Do you think it odd that your God never acknowledges you? Is that rude?

[-1-]

Greatest You Are, has it ever occurred to you to reply to posts by meaning, in a pertinent way? You are preaching something which can be true, but you put your claims in the most impertinent places. The posts you append your claim neither deny nor affirm your claims. The two are incongruous. Your posts and the ones you append them to are mutually irrelevant.

Why do you do this?

[Greatest I am]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

I cut to the chase and thus teach people how to respond without wasting too much time, and I also do not respond to such open ended foolishness without quotes so that I might be able to show you your errors.

Regards
DL

[Lacewing]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Perhaps this quote had value in the context/time it was used. But it's not some sort of blanket response or ultimate wisdom -- as no quote is.

There is great value in discussing people and what they do and why. It can reveal limitations, agenda and motives, as well as skewed logic and information. Understanding a person -- recognizing their blindness, fear, patterns, and intoxication -- is a huge asset in determining the value and clarity of what they say. And it's also a way for us to better ourselves and each other by questioning/revealing these things.

[Greatest I am]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Perhaps this quote had value in the context/time it was used. But it's not some sort of blanket response or ultimate wisdom -- as no quote is.

There is great value in discussing people and what they do and why. It can reveal limitations, agenda and motives, as well as skewed logic and information. Understanding a person -- recognizing their blindness, fear, patterns, and intoxication -- is a huge asset in determining the value and clarity of what they say. And it's also a way for us to better ourselves and each other by questioning/revealing these things.

True to some extent, in person, as then body language can give some of the information you speak of.

In a forum, that does not exist or apply.

Regards
DL

[Lacewing]

There is great value in discussing people and what they do and why. It can reveal limitations, agenda and motives, as well as skewed logic and information. Understanding a person -- recognizing their blindness, fear, patterns, and intoxication -- is a huge asset in determining the value and clarity of what they say. And it's also a way for us to better ourselves and each other by questioning/revealing these things.

True to some extent, in person, as then body language can give some of the information you speak of.

In a forum, that does not exist or apply.

You don't think it's possible (?) to recognize these kinds of things (I've listed above) in the repetitive writings of people, and their patterned behavior and interactions through their communication? Does this mean that you must meet everyone in person (throughout history) in order to form some idea of their patterns, motives, and limitations?

Now that doesn't really make sense, does it?

[Dontaskme]

I cut to the chase and thus teach people how to respond without wasting too much time, and I also do not respond to such open ended foolishness without quotes so that I might be able to show you your errors.

There are no errors in the constant flux of life.

"What is meant to happen will happen, and no force on earth can stop it from happening. What is meant not to happen will not happen and no force on earth can make it happen."
Sri Ramana Maharshi.

[-1-]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Perhaps this quote had value in the context/time it was used. But it's not some sort of blanket response or ultimate wisdom -- as no quote is (ultimate wisdom wrapped in a blanket response).

Except, of course, your quote. (In RED.)

If your quote was false, then blanket responses in quotes could express ultimate wisdom. (Reversing the truth value of either will reverse the truth value of the other.)

You get a flip-flop switch if you allow your quote to be false.

But your quote is also a blanket-response ultimate wisdom.

So if your quote does not apply to itself, then it can't apply to all blanket responses.

ETC.

This is an exercise in logic, not an argumentation on the topic.

[Lacewing]

But your quote is also a blanket-response ultimate wisdom.

No it's not. I was simply making a point -- I don't view it as extremely as you apparently need to in order to make your own convoluted point.

This is an exercise in logic...

Uh huh, whatever.

[-1-]

Uh huh, whatever.

I enjoy making convoluted deductive arguments. However, I don't have the patience to read similar ones made by others. So I sympathize with your point.

[Samazeuilh]

“Do you think it odd that your God never acknowledges you?”

That’s a leading question akin to “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

“Is that rude?”

It is incoherent to posit God as being “rude”; a maximally perfect entity cannot, by definition, be “rude”.

[Greatest I am]

There is great value in discussing people and what they do and why. It can reveal limitations, agenda and motives, as well as skewed logic and information. Understanding a person -- recognizing their blindness, fear, patterns, and intoxication -- is a huge asset in determining the value and clarity of what they say. And it's also a way for us to better ourselves and each other by questioning/revealing these things.

True to some extent, in person, as then body language can give some of the information you speak of.

In a forum, that does not exist or apply.

You don't think it's possible (?) to recognize these kinds of things (I've listed above) in the repetitive writings of people, and their patterned behavior and interactions through their communication? Does this mean that you must meet everyone in person (throughout history) in order to form some idea of their patterns, motives, and limitations?

Now that doesn't really make sense, does it?

