But, OTOH, I like... no, love... Bruce's writing. I don't mind reading more of it. Keep at it, Bruce. :) On Sep 11, 2015 10:48 PM, "Aditya Kapil" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 / > > > > >
