Re: The Antichrist
Posted: Sat May 05, 2012 6:30 pm
We have a history, MB, and HE STARTED THE SHIT, from the relative safety behind his keyboard. If you search his posts, you'll find that even though he stands on a relative truth platform, he's quick to demean his opponent, even calling them names, if you disagree with his, self stated, relative stance. And I mean if you're being as polite as hell, he doesn't care. He only cares that you don't believe things his way, and that's not a crime, but verbally demeaning someone as a result, is. He's a self proclaimed skeptic, but fears being skeptical of his own skepticism, and he wonders why I've called him a megalomaniac, considering all this.marjoramblues wrote:Chaz and SOBchaz wyman wrote:SpheresOfBalance wrote: No, you can't even begin to understand, throughout my life I noticed he was just like CHAZ; Always right!!! No matter WHAT? When I was 4 years old and he physically abused me,
You are such an odious little wanker. How dare you compare me to an abuser! You must be really fucked up!
You need to get a grip buddy.
FYI - when you say I "am always right", basically you are talking about yourself.
.
Probably placing myself in the firing line here; but I don't need to be gunned down by either of you formidable beings.
However, I do need to say that - at first I didn't feel that Chaz was being portrayed as an abuser. Only that SOB reads him as having to be right all the time, and against him, always.
I could have interpreted it differently, from Chaz's perspective. SOB's story linked Chaz with his abusive father and the phrase 'always right' - no matter what. This phrase was repeated throughout the narrative. SOB asked if we could start to see a pattern.
Chaz was placed in an absolute and unchanging position. And yes, the same could be said about SOB, absolutely. Always him against the world, seemingly: ' Unlike all the rest of the people of the world, I do not fear truth'. Whatever that means.
This exchange can no longer be seen as just a 'sidebar'; it is a thread derailed - a train wreck. A pattern ?
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT I'D NEVER HAVE ENGAGED HIM AS I HAVE DONE, IF IT WASN'T FOR HIM CALLING ME NAMES IN THE BEGINNING. I have a tendency to treat people in kind, I always have, even back in grade & high school, I was pretty much a star with athletics, in Track & Field, Gymnastics, Karate, and Swimming, receiving many medals for my physical prowess and I've been told by many women that I'm extremely handsome, and well built, yet my friends were not any of the poplar's. All my friends were those that extended their hands to me, I didn't care what you were, white, black, christian, atheist, Muslim, I could give a flying fuck. The only thing that mattered to me was that you were kind enough to consider me, and thus I was kind enough to consider you, it's that simple. On the other hand if you spit in my face, I'd wipe it off and cram it up your ass! I wish I could be a "turn the other cheek" guy, but I'm stuck in the "eye for an eye" camp. Such that intellectually, I place the "turn the other cheek" first in line, until someone spits in my face, then my emotional truth of "eye for an eye" rears it's ugly head. Of course it's a great quality when dealing with kind people, as the give and take quotient is well balanced.