I said to some extent.

If you think you can know a personality deeply or fully just by what is written by him, I think you would be deluding yourself.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

“Do you think it odd that your God never acknowledges you?”

That’s a leading question akin to “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

“Is that rude?”

It is incoherent to posit God as being “rude”; a maximally perfect entity cannot, by definition, be “rude”.

How do you know that as a fact? Do you know of such an entity?

God is said to be the epitome of all attributes since he sets the standards.

Whose name would you put above God's for rudeness?

Regards
DL

[Lacewing]

True to some extent, in person, as then body language can give some of the information you speak of.

In a forum, that does not exist or apply.

You don't think it's possible (?) to recognize these kinds of things (I've listed above) in the repetitive writings of people, and their patterned behavior and interactions through their communication? Does this mean that you must meet everyone in person (throughout history) in order to form some idea of their patterns, motives, and limitations?

Now that doesn't really make sense, does it?

I said to some extent.

Why are you leaving off the rest of what you said, which is what I was responding to?

If you think you can know a personality deeply or fully just by what is written by him, I think you would be deluding yourself.

And I didn't say that, did I? My point -- which you seem intent on twisting -- is that "discussing people" (and what they do) can have value, as there are characteristics, motives, limitations, etc., that can be recognized... even from their written communication. And (as I also pointed out) we better ourselves and each other by questioning/revealing these things. I'm guessing you would normally agree with this (as it seems obvious!), so I think you're just being defensive over my response to your use of that quote you like to use. It appears that you used it to avoid addressing something (simply) that was being pointed out to you. But considering all of the gyrations you are going through now, I think your ego is too involved, and further discussion is pointless.

[Greatest I am]

You don't think it's possible (?) to recognize these kinds of things (I've listed above) in the repetitive writings of people, and their patterned behavior and interactions through their communication? Does this mean that you must meet everyone in person (throughout history) in order to form some idea of their patterns, motives, and limitations?

Now that doesn't really make sense, does it?

I said to some extent.

Why are you leaving off the rest of what you said, which is what I was responding to?

If you think you can know a personality deeply or fully just by what is written by him, I think you would be deluding yourself.

And I didn't say that, did I? My point -- which you seem intent on twisting -- is that "discussing people" (and what they do) can have value, as there are characteristics, motives, limitations, etc., that can be recognized... even from their written communication. And (as I also pointed out) we better ourselves and each other by questioning/revealing these things. I'm guessing you would normally agree with this (as it seems obvious!), so I think you're just being defensive over my response to your use of that quote you like to use. It appears that you used it to avoid addressing something (simply) that was being pointed out to you. But considering all of the gyrations you are going through now, I think your ego is too involved, and further discussion is pointless.

" I'm guessing you would normally agree "

This is the bottom line to what I have been saying.

Anything you surmise of anyone you chat with here will be a best guess of yours and likely wrong.

I recall talking to a security guard, in person on an issue. Pot legalization. He was agreeing with every one of my pro position and at the end of the chat I asked him point blank if he would vote for it.

Surprise. He said no even after agreeing with the legal and moral position of legalization.

I asked him why he would not vote that way knowing that the right moral choice was to vote yes.

He said he was afraid he might have to start paying for his wifes pot use, should she get into it.

Even face to face, sometimes one cannot know someones bottom line on anything.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I said to some extent.

Why are you leaving off the rest of what you said, which is what I was responding to?

If you think you can know a personality deeply or fully just by what is written by him, I think you would be deluding yourself.

And I didn't say that, did I? My point -- which you seem intent on twisting -- is that "discussing people" (and what they do) can have value, as there are characteristics, motives, limitations, etc., that can be recognized... even from their written communication. And (as I also pointed out) we better ourselves and each other by questioning/revealing these things. I'm guessing you would normally agree with this (as it seems obvious!), so I think you're just being defensive over my response to your use of that quote you like to use. It appears that you used it to avoid addressing something (simply) that was being pointed out to you. But considering all of the gyrations you are going through now, I think your ego is too involved, and further discussion is pointless.

" I'm guessing you would normally agree "

This is the bottom line to what I have been saying.

Anything you surmise of anyone you chat with here will be a best guess of yours and likely wrong.

I recall talking to a security guard, in person on an issue. Pot legalization. He was agreeing with every one of my pro position and at the end of the chat I asked him point blank if he would vote for it.

Surprise. He said no even after agreeing with the legal and moral position of legalization.

I asked him why he would not vote that way knowing that the right moral choice was to vote yes.

He said he was afraid he might have to start paying for his wifes pot use, should she get into it.

Even face to face, sometimes one cannot know someones bottom line on something.

Regards
DL