Philosophy Now Forum

I put people on ignore if they keep interacting with me but they ignore/won't directly address specific points and questions despite the fact that they keep responding. There's no reason to waste time interacting with someone when that's the case.

At the moment I have these folks on ignore:

Age
Atla
bahman
Dontaskme
Eodnhoj7
Immanuel Can
Skepdick
Veritas Aequitas

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:01 pm I put people on ignore if they keep interacting with me but they ignore/won't directly address specific points and questions despite the fact that they keep responding. There's no reason to waste time interacting with someone when that's the case.

Ironic. He ignores people who do what he does.

I guess he's on a mission to have a monopoly over hipocrisy.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:21 pm Age is on my Ignore list because he writes volumes of repetition like some kind of malignant brain fungus. I was finding it annoying to have to scroll past screen after screen of his repetitive babble to get to the interesting, insightful, and funny posts of other people responding in various ways to Age's nonsense, dishonesty, and projections. Although the curious experiment of interacting with such madness and distortions can draw people in from time to time -- as a joke or puzzle to play with -- such volumes of psychosis-driven, delusion-serving repetition blanketing and derailing threads across this forum are nothing more than manic spam.

Yeah, ideally I want to have what I consider a conversation with people online. Offline, when I'm interacting with someone in person, if I ask them a question and they don't answer--and in a rather direct way that makes sense as an answer in the context of the question, I'm going to have a problem with them and I'm not going to consider that a conversation. I wouldn't keep spending time with that person. And if they keep pestering me, things are going to turn a lot more harsh than putting someone on ignore.

For the folks who are essentially Gene Rays (the Time Cube guy), and there are a lot of them on message boards, in chat rooms, etc., they're pretty much doomed to me putting them on ignore, because there's no way that they're going to start directly answering questions you ask them.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:01 pm I put people on ignore if they keep interacting with me but they ignore/won't directly address specific points and questions despite the fact that they keep responding. There's no reason to waste time interacting with someone when that's the case.

At the moment I have these folks on ignore:

Age
Atla
bahman
Dontaskme
Eodnhoj7
Immanuel Can
Skepdick
Veritas Aequitas

Gosh! Who isn’t on your ignore list?

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:17 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:01 pm I put people on ignore if they keep interacting with me but they ignore/won't directly address specific points and questions despite the fact that they keep responding. There's no reason to waste time interacting with someone when that's the case.

At the moment I have these folks on ignore:

Age
Atla
bahman
Dontaskme
Eodnhoj7
Immanuel Can
Skepdick
Veritas Aequitas

Gosh! Who isn’t on your ignore list?

Everyone else, including you.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:18 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:17 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:01 pm I put people on ignore if they keep interacting with me but they ignore/won't directly address specific points and questions despite the fact that they keep responding. There's no reason to waste time interacting with someone when that's the case.

At the moment I have these folks on ignore:

Age
Atla
bahman
Dontaskme
Eodnhoj7
Immanuel Can
Skepdick
Veritas Aequitas

Gosh! Who isn’t on your ignore list?

Everyone else, including you.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:24 am "Crapsack" is probably more projection on Henry's part than anything else. Judging from his Avatar and demeanor, one sort of wonders about his own hygiene.

omg... this was so freaking funny... made me laugh out loud.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:16 pm Yeah, ideally I want to have what I consider a conversation with people online.

Me too... and it seems strangely difficult or rare to accomplish online.

All throughout my life, I've had philosophical/thoughtful conversations with people in person. I have not studied anyone else's philosophy (except Christianity in my youth), rather it has always seemed natural to think philosophically to a certain extent, which other people have noted about me. It seems most reasonable and true to look at life from many angles and observe the workings of that, and consider the outcomes and implications... without being blinded by personal favor/payoff. To boldly explore beyond ego/identity as much as possible.

It takes courage and honesty to explore rather than latching/settling onto a belief/platform.

A lot of people on this forum use it to construct mental/belief structures to serve themselves, and to avoid the inconvenience of anyone challenging them on it -- as would happen in person. Some seem to have mental issues, and online communication is probably their primary interaction with the rest of the world. It's not honest.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:16 pm Offline, when I'm interacting with someone in person, if I ask them a question and they don't answer--and in a rather direct way that makes sense as an answer in the context of the question, I'm going to have a problem with them and I'm not going to consider that a conversation. I wouldn't keep spending time with that person. And if they keep pestering me, things are going to turn a lot more harsh than putting someone on ignore.

