Depending on what list you're using it looks like you went to either Imperial college London, Chicago or Columbia!!!???Arising_uk wrote:But you're right, I'm gutted as I only went to the 8th best in the world
Exactly what? I've told you, upon this forum my experience is that those who have raised my gender have invariably been the Yank. You can go back over all my posts if you wish but I can't be bothered, as its been my experience.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Exactly!
Do you? How quaint! You think the world would be better?As I said, I believe that I have evidence that you are female, hence the usage of "her." Even still, I am modern in my views. I think that in some ways it would be better if we had a matriarchal society, so there!
My apologies, I thought it a word, I just meant your research seems insufficient or limited.What word did you mean to use when you used "pauce?" Because that spelling is not present in several dictionaries I've referenced.
But even without that word, it would seem that you ask me to explain myself and then attempt to compete/berate me for it. I'm sorry!
Lets not, as I so dislike missing a point. Could you say what it was in a different way?No, I'm saying that you missed the point I was trying to make, so lets move on!
Oh it's meant as a racial slur, so you are a bigot. I thought so. OK, I thought it would be the same as in Australia because there it has a much kinder meaning. I took your's to be one in the same, and adding to the fact that I was born in a state that I've always been proud of because of their stance during the US civil war. I was always proud of being a 'Yankee' and not a 'Rebel.' Us Yankees don't believe in racial slurs, I'm sorry that you do, help yourself to me if it somehow makes you feel better about yourself. And don't bring up the Brit bit, as I was just providing a mirror for you to peer into. But if you keep that type of attitude I shall consider you a Chaz clone and ignore you via the forums interface, because I have no time for immature people that call others names.
No loss.No, what I told you was that was my perception, it was you who said we could tell if they were limited.Apparently, you're telling me.
Sorry!? Are you now denying that you called me a she?Evidence!
I didn't, that's the point.So what sex did you say you were, again?
LMAO, three times. Mind that infant cultural conditioning now. What empirical data do you have to show that I'm a female?I mention empirical data and you scream "cultural conditioning??" Sounds like a female to me!
Academics eh!John wrote:Depending on what list you're using it looks like you went to either Imperial college London, Chicago or Columbia!!!???
Nothing like universal agreement is there.
Yet again evidence as to why I hate arguing with you. We tend to dance around in a circle. It's a case of constant misdirection. It's fruitless, well at least anytime soon. Plus I don't like associating with people that try and write one off with an attempt to pigeon hole them with a label that's inconsistent in application. If you want to demean me with some label of preconceived notions, then that's your problem, I've got no time to entertain that shortsightedness.Arising_uk wrote:Exactly what? I've told you, upon this forum my experience is that those who have raised my gender have invariably been the Yank. You can go back over all my posts if you wish but I can't be bothered, as its been my experience.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Exactly!Do you? How quaint! You think the world would be better?As I said, I believe that I have evidence that you are female, hence the usage of "her." Even still, I am modern in my views. I think that in some ways it would be better if we had a matriarchal society, so there!
What 'evidence' do you have for your claim that I am female?My apologies, I thought it a word, I just meant your research seems insufficient or limited.What word did you mean to use when you used "pauce?" Because that spelling is not present in several dictionaries I've referenced.
But even without that word, it would seem that you ask me to explain myself and then attempt to compete/berate me for it. I'm sorry!Lets not, as I so dislike missing a point. Could you say what it was in a different way?No, I'm saying that you missed the point I was trying to make, so lets move on!Oh it's meant as a racial slur, so you are a bigot. I thought so. OK, I thought it would be the same as in Australia because there it has a much kinder meaning. I took your's to be one in the same, and adding to the fact that I was born in a state that I've always been proud of because of their stance during the US civil war. I was always proud of being a 'Yankee' and not a 'Rebel.' Us Yankees don't believe in racial slurs, I'm sorry that you do, help yourself to me if it somehow makes you feel better about yourself. And don't bring up the Brit bit, as I was just providing a mirror for you to peer into. But if you keep that type of attitude I shall consider you a Chaz clone and ignore you via the forums interface, because I have no time for immature people that call others names.
But since when has 'Yank' been a race!? Bigot maybe but like I say not towards Americans but a specific type, one that I call the Yank, i.e. ones with a Disney view of the world and their history.
"Us Yankees don't believe in racial slurs" LMAO! You saying no Yankee think negros are niggers? What a haven of racial harmony America must be.No, what I told you was that was my perception, it was you who said we could tell if they were limited.Apparently, you're telling me.Sorry!? Are you now denying that you called me a she?Evidence!I didn't, that's the point.So what sex did you say you were, again?LMAO, three times. Mind that infant cultural conditioning now. What empirical data do you have to show that I'm a female?I mention empirical data and you scream "cultural conditioning??" Sounds like a female to me!
