*laughing* Oh Gabs...I would truly love it if you would go back through the archives sometimes and find where it is that I ever once persecuted you. If you weren't so busy projecting, you would see the inverse is true. I'm afraid you've completely misinterpreted Iam's post, and also, apparently, my temperament. I neither tremble at trolling, nor have I been angered...merely tired. I'm not the only one who's described many of your postings as cryptic...I wonder sometimes if it's a matter of language barrier, or if you simply choose to engage in abstraction in order to force the listener to think harder about what you have to say.
Your valued participation makes you ban-proof to me, however, and trolls never please me, as they devalue the conversation. Regarding your history, nothing can be done to "find out whose fingers" etc...it's historical, and Google doesn't provide those tools. Perhaps you could search your own email or posting history and detail the chain of events? Whether or not you choose to do so, it should be apparent to you by now that your enmity and anger is one sided. I do hope that at some point in time you recognize that. As with others on the list with whom I disagree ideologically, I respect each and every one of you for the contribution you add, the strengths of your argument, and the clarity of your articulation, even if sometimes delivered in the riddling nature of the Sufi. In short, hate me all you want, I'm going to love you anyways. On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 12:27 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > Iam, I very much appreciate your devote efforts to calm Chris down to. > Itoo see his fingers tremble - about to hit the ban button. It hit me > once and nothing was done here to find out whose fingers got too > nervous about whatever. So much for the correct use of the word truth > in this context here. When it pleases him, I'm a troll to him, too. He > surely has all the potential to be Baby Peter's stepfather. Thanks for > trying to protect O. from the same fate. I'm learning how to > communicate even under these horror circumstances, which often leads > to what is perceived as cryptic. > > On 22 Mai, 17:11, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > OmP the athiest. > > > > It really does not take long to figure out imature children,, and the > truth > > is non of your post are worth reading to me. > > Good bye > > Allan > > > > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:23 PM, omprem <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ooh, another threat. > > > > > Speaking of pointless, how pointless is it for someone to post only > > > about his version of style and not make a single post that deals > > > directly with a single topic under discussion in a rational way? > > > > > On May 22, 10:15 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It doesn't matter if the person is stupid or not, the guidelines are > > > clear. > > > > Lawyerly trolling is still trolling, and trying to engage in this > sort of > > > > petty behaviour is pointless. Reminding participants of the clearly > > > posted > > > > guidelines they agreed to follow upon joining is not a threat, it's a > > > > reminder, and your attempts at antagonism are tiresome. Comply with > the > > > > guidelines, or find another group. > > > > > > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:59 AM, omprem <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > But what if the person is stupid? 'Stupid' is after a word that > > > > > carries meaning. It may not be they are stupid because they > disagree > > > > > with one's point but that they are just stupid. Are you now acting > as > > > > > the dictionary police. > > > > > > > You should know by now that I can defend my views on their own > grounds > > > > > and do not defend them by calling others stupid because they do > not > > > > > agree with them. Such people may be stupid on other grounds but not > > > > > that one. > > > > > > > Incidentally, you are quite adept at making threats. Is that not a > > > > > violation of rational discourse? > > > > > > > On May 21, 11:29 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Ad Hominem is latin for "to the man", meaning an attack against > the > > > > > person. The vast majority of the membership here know this, but > since > > > you > > > > > disagreed with my warning as a moderator, you must be unfamiliar > with > > > the > > > > > phrase. Calling someone stupid, or implying they are stupid if they > > > disagree > > > > > with your point, is an ad hominem attack prohibited by our posting > > > > > guidelines, clearly listed on our home page. You would do well to > > > > > familiarize yourself with them if you desire is to be a long term > > > member > > > > > here. > > > > > > > > [ Attached Message ]From:omprem <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds > Eye\"" > > > < > > > > > [email protected]>Date:Thu, 21 May 2009 07:11:58 -0700 > > > > > (PDT)Local:Thurs, May 21 2009 10:11 amSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: > Purpose > > > of > > > > > Astral body > > > > > > > > It is not ad hom but an expression of his belief mistaken though > it > > > > > > is. > > > > > > > > You seem to be a bit uptight. > > > > > > > > On May 20, 10:19 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Tinker, your third paragraph is clear ad hominem. I'm getting a > > > little > > > > > tired > > > > > > > of repeating myself about the posting guidelines. Take it down > or > > > you > > > > > go > > > > > > > back on moderation. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Tinker <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You start off making a claim to superiority with imaginary > back > > > up, > > > > > > > > ooohh you're so smart. > > > > > > > > > > I know that they can cause your superior spiritual feeling by > > > > > > > > suppressing the orientation center in the brain of anyone, > > > including > > > > > > > > atheist. > > > > > > > > > > The collective intelligence is the source of insight, > inspiration > > > and > > > > > > > > revelation. If you don't understand that you're a lot > stupider > > > than > > > > > > > > you make out for atheist to be. > > > > > > > > > > So you are ignorant of Jehovah? You deny the supreme being > that > > > is > > > > > the > > > > > > > > one true God. You are an atheist and all of the crap you have > > > been > > > > > > > > spewing is yours to own. Suck it up :-) > > > > > > > > I know your 'transcendental', it is escapism because you > haven't > > > the > > > > > > > > ability to deal with Life as it is here and now. > > > > > > > > > > You haven't done anything but flaunt yourself as being > > > spiritually > > > > > > > > superior. > > > > > > > > I'm an obnoxious