Agreed! This forum has turned out (for me) to be more for entertainment, than for exchanging honest, brave discussions. It has shown me just how messed up and manipulative a lot of people are. I honestly didn't guess there could be so many in one place. Here's what I gain from it when I want to deal with it: 1) I get to practice dealing with world madness/nonsense in a non-serious way -- which has strengthened me in dealing with life; 2) I get to question and oppose and mock beliefs/claims that many people think it inappropriate to question/oppose/mock -- which is good for keeping mentally limber and open; and 3) there's a lot of humor in it, so it makes me laugh a lot -- which is healthy for one's entire being.

This forum is the only one I use in my free time. The prior philosophy forum I was on was too rigidly structured. This one seems a bit overrun by insanity -- but there's value in learning to deal with everything, I suppose. It has been insightful/informative in ways I didn't expect.

I think it would be very interesting if people actually followed a reasonable line of questioning about beliefs/claims without darting into hiding/avoidance by erupting into noisy babbling or by adding on more nonsense claims/projections to derail and drown out all else. Such noise obscures any reasonable, true, or courageous philosophical exploration -- but apparently that's the best that people can do sometimes.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:13 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:01 pm I put people on ignore if they keep interacting with me but they ignore/won't directly address specific points and questions despite the fact that they keep responding. There's no reason to waste time interacting with someone when that's the case.

Ironic. He ignores people who do what he does.

I guess he's on a mission to have a monopoly over hipocrisy.

Even you are smarter than Terrapin, imagine that!

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:47 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:16 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:00 am
Yet when you put "another" on the ignore list, you, obviously, can NOT read what they write ...

The block only works if you are logged on.

Ah okay, thanks for the knowledge.

So, if any one wants to read what someone who is on their ignore list has written, then all they have to do is just not log on.

Although this seems to defeat the whole purpose for putting "others" on an ignore list, this does give people the ability to advertise that they have put "another" in their, so called, "penalty box", or ignore list, as though they are somehow much more superior than the "other" is while all the time still having the ability to 'secretly' read what the "other" is writing anyway.

That's a funny (devious) notion, that someone would actually, secretly read someone on their ignore list.

That's a real doublethink! to do such a thing, which would probably make it a doubleact!



I only ever put one habitual dick on the list. As I recall, I announced it for the radar effect. Then one day I’m surfing around off-line and I notice a posting by the blacklisted. A bit of experimentation revealed the limitations of the banning protocols.

So, upon observation, it appears that the effect of dealing with those limitations is, that pure intent (in this case to ignore), which doesn’t require a whole lot of attention once it’s properly defined, naturally shifts tactics as a situation evolves, so that “ignore” (in this particular instance of focused intent requiring minimal attention) is fulfilled in other ways, for the mind naturally adapts to situations without a whole lot of rigamaroll when the intent is sufficiently, effortlessly focused.

A comparison to clarify is driving an auto.

The intent is to get somewhere in one piece. After this is accomplished, one realizes that the mind was occupied by other thoughts during the drive. Thus, minimal attention was required to accomplish the focused intent of staying all in one piece. No doubt there were lots of actions required to fulfill the intent in ever-changing reality, however once the drive is over those significant actions are barely remembered, if at all.

Quite fascinating, eh?

Well, to babble on, Jiddu Krishnamurti tells an interesting story. It seems he was riding as a passenger in an auto with other passengers who were intently discussing some topic, I think it had to do with Theosophy, but I wouldn’t swear, and anyway the point is that these fellers were so focused on their discussion, on their intent, that they didn’t even notice when the driver ran over a goat.

I figure they didn’t notice because they were so absorbed in their intent, and their intent was not “Only Life, Important.”

Spring-boarding from this figuring into an intellectual approximation of an Oscar Peterson improvisation (in my dreams), apparently the importance of life wasn’t the driver’s intent either, since his driving didn’t adapt enough for passengers to notice, if he adapted brake or steering at all. Or perhaps, the driver would have killed people and not just a goat had he swerved or braked hard and lost control, and so he made an instinctive, and yet also discriminating action in running the goat down, in order to preserve human life.

No doubt the driver's actions and big technology machine severely affected the goat herder.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:43 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:00 am In other words, you BELIEVE you are better than those ones.

Not at all. All it means is that they are behaving it a way which is either silly, immature, unchallenging, uninteresting, impeding to honest thought, or perhaps trolling.

That is just your view, and thus not necessarily actually true and accurate at all.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:43 pm And one is choosing not to bother with contributions that are contemptible or a waste of time. Life's too short.

So by putting them in the penalty box, one is saying nothing at all about the person -- or about how good or bad they are, relative to you.

