ganging up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZVEvIFTo9s
ghost busters! On Jun 1, 5:16 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > You mean, then you'd finally start scraping a hole in the wall? > > On 1 Jun., 12:58, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > and, I would add, a simple shift in vision, or focus of what is seen, > > can be life changing. > > > On Jun 1, 3:57 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 28 May, 19:04, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fariest of them all? > > > > What one sees in the mirror is down to the eyes of the beholder. ;-) > > > > > On 28 Mai, 12:34, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 27 May, 15:14, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Molly & Pat : > > > > > > > Stop discussing Vam, his knowledge, his faith, his God, his Brahman, > > > > > > his emotions, his vehemence ... etc. It really should mean nothing > > > > > > to > > > > > > you, since you know nothing in that regard. > > > > > > We know of you what you inform us and show us. If you had shown > > > > > nothing of yourself, only THEN would we know nothing of you. What you > > > > > MEAN to us is down to US, irrespective of your strop. > > > > > > > There are matters and issues I've pointed out, quite strongly, as it > > > > > > deserved. As it still does. And I still believe the darkness and > > > > > > obscurity being spread by Pat, and you if you believe likewise, > > > > > > should > > > > > > be stopped forthwith. > > > > > > You base this on a mistaken view of my view. Just try to stop me and > > > > > see how far you get. Vam, you've actually helped me and, furthermore, > > > > > continue to demonstrate that I'm correct while trying to state I'm > > > > > incorrect. > > > > > > >The shades of evangelism, if not proselytism, > > > > > > should be dusted clean. > > > > > > Never have I attempted to convert anyone. Evangelism, by definition, > > > > > is the spreading of 'Good News'. Do you have a problem with 'Good > > > > > News'? > > > > > > >We can each discuss objective and subjective > > > > > > ideas, ontological theories and beliefs, personal experiences ... > > > > > > but > > > > > > only on the premise that they might, and often do, mean nothing to > > > > > > others. That doesn't render them any the less valuable and > > > > > > important, > > > > > > worthy of love and peace, and privileged. > > > > > > Exactly. I couldn't agree more. So why is it that, when I proffer my > > > > > ideas, you (now) try to show them as proselytism? That's actually > > > > > quite derogaatory and, in light of your other assailments, your > > > > > argument with me borders more on subtle ad hominem than any real > > > > > substance of philosophy. > > > > > > > Quite foolishly, Pat thinks because Hindus are not protected ... he > > > > > > has no idea what and where he's gotten into. I don't give a damn to > > > > > > his delusions, nor of Quran or all the Muslims and ... others. > > > > > > I mention that Christians an Jews were protected people by the > > > > > Qur'an. And THEN, I pointed out that mocern practitioners of Islam > > > > > are not following that precept. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH Hindus. > > > > > YOU made that issue yourself and then tried to brand me with your > > > > > fire. Go back and read what I read...like Molly did and give it a > > > > > rethink. My attack was on modern practitioners of Islam and, somehow, > > > > > you took offense to that and, now, have turned it into me > > > > > proselytising Islam. If you had read, with a calm soul and rational, > > > > > level head, you would have seen that. > > > > > > >Nor do > > > > > > I have any delusions of saving the world. Nor is my One the same as > > > > > > you or Pat might believe. > > > > > > If there is only One, the your One and my One MUST be the same. Our > > > > > viewpoints give us different angles on that One. The difference is > > > > > our geometrical viewpoint, not a difference in the One. > > > > > > >Nor is the God I know anything even remotely > > > > > > close to that which seems in your and Pat's espousals. > > > > > > It used to be. We used to agree on most aspects. Then you decided to > > > > > throw your toys out of the pram and demonstrate how rational you were. > > > > > > >Nor ... have I > > > > > > set myself as a Guru, all knowing, having any obligation to share or > > > > > > teach or correct ... etc. etc. ... I share what I know when the > > > > > > occasion offers, strictly in secular terms, except for traditions > > > > > > which I pointedly qualify, when I see someone desirous and > > > > > > preparedly > > > > > > simple. > > > > > > Oh, so you look for those who are 'prepared' and 'desirous'? Now THAT > > > > > sounds like proselytising to me. The big mirror should be showing > > > > > itself right about now, if you are as enlightened as you would like to > > > > > think. And, in my view, have shown yourself to be. Although we all > > > > > 'fall' now and then. It affords us the chance to get back up again. > > > > > > > So please refrain from anything pertaining to Vam. Just focus on