"In a definitive sense it simplistically suggests a general consensus to a specific goal." - Slip
That is a very good response, showing an understanding of the idea presented in the statement. If you could grasp that and shake off the BS, we might progress. peace & Love > Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 21:25:01 -0700 > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: evolution > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > > I understand your post to be what it is, subtle ad hominem, purposed > by you in collusion with yourself. Aside from that understanding I > find it simultaneously humorous and pathetic in that it clearly > demonstrates the inability to move on to the second square, for months > now. The statement is not inventive, unique or esoteric nor does it > imply anything that hasn't been presented thousands of times in > thousands of years. In a definitive sense it simplistically suggests > a general consensus to a specific goal. > I don't want to waste anymore time with it so let me make it really > extra simple for you, Tinker tinker, adios, sayonara, arrivederci! > > Ubi sunt qui ante nos fuerunt? > > On Aug 8, 9:26 pm, Tinker tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'll try to keep it real simple for you Slip, one statement at a time. > > Please tell me what you do not understand about this statement; > > > > 'We can begin Unity with a point of common understanding.' > > > > peace & Love > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 14:11:03 -0700 > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: evolution > > > From: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > After Chris's vehement blast about ad hominem, which was directly and > > > intentionally aimed (I'm surprised it wasn't in all caps), he posts a > > > reply to the gruffian reply saying........."Ad Hom's are for those who > > > are incapable of formulating a real position, rebuttal, statement. > > > They are a sign of weakness in intellect and understanding, above and > > > beyond being uncivil and rude." <<CJ > > > > > This is far from reality as I think I of all people have spent more > > > time and exerted more energy in trying to get to the meat of the > > > Tinker "Idea", "Thing" etc. I had in the past few months put together > > > a few real positions and still see that Tink insists on isulting > > > others because they don't see/understand his "idea", whatever it is. > > > Others have put forth less than complimentary issue regarding Tink's > > > persistent regurgitation ad nauseum, of the "rule overrides right" > > > mantra, as if it is some kinda of new idea instead of the cliche > > > thinking that it is. Rule overrides right, wow, how profound, like no > > > kidding, everyone knows that rule overrides right. So round and round > > > it went and it's still spinning aimlessly. In the end it seemed as > > > though my post, if read for the first time, was purely a ad hom attack > > > but in retrospect anyone who has reviewed the entire episode will see > > > that it was just a "had enough BS" attack. I've attacked others that > > > have come in here and attacked my ME friends without just cause and > > > heard little of it. I'm sure that I can revise my post to say it all > > > differently but still mean the same, as Fran points out, the > > > subversive/subliminal attack and I might just do that to set the > > > record straight. While I do apologize for deviating from ME decorum I > > > still stand by my post to the Tink. > > > > > Revision; > > > Tinker!! I'm picturing a evangelist purporting to have some secret > > > knowledge that people can ascribe to. Something in the line of a "Jim > > > Jones" or "Rev. Moon" style personae. > > > I've asked for explanations and haven't received anything, the > > > dialogue is going around in circles fast enough to cause a cyclone and > > > it seems to lead on the new comers with smoke and > > > mirrors amazement. I'm feeling like I'm at a carnival. It would be > > > great to see you take this "Idea" of yours to first base. > > > You have a bit of knowledge but it's a big secret! Your position is > > > repetitive causal reductionism within a cyclic format. You have > > > failed to make statement beyond affirmation of consequence and so we > > > are dangling. > > > When can we get past the cover of the book? > > > > > If that is still ad hom I'm lost but for sure I've reached the end of > > > formulating real positions and rebuttals to Tinks grandiose > > > apparitions of world change and I'm sure there are plenty of others > > > who are in alignment. I hope this clears it up. > > > > > On Aug 8, 11:58 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "...therefore it follows that I should attack the person > > > > who is continually pushing the non-idea and exposing it as the > > > > nonsense it is...." - SD > > > > > > Slip, there are other possibilities, no? :-) > > > > > > On Aug 8, 3:34 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I've thought about the ad hom issue as Chris put it, attack the idea > > > > > not the person, this I have to say is something that I have attempted > > > > > dozens of times, problem being that there really isn't any idea, just > > > > > a continuation of a daydream that Tinker want's to keep pushing > > > > > around. As of yet I haven't seen anyone else latch on to this Tinker > > > > > idea and run with it while building a formidable thread in the > > > > > process. > > > > > So for ad hom I would actually have to have a viable idea to attack, > > > > > which I don't so therefore it follows that I should attack the person > > > > > who is continually pushing the non-idea and exposing it as the > > > > > nonsense it is. Unfortunately that didn't go well and has caused this > > > > > big tink stink. Secondary to that is the fact that I will have to at > > > > > this point totally ignore all such posts and posters. I still don't > > > > > see anything worthwhile coming from the tink, a review of posts will > > > > > show that disruption is the prevailing wind. > > > > > > > On Aug 8, 3:03 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 8 Aug., 00:50, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that you are presenting the Idea that it is OK for > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > who is intellectually superior to ad hominem subversively when > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > cannot refute the ideas of the one they would be attacking with > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > intellectual superiority. > > > > > > > > 1.) The idea of intellectual superiority vs. inferiority sees to be > > > > > > an > > > > > > issue for you, Tinker. What is your understanding of the term > > > > > > "intellectual superiority"? > > > > > > > > 2.) "... to ad hominen ... when they cannot refute ... " It doesn't > > > > > > have to be an "either/or" thing, it can also be an "and/as well > > > > > > as"!- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Show them the way! Add maps and directions to your party > > invites.http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/events.aspx > > _________________________________________________________________ Share your memories online with anyone you want. http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/products/photos-share.aspx?tab=1 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