Are you 'trying to' speak for EVERY one here now?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:43 pm It's about whether or not they're a good conversationalist at that moment. That's all. It's about their words, not their person.

So, you judge "another", for the rest of their lives, and will NEVER listen to them ever again, on just the words that they have used, at some moment.

Well this sounds very much like you envision that you are better than they are, based on you judging "others".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:43 pm Conversation is a privilege, not a right.

And how did you arrive at this conclusion?

Conversation, to me, is just a natural part of being a human being. Interaction with one another is how human beings evolve, to be in such numbers as they are.

EVERY new born child has the RIGHT to be heard, listened to, and conversed with. Therefore, conversation is a RIGHT, and NOT just a privilege at all.

But, then again, you do mostly only speak about 'you', and what 'you' BELIEVE is true and right from your perspective, ONLY.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:43 pm A person who only obscures, misdirects, insults and adds irrelevancies, especially after warnings, loses that privilege. Exactly right, too.

LOL "exactly right, too".

Sounds here like you BELIEVE you have the right to be law maker, prosecutor, and judge.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:11 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:47 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:16 am
The block only works if you are logged on.

Ah okay, thanks for the knowledge.

So, if any one wants to read what someone who is on their ignore list has written, then all they have to do is just not log on.

Although this seems to defeat the whole purpose for putting "others" on an ignore list, this does give people the ability to advertise that they have put "another" in their, so called, "penalty box", or ignore list, as though they are somehow much more superior than the "other" is while all the time still having the ability to 'secretly' read what the "other" is writing anyway.

That's a funny (devious) notion, that someone would actually, secretly read someone on their ignore list.

That's a real doublethink! to do such a thing, which would probably make it a doubleact!



I only ever put one habitual dick on the list. As I recall, I announced it for the radar effect. Then one day I’m surfing around off-line and I notice a posting by the blacklisted. A bit of experimentation revealed the limitations of the banning protocols.

So, upon observation, it appears that the effect of dealing with those limitations is, that pure intent (in this case to ignore), which doesn’t require a whole lot of attention once it’s properly defined, naturally shifts tactics as a situation evolves, so that “ignore” (in this particular instance of focused intent requiring minimal attention) is fulfilled in other ways, for the mind naturally adapts to situations without a whole lot of rigamaroll when the intent is sufficiently, effortlessly focused.

A comparison to clarify is driving an auto.

The intent is to get somewhere in one piece. After this is accomplished, one realizes that the mind was occupied by other thoughts during the drive. Thus, minimal attention was required to accomplish the focused intent of staying all in one piece. No doubt there were lots of actions required to fulfill the intent in ever-changing reality, however once the drive is over those significant actions are barely remembered, if at all.

Quite fascinating, eh?

I just call this 'behaving sub-consciously'.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:11 pm Well, to babble on, Jiddu Krishnamurti tells an interesting story. It seems he was riding as a passenger in an auto with other passengers who were intently discussing some topic, I think it had to do with Theosophy, but I wouldn’t swear, and anyway the point is that these fellers were so focused on their discussion, on their intent, that they didn’t even notice when the driver ran over a goat.

I figure they didn’t notice because they were so absorbed in their intent, and their intent was not “Only Life, Important.”

Spring-boarding from this figuring into an intellectual approximation of an Oscar Peterson improvisation (in my dreams), apparently the importance of life wasn’t the driver’s intent either, since his driving didn’t adapt enough for passengers to notice, if he adapted brake or steering at all. Or perhaps, the driver would have killed people and not just a goat had he swerved or braked hard and lost control, and so he made an instinctive, and yet also discriminating action in running the goat down, in order to preserve human life.

No doubt the driver's actions and big technology machine severely affected the goat herder.

It sounds like it must have been a very small goat, or a very big motor vehicle, for NO one in an automobile to notice the obvious consequential thud, bump, and shudder that would be involved when running over a goat.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:01 pm I put people on ignore if they keep interacting with me but they ignore/won't directly address specific points and questions despite the fact that they keep responding. There's no reason to waste time interacting with someone when that's the case.

Yet the one known as "terrapin station" also refuses to address specific points and questions, despite the fact that it kept responding.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:01 pm At the moment I have these folks on ignore:

Age
Atla
bahman
Dontaskme
Eodnhoj7
Immanuel Can
Skepdick
Veritas Aequitas

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:16 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:21 pm Age is on my Ignore list because he writes volumes of repetition like some kind of malignant brain fungus. I was finding it annoying to have to scroll past screen after screen of his repetitive babble to get to the interesting, insightful, and funny posts of other people responding in various ways to Age's nonsense, dishonesty, and projections. Although the curious experiment of interacting with such madness and distortions can draw people in from time to time -- as a joke or puzzle to play with -- such volumes of psychosis-driven, delusion-serving repetition blanketing and derailing threads across this forum are nothing more than manic spam.

