Do you have an intelligent question to ask?  




On Aug 30, 2013, at 8:23 AM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]> wrote:

> Marsha said to Andre:
> Accusation without proof (including cited and researchable context) is mere 
> gossip.
> 
> Andre:
> Oh dear. Sigh. Nr 8? The archives are full of the proofs Lucy.
> 
> Marsha said:
> 
> It might be that any one of your 1. - 7. is an acceptable response within a 
> given context.
> 
> Andre:
> Not on a philosophical discussion site it is not. Especially since the 
> confusing bits and pieces you present are only to provoke/deflate/nihilate 
> from which you then slither away. You simply do not address the issues dmb, 
> Ron, Arlo, Anthony, myself (and others)present to you. That is why the 1-7 
> (there are undoubtedly others you can pull out of the box, just see above) 
> are not acceptable.
> 
> Marsha continues:
> 
> And if you want to complain about what is irresponsible behavior within this 
> intellectual/philosophical forum, you might want to review your own 
> "bucket-full-of-snot" posts.
> 
> Andre:
> And I gave reasons as to why I think they are a b-f-o-s. To wit: you keep in 
> slithering away using any variation of the 1-7 (+ 1) responses.
> 
> Marsha keeps on going:
> But, don't read my posts if they offend your intellectual sensibility, and 
> you might also try to remember  "The real cycle you're working on is a cycle 
> called yourself."
> 
> Andre:
> Yes, and I am responding to a type of behaviour and response that needs lots 
> of work but is obviously not seen or recognized. I remember reading the other 
> day that the most difficult and irritating person is an ego that's had a 
> glimpse of 'the light', call it a profound insight. They are irritating 
> because they immediately think they have seen it all. They are impervious to 
> correction or learning. They have developed an 'inner detachment', an 'inner 
> dryness'. All goings on in the 'conditioned' world (within which you and I 
> live) are regarded by them as petty little illusory nothings. Hypotheticall 
> dreamy states full of self-inflicted suffering. A hopelessly directed Greek 
> tragedy at best. If only these petty little specks knew what I know.
> 
> The 'eternal', 'nirvana', DQ alone is real. They begin to scorn petty little 
> people living their petty little lives. Dq is none other than sq. Sq is none 
> other than DQ... aggrandizing themselves in the process as being, somehow, 
> above all that sq. Snuggling in the DQ womb.
> 
> Why? Because they are scared as hell. Because there is still something grand 
> to complete... and then to travel the 180 degrees to the marketplace, the 
> 'valley' (ZMM) And THAT is scary as hell.
> 
> Of course my ears stood up as I saw connections, and not just a few when 
> reading this, connections with your behaviour and statements here on this 
> discuss.
> 
> Yes, the above Pirsig quote is a good one and I am working away on it but I 
> do not make the statements you do and do not behave as you do here on this 
> discuss (and don't attribute this to different upbringings please, or 
> histories and values). You are simply confused.
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html

Reply via email to