--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > Love is love is love is love. The four differ- > > ent words for it are just Steinist nitpicking, > > in my opinion. I pity anyone who is in a long- > > term (or even short-term) relationship who > > believes that having sensual feelings for > > their beloved *diminishes* having spiritual > > feelings for them. Such a belief system must > > make for very cold nights and an even colder > > heart. > > Er, don't include me among those who believe > this, please. In my experience, agape and eros > coexist and complement each other very nicely > indeed.
I will, in fact, retract the implication (although it was never intended from my side) that you might agree with the "eros and agape are incompatible" thang. After all these years, I think I understand that. I assume that you and Burt The Vibrator have a relationship that is very balanced between the two. However, I do not for a moment retract the phrase "Steinian nitpicking." You could have your own entry in Wikipedia over your tendency to reinterpret words so that you can "win" arguments in your mind. Uh...excuse me...so that you can make someone else *lose* the imagined argument. :-) Has it ever occurred to you that spending what is left of your life trying desperately to make others "lose" is a pitiful waste of precious time? Or can you actually come up with a Steinian nitpick interpretation of the concept of "making others lose" that makes you look good? Curious minds want to know...