Yeah, ideally I want to have what I consider a conversation with people online. Offline, when I'm interacting with someone in person, if I ask them a question and they don't answer--and in a rather direct way that makes sense as an answer in the context of the question, I'm going to have a problem with them and I'm not going to consider that a conversation. I wouldn't keep spending time with that person. And if they keep pestering me, things are going to turn a lot more harsh than putting someone on ignore.

WHY?, What would you do?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:16 pm For the folks who are essentially Gene Rays (the Time Cube guy), and there are a lot of them on message boards, in chat rooms, etc., they're pretty much doomed to me putting them on ignore, because there's no way that they're going to start directly answering questions you ask them.

You could not get more hypocritical here now.

When ANY one reads back over our discussions what can be CLEARLY SEEN is that I answered just about EVERY question you posed to me. BUT, you VERY RARELY answered the questions I posed to you.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:10 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:16 pm Yeah, ideally I want to have what I consider a conversation with people online.

Me too... and it seems strangely difficult or rare to accomplish online.

All throughout my life, I've had philosophical/thoughtful conversations with people in person. I have not studied anyone else's philosophy (except Christianity in my youth), rather it has always seemed natural to think philosophically to a certain extent, which other people have noted about me. It seems most reasonable and true to look at life from many angles and observe the workings of that, and consider the outcomes and implications... without being blinded by personal favor/payoff. To boldly explore beyond ego/identity as much as possible.

Yet you do the EXACT OPPOSITE.

You are SO BLINDED by your OWN BELIEFS "lacewing" you have NOT YET even be able to SEE what has been happening BEFORE YOU here in this forum.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:10 pm It takes courage and honesty to explore rather than latching/settling onto a belief/platform.

A lot of people on this forum use it to construct mental/belief structures to serve themselves, and to avoid the inconvenience of anyone challenging them on it -- as would happen in person. Some seem to have mental issues, and online communication is probably their primary interaction with the rest of the world. It's not honest.

A LOT of projecting going on here.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:10 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:16 pm Offline, when I'm interacting with someone in person, if I ask them a question and they don't answer--and in a rather direct way that makes sense as an answer in the context of the question, I'm going to have a problem with them and I'm not going to consider that a conversation. I wouldn't keep spending time with that person. And if they keep pestering me, things are going to turn a lot more harsh than putting someone on ignore.

Agreed! This forum has turned out (for me) to be more for entertainment, than for exchanging honest, brave discussions.

This is because you will NOT be Honest about your OWN strongly held onto BELIEFS, which are BLINDING you.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:10 pm It has shown me just how messed up and manipulative a lot of people are. I honestly didn't guess there could be so many in one place. Here's what I gain from it when I want to deal with it: 1) I get to practice dealing with world madness/nonsense in a non-serious way -- which has strengthened me in dealing with life;

But there is NOTHING to "deal with", regarding 'life', itself.

What you have to 'deal with' is of your OWN making.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:10 pm 2) I get to question and oppose and mock beliefs/claims that many people think it inappropriate to question/oppose/mock -- which is good for keeping mentally limber and open;

Yet you do NOT have the courage nor honesty to question and challenge your OWN BELIEFS, let alone ACCEPT the questions and challenges posed to you regarding your OWN BELIEFS.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:10 pm and 3) there's a lot of humor in it, so it makes me laugh a lot -- which is healthy for one's entire being.

But laughing AT "others" is NOT healthy AT ALL. All that does is REVEAL and SHOW your OWN insecurities.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:10 pm This forum is the only one I use in my free time. The prior philosophy forum I was on was too rigidly structured. This one seems a bit overrun by insanity -- but there's value in learning to deal with everything, I suppose. It has been insightful/informative in ways I didn't expect.

Like 'what', for example?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:10 pm I think it would be very interesting if people actually followed a reasonable line of questioning about beliefs/claims without darting into hiding/avoidance by erupting into noisy babbling or by adding on more nonsense claims/projections to derail and drown out all else.

BUT this is EXACTLY what you do, when questioned about your OWN beliefs and claims.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:10 pm Such noise obscures any reasonable, true, or courageous philosophical exploration -- but apparently that's the best that people can do sometimes.

And 'noise' is about all that you have provided so far.

You certainly have NOT backed up NOR supported your claims that I have challenged you about. And, you have certainly NOT been able to answer Honestly all of the clarifying questions, which I have posed to you.