OMG, what a bunch of clueless, vain, petty fools - Bhairitu & Xeno, dear Judy, I bow down to your patience in dealing with these petty mind, utterly threatened by Robin's brilliance. St. Share or St. Judy - oh no what a dilemma?
Having said I did find dumbaz's gags very funny, laughing loud reading another one his posts, the one Share responded to, while waiting for my dinner order here at a restaurant. That these morons are so stuck in their heads is really sad - they could have just had fun, come with witty responses, retorts but all we have is their repugnant prejudices exposed in such a pathetic fashion. It always baffles me when I see people taking Xeno's mental constructs so seriously and I know I have always been curious on how he interacts with normal people in his daily life, I have asked him before and all I got was more mental constructs. Love, Ravi On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:45 PM, "authfriend" <jst...@panix.com> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > Many of the phrases in the original post (#317358) exist in other documents > on the web as far back as 2005 as far as I can tell using a small sample of > phrases from the post. Other phrases only show up on FFL. A lot of material > appears to have been accommodated to create the post. It is entertaining and > oddly applicable. Actually very little of it is applicable, oddly or otherwise. > Most of what we say and think is recycled from elsewhere, even if we give it > a new form. Substitution of Robin's name gives it a sense of coherence (kind > of like Robin's writing which has a sense of coherence, but tends not to make > sense a lot of times). Tends not to make sense to *you*, Xeno. And the two senses of coherence (whether you can make sense of Robin's posts or not) are not even "kind of like" each other. > I actually first mistyped the word 'coherence', as 'conherence', which I > suppose could mean a state of bringing together for the purpose conning > (derived from con - persuade to do or believe something, typically by use of > a deception), which often seems to be Robin's operational modality. Yet you have never been able to cite any evidence of deception in Robin's posts. That's the way Vaj makes his accusations, never citing any examples. <snip> > I must admit I never really get the idea of 'personal ontology', which seems > to be defined in the dictionary as 'a branch of metaphysics dealing with the > nature of being as affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than > to anyone else'. By focusing on personal aspects, Robin divides and conquers, > because it is on that level that we are weakest, individuated and separate > from everything, it is where we cannot be whole. As you say, you have never gotten the idea or the points Robin makes about first-person ontology. They have nothing to do with "divide and conquer." If Robin has any viewpoint that he would dearly love for others to recognize, it's that our first-person ontology is where we are most whole and most strong. I would suggest that if you have a sense of this viewpoint dividing and conquering, it's because you have somehow become alienated from the experience of your own first- person ontology. Which doesn't mean it's gone. Obviously it still runs you, or you wouldn't have written this post the way you did. You haven't made any kind of case against Robin here. All you've done is slung insults, and you've done it sloppily and dishonestly to boot. It's really beneath you.
