And now let's try to inject some detail into this "discussion". First let me remind you - and it's ridiculous that a newbie has to remind an old-time - of what it says about Minds Eye under "About this group":
"A Forum to RATIONALLY express your ideas on: Religion, Philosophy, Literature, the Fine Arts, etc." Got that? Sure? OK. On Jan 18, 3:24 am, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > I will (as always) give benefit of the doubt and assume you are new, Yes, I am new here. You don't seem to be very good at this "benefit of the doubt" thing. Have another go. > 1) Just make your points, no one really cares if you are new. Each of > us was new at some point in every circumstance of life. Everyone cares > if you spend a lot of time apologising for yourself, because you > aren't being effective at transmitting your ideas or translating > someone elses. It would help if you would indicate some examples of my unnecessary apologies, or mentions of newness, in context, so that I can see if I was overdoing it a bit. Otherwise the unpleasant and paranoid nature of these posts of yours will lead me to write off any sensible advice you might be giving. > 2) Think through your concepts before introducing them. Again, give an example of some concept which you feel I have not thought through. > If you have > thought through them, post them and allow comments (I am not saying > you have done otherwise). So what are you saying? > NO person has an opinion that negates yours. What do you mean? > If someone introduces a new fact or proof that you are wrong, research > it to discover it's validity and modify your standing. Has someoe done this? Have I failed to respond rationally? Again, give an example, so that I can have some idea what you are talking about, or what you think you are talking about. > Do not be a devout ______ What devout ______ do you think I am being? > and insist that facts, truth, and reality are immaterial. What on Earth does this have to do with ANYTHING I have written? Give me some facts, truth, and reality about what I have written here in Minds Eye, here in front of your eyes, on your computer screen! > 3) Do not assume anyone knows more because they are older...EVER! Age > is a number, not an endorsement. And what have I written that makes you think that I think that my age means that I know more than someone else? Why are you apparently unable to quote a single thing I have written, in support of your barrage of wild assertions or insinuations about me? > 4) When you see people make a claim or assertion that then refuses to > discuss or back up their own idea, mentally relegate them to the > wastebasket. Their thought process is corrupted and ideas are > malformed in EVERY case. Do not waste time hoping that they may > approve of you or see your point. If you don't want me (and, I imagine, others0 to do precisely this to you, then you'd better shape up. Let me remind you again (because you so obviously need it): "A Forum to RATIONALLY express your ideas on: Religion, Philosophy, Literature, the Fine Arts, etc." Got it yet? > 5) Some people will not like you, this is life. There are people that > I agree with completely but would never lend them credibility by > discussing anything with them. Content is not everything, delivery is > not everything, ability to understand the oppositions idea and treat > it according to merit is. Do not base your own ideas merit or lack of > merit on anyone. Here's a great suggestion for you, from someone whom you evidently admire greatly: "ability to understand the oppositions idea and treat it according to merit is [everything]". You should take that wise advice to heart. > These few rules for common debate should help you. You kill me, you really do. > You do indeed use marker terms that people using sock puppets acquire. > The largest of which are your repeated claims of newness, innocence, > and fear of not fitting in. Gosh. Logic 101. "Trolls and sockpuppets have learned that it pays to sneakily pretend to be a nervous newbie; therefore, anyone who seems to be a nervous newbie is probably a troll or a sockpuppet." Discuss. > I am not accusing you of this No, of course you aren't, and of course my name is not Angus Rodgers, easily learned from my Google profile, and easily linked to an Internet posting history going back to around 1992 or so. You probably think that all that is a fabrication, and you will soon be referring to me as "Angus", in quotation marks, to show that you haven't been fooled by me. >, just > pointing out noticeable traits that I have witnessed over years of > groups. Gosh. Like I have never been in this position before. Like I have never encountered this kind of nasty paranoia on the Internet before. Like you are actually being original. > Simply have faith in yourself and your own validity Well, I do - see? > , and allow yourself to change opinions after research and reason. Once again, take your own advice to heart. Research ME. (You might conclude that I'm a bit of a kook. So be it.) Reason with ME. Can you? Are you prepared to realise that you have just made a big, foolish mistake, out here in public with everyone to see, and no way to retract, only apologise and learn? > Remember : dogs bite but dogma murders. And the relevance of this to me and anything I have posted in this forum is what, exactly?
-- 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.
