Bruce, Don't waste your energies man. Strip away the words 'mexican', 'buddhist' and 'metta' and there'll be nothing left. You're being pseudo-intellectually honey-trapped. Don't pander. The list owner has already speculated that this might be a fake email ID. Adit. On 11 Sep 2015 21:00, "Bruce A. Metcalf" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear James, > > P.P.S. I have answers for everything. >>>> >>> >>> If this is so, then why do you trouble yourself in discussion with >>> others, >>> who could, by definition, add nothing to your understanding? >>> >> >> Did you not see my earlier email that people tend to underestimate >> Hispanics? >> > > If you believe you have answers for everything, anyone who considers you > less than Godlike in your wisdom would be underestimating you. > > As for your ethnicity, I would have had no idea about what it was had you > not started this thread with a public notice -- something not commonly done > here, and thus curious. > > This and your claim of high intelligence informed me that a chip was > indeed upon your shoulder, and you really should have expected this group > to try to knock it off. After all, you did review the message list before > posting, and given your omniscience, should have seen that coming (without > any regard whatsoever to you ethnicity). > > > This was supposed to be a joke. I am sorry that you did not read >> it that way. >> > > So were some -- but not all -- of my comments. I'm sorry you don't seem to > be able to tell the difference. > > > At the same time, I don't appreciate being told that I am not >> following the rules. >> > > Rule, singular. "Assume goodwill" is that rule, and when your first post > establishes you on the defensive, it makes this lister suspect that you > don't understand what we're about here. > > > I truly believe that you are violating the spirit of discussion on this >> forum. >> > > How? By trying to poke gentle fun at you? By suggesting your claims are > comical? By failing to presume sufficient goodwill to believe all that you > say? Just which crime are you accusing me of? > > > Please do not use bad language or I will simply have to block you. >> > > That wasn't "bad language" in my book. "Stirring the shit" was selected > very carefully from my vocabulary of words and phrases as being the most > evocative of how I viewed your postings here. > > If one "shit", used in context, puts me on your blocked list, then it > suggests that you are only willing to use a sub-set of English (large > though that set may be), and I suspect your intellectual world will be > slightly impoverished thereby. Block me if you fear such words, as I may > well "shit" again! > > > I would really recommend the Buddha Dharma Facebook Group where clear >> > > rules are laid out. This way, we can see who is violating the rules. > > That would be useful if I were concerned about finding someone to blame > for this discussion. I'm not. Maybe that's your hobby. > > I am concerned about having an intelligent conversation with other > silklisters -- a group I'm not yet sure you fit into very well, except > perhaps as the token troll as others have suggested. > > If you are interested in becoming one of us, let me offer the suggestion > that you limit yourself to one post per day. In this manner, you give us > all time to consider and respond to your first post, and you give yourself > time to contemplate your reply. > > Then again, if self-doubt isn't part of your makeup, or you don't care > what we might have to say, or you intend to rely on the answers you already > have, then perhaps fewer than one post per day might be even better. > > Cheers, > / Bruce / > >