Who's arguing?SpheresOfBalance wrote:Yet again evidence as to why I hate arguing with you. We tend to dance around in a circle. It's a case of constant misdirection. It's fruitless, well at least anytime soon. Plus I don't like associating with people that try and write one off with an attempt to pigeon hole them with a label that's inconsistent in application. If you want to demean me with some label of preconceived notions, then that's your problem, I've got no time to entertain that shortsightedness.
Well! At least two groups of them anyway but save your pity.I feel sorry for anybody whose comfort depends on the need to group people with an "Us and Them" mentality. I only see individuals within the group of homo-sapiens!
Easy, don't make unsupportable assertions about me and say them to others.I'd appreciate it if you'd just leave me alone!
strange view , I see it that god is a burden , of which I am free ,lancek4 wrote:Whew! I was temporarily unable to post replies. I was silenced!!
Chaz you are halarious!!!
Yes, godfree .. You were included in the initial post of mine concerning screennames. (We just moved the keg to another room and didn't tell any body)
You assert that you are free of god, yet ironically you rely upon an effect of a 'god' to posit your freedom.
Lance is right, you are not free of God as you have made a religion out of Atheism.Godfree wrote:strange view , I see it that god is a burden , of which I am free ,lancek4 wrote:Whew! I was temporarily unable to post replies. I was silenced!!
Chaz you are halarious!!!
Yes, godfree .. You were included in the initial post of mine concerning screennames. (We just moved the keg to another room and didn't tell any body)
You assert that you are free of god, yet ironically you rely upon an effect of a 'god' to posit your freedom.
I was free to start with , and I didn't let god take away that freedom ,
the concept of god , is just a control mechanism ,
do you have a desire to be controlled ,,????
Nope, much simpler, I was listening to BBC Radio 4's shipping forecast at the time of registration and the "_uk" is just a tag that I have found very useful when trying to produce unique usernames.lancek4 wrote:... What uk is rising? Are you partiotic to the crown or something?
In what way is 'the concept of god is a control mechanism' determining your position? Once one is educated upon what this mechanism is (god), how is freedom determined then?Godfree wrote:strange view , I see it that god is a burden , of which I am free ,lancek4 wrote:Whew! I was temporarily unable to post replies. I was silenced!!
Chaz you are halarious!!!
Yes, godfree .. You were included in the initial post of mine concerning screennames. (We just moved the keg to another room and didn't tell any body)
You assert that you are free of god, yet ironically you rely upon an effect of a 'god' to posit your freedom.
I was free to start with , and I didn't let god take away that freedom ,
the concept of god , is just a control mechanism ,
do you have a desire to be controlled ,,????
god is tool a trick a trap set by the controllers ,lancek4 wrote:In what way is 'the concept of god is a control mechanism' determining your position? Once one is educated upon what this mechanism is (god), how is freedom determined then?Godfree wrote:strange view , I see it that god is a burden , of which I am free ,lancek4 wrote:Whew! I was temporarily unable to post replies. I was silenced!!
Chaz you are halarious!!!
Yes, godfree .. You were included in the initial post of mine concerning screennames. (We just moved the keg to another room and didn't tell any body)
You assert that you are free of god, yet ironically you rely upon an effect of a 'god' to posit your freedom.
I was free to start with , and I didn't let god take away that freedom ,
the concept of god , is just a control mechanism ,
do you have a desire to be controlled ,,????
Interestung categories. I would think that science would be in the 'observed' truth category, but that this would be a little t truth. And consciousness would be the big T truth. And that honestness would not be an observable truth.Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
I understand truth to be of two kinds. Two kinds that intermingle yet can be distinguished in their extremes.
For me that would be initially a relative, or small truth, if you will, and the second type of truth would be a Truth found in our observation, or ultimate Truth.
The first truth is truth in small things. For instance, honesty in our representations. Truthfulness.
The second type of truth that we could distinguish could sometimes be considered the ultimate Truth that can be observed by a human being or Truth with a capital T.
The first would deal with science or the accepted norm.
The second type of Truth has more to do with consciousness and states of consciousness.
Both overlap and there is ALL the hues of grey in-between.
In philosophy, if we choose to search for ultimate Truth, we must begin with small or relative truth. We must search to be truthful we must practice and respect honesty.
If we make super-human efforts and are extremely lucky we may perhaps reach something that we can be satisfied to call ultimate Truth.
You may have eyes but cannot see. We may have ears but cannot hear.
I have this funny feeling that Truth or ultimate Truth would be a wordless moment. Perhaps we would ultimately relate to what we would consider to be ultimate Truth or Satori symbolically. In a symbolic way. Still being fully conscious, or fully self conscious, but in an altered state, a higher state of consciousness.
This has been an awesome thread.
I thank EVERYONE who has participated.
I am the way, the truth, and the light.
.