the > > > > > > ideas and issues I have stated. That is what matters, as far as this > > > > > > forum goes. Which has been and still is its hallmark too. > > > > > > You made yourself into an issue by your irrational strop and by trying > > > > > to have me censured if not censored. And all for the wrong reasons, > > > > > if you had read what I'd written and read it for what it said rather > > > > > than getting p'd off about the fact that Hindus weren't specifically > > > > > protected by the Qur'an, which is NOT a matter for debate but is, > > > > > simply a fact of the Islamic scripture. It doesn't mention Hindus, > > > > > BTW. > > > > > > > I might have been equally scathing of scientists, religionists and > > > > > > atheists, too ... but only to correct the proportions, to counter > > > > > > the > > > > > > rabidness and shades of evangelical drive. I love each one of them > > > > > > individually, not through knowing them personally but through > > > > > > knowing > > > > > > myself beyond personality and individuality. Mostly I even have > > > > > > great > > > > > > regard for what they espouse, because I can see its relevance to > > > > > > humanity, what we are, in however limited or extended terms of > > > > > > domains, specific or generic, or accuracy. > > > > > > > What I oppose is someone telling me, and others : this is it ... > > > > > > this > > > > > > is all it is. > > > > > > Yet scientists, when they make a discovery, proclaim in no uncertain > > > > > terms, "This is what I've discovered." You take exception to the fact > > > > > that I've discvered something that breaks your pre-conceived notions, > > > > > like a flat-Earther when told the Earth is more spherical. > > > > > > > I still love the basics, the fundamentals ... because their > > > > > > interpretation is wholly open ! Theories, conjectures, beliefs, > > > > > > speculations ... are welcome, but only as they are. They may turn > > > > > > out > > > > > > be true. But until they do, nobody has any business projecting them > > > > > > as > > > > > > knowledge or truth ... as, this is it... this is all it is. > > > > > > > People who fit the One to themselves, their theories and > > > > > > conjectures, > > > > > > are grotesque, monsters in the making ... Hitler, Stalin, Mugabe, > > > > > > Islamic extremists, Taliban ( as we know them ) ... > > > > > > So, now you, albeit again subtly and obliquely, have equated me with > > > > > Hitler... Personally, I find this blatant ad hominem and applaud you > > > > > for your intellectual bravado. Well done. But I know it for what it > > > > > is and that is plain and simple (disguised) ad hominem. Quite beneath > > > > > you, oh so enlightened one. And now, you have demonstrated, > > > > > behaviourly, that you are not as enlightened as you would have others > > > > > believe. This coming from the man who told me he loved me and was SO > > > > > happy to hear my voice. I haven't changed, although my theories have > > > > > been refined. For one who stood by me, you now seem to stand against > > > > > me. Whilst I remain where I have always been. You really should go > > > > > back and re-read what I'd written and give me the benefit of the doubt > > > > > which you used to do. > > > > > > Also, I'd like to point out that you said above " Nor is my One the > > > > > same as you or Pat might believe." So this demonstrates that you HAVE > > > > > fitted the One to some concepts of yours and this, again, logically > > > > > and demonstrably, shows that you are tarring me with a feather that > > > > > you should be tarring yourself with. This whole escapade has been > > > > > very revealing, Vam, but it has revealed far more about you than it > > > > > has revealed about me. I think the One is trying to show you the dark > > > > > side of yourself and you refuse to see it and project it on to me. > > > > > But guess what, I'm the mirror and will reflect it right back because > > > > > I read what you write and hear what you say nd see both the cloak and > > > > > the dagger. Do you? Do you DARE? > > > > > > > On May 27, 5:56 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > God is an invention of mankind. Nature invented itself. > > > > > > > > On May 27, 6:36 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 26 May, 17:30, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It is very interesting, Vam, that Pat's view arouses such > > > > > > > > > such emotion > > > > > > > > > in you. I also (along with DWB) find his posts fascinating, > > > > > > > > > his > > > > > > > > > knowledge of scripture deep, and his view interesting. > > > > > > > > > Surely, not > > > > > > > > > ALL of his view can be wrong, if being wrong is possible (in > > > > > > > > > any way > > > > > > > > > but relative), and that you continue to state that it is - > > > > > > > > > well, I > > > > > > > > > find it interesting and will leave it at that. I also had > > > > > > > > > the thought > > > > > > > > > that it might be golden shadow at work, as Pat stated > > > > > > > > > previously. I > > > > > > > > > wonder if you confuse his relay of scripture with his view, as > > ... > > read more »