know it all type and you make me look meek > and > > > > > > > > humble :-) > > > > > > > > > > peace & Love > > > > > > > > > > On May 20, 7:22 pm, omprem <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 20, 5:04 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 20, 8:39 am, omprem <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 8:05 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are so right, attachment to Life is an addiction, > if > > > you > > > > > are > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > attached to Life you are DEAD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > OMPREM: Nope. All death means is a change of venue: > 'you' > > > > > still > > > > > > > > exist > > > > > > > > > > > in another form on another plane of existence. > > > > > > > > > > > > Prove it. Die, then repeat that statement, I'll be > listening > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > OMPREM: If you had the capacity to hear astral beings you > > > would > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > be here whining about them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is total BS to say Life is an obstacle to > accessing > > > God. > > > > > If you > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > dead your brain does Not generate the mind which is > the > > > only > > > > > means > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > > which any person here and now or at any time in the > past > > > has > > > > > ever > > > > > > > > > > > > accessed God. > > > > > > > > > > > > > OMPREM: There are many centers of consciousness besides > the > > > > > mind. > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, the mind survives death along with everything > > > else > > > > > except > > > > > > > > > > > the physical body. Your mistake is to equate the mind > and > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness as originating with brain function. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is one center of consciousness, the brain. Your > fantasy > > > has > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > substance, my brain does. > > > > > > > > > > I'm very familiar with the realm of your beliefs. I know > > > what > > > > > you're > > > > > > > > > > talking about and it is your imagination boosted by > dogma. > > > > > > > > > > > OMPREM: You are sadly out of touch even with 'discoveries' > in > > > the > > > > > > > > > scientific community. You could start with Dr. Candace > Pert's, > > > > > > > > > Molecules of Emotion and then get back to me. It's OK, go > > > ahead, > > > > > > > > > google her because I know you have not heard of her. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your dogma is nothing but one of many different > > > descriptions > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > something that is common to all mankind. The > connection > > > in > > > > > our > > > > > > > > brain > > > > > > > > > > > > generated mind is to our collective intelligence and > it's > > > > > called by > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > hundred different names to support ones own personal > > > > > glorification > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > excuse to put someone else down as inferior. > > > > > > > > > > > > > OMPREM: Wrong. But the answer is right in front of > you. If > > > it > > > > > is the > > > > > > > > > > > brain that is totally responsible for the existence of > the > > > mind > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > > then can there be 'collective intelligence'? > > > > > > > > > > > > The brain produces an energy that reaches beyond the > physical > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > and unites as the collective intelligence. It's very > simple, > > > no > > > > > > > > > > mystical BS about it. > > > > > > > > > > > OMPREM: This is too good to pass up. Now I know you > atheists > > > claim > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > value reason, logic and empiricism so show me this > 'collective > > > > > > > > > intelligence' and tell me how you know about it (on an > > > empirical > > > > > basis > > > > > > > > > of course.) Is it something like the collective > intelligence of > > > > > > > > > lemmings as they hurtle over the cliff? > > > > > > > > > > > > > According to your brain = consciousness theory there > can > > > only > > > > > be > > > > > > > > conventionally-held beliefs, > > > > > > > > > > > that is individual beliefs that people have also agreed > > > upon. > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you come up with that? My brain = consciousness > > > theory? > > > > > > > > > > > > But > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'collective intelligence' which you also claim to > believe > > > in is > > > > > > > > > > > different from those conventional beliefs. With > 'collective > > > > > > > > > > > intelligence' you are getting into Oneness and the > > > paranormal, > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > > > areas that atheists deny. > > > > > > > > > > > > The collective intelligence doesn't store BS. I'm an > atheist > > > by > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > dogmatic definition of God. I understand the One and know > > > there > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > 'paranormal' things. > > > > > > > > > > Your ignorance of what an atheist believes is showing :-) > > > > > > > > > > > OMPREM: You seem to be labouring under the misconception > that > > > > > > > > > religion posits an individualized God and you are wrong. No > > > > > religion > > > > > > > > > claims that God is an individual. > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a hint: Religions say God is everywhere all the time > and > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > it is all God. This, of course, means that God is not an > > > individual > > > > > > > > > because for God to be an individual there has to be > somewhere > > > where > > > > > > > > > God is not which not possible according to religions. Do > you > > > get it > > > > > > > > > now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You need to get over your personal claim to > superiority > > > and > > > > > > > > recognize > > > > > > > > > > > > the fact that our collective intelligence is God, as > far > > > as > > > > > Life on > > > > > > > > > > > > Earth is concerned. Your personal dogma is the > support of > > > > > > > > selfishness. > > > > > > > > > > > > And the world is going down the tube because of it. > > > > > > > > > > > OMPREM: I agree that collective intelligence is God but > so > > > too > > > > > > > > > > > therefore must each part of > > > > ... > > > > Erfahren Sie mehr ยป > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
