speculate on the matter, and allow some discourse as to whether or not "what it is" is reasonable enough to form a valid basis for such a theory.
did my first post not explain why I came to this conclusion? I thought I had explained fairly well.
Thats all i can get to right now.... I wrote this while working, in bits, and have to break down. Ill address the rest once I get home.
|
I_was_the_walrus
eggshells



Registered: 05/01/02
Posts: 11,887
Loc: next door
|
|
|
I_was_the_walrus
eggshells



Registered: 05/01/02
Posts: 11,887
Loc: next door
|
|
This thread has been closed.
Reason: Nothing to do with P&S. Maybe about the forum, but nothing more.
|
|