|
Post by Figgles on Oct 30, 2019 5:11:32 GMT
Look who's in the peanut gallery!....Hey, Sharon....
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 8, 2019 3:18:03 GMT
Am I the only one seeing intense irony in the fact that E is valiantly trying to point outside of the dream, towards Truth in the "Petti" thread, while he gets poop hurled at him at every turn, while the "Hyperrealism" and "Movie" thread are chugging along merrily, as though 'in the dream' talk were the most poignant of issues to be discussed on a spiritual forum. Priceless.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 16, 2019 23:11:44 GMT
Yes. One has to wonder how it is that Sharon and her obvious nastiness to other forum participants continuously flies under Reefs radar. (tongue firmly in cheek, of course.... ) (Even for Sharon though, gotta say, she is being particularly nasty to Roydop).
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 17, 2019 19:34:17 GMT
I'd love to hear your definition Sharon, of "first punch." Through observation it would seem that to you, the merest expression of divergence in viewpoint from your own, constitutes a 'punch,' directed your way. Roy didn't throw a punch your way. His posts were content based, not personally insulting to you at all. He's even clearly attempting to remain civil in the face of your abject personalization of things.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 18, 2019 23:50:52 GMT
I'd love to hear your definition Sharon, of "first punch." Through observation it would seem that to you, the merest expression of divergence in viewpoint from your own, constitutes a 'punch,' directed your way. Roy didn't throw a punch your way. His posts were content based, not personally insulting to you at all. He's even clearly attempting to remain civil in the face of your abject personalization of things. She has a long history of nonstop first punches, even when nobody is punching back.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 20, 2019 4:33:57 GMT
I'd love to hear your definition Sharon, of "first punch." Through observation it would seem that to you, the merest expression of divergence in viewpoint from your own, constitutes a 'punch,' directed your way. Roy didn't throw a punch your way. His posts were content based, not personally insulting to you at all. He's even clearly attempting to remain civil in the face of your abject personalization of things. She has a long history of nonstop first punches, even when nobody is punching back. Yuppers.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 10, 2020 18:23:21 GMT
You used to be the king of the tag-team. Interesting that you would not offer up some of your own past dialogues at example, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 12, 2020 16:13:16 GMT
I'd say so long as one is still conversing, there's some degree of openness. That's a large part of what happens on a spiritual forum...hashing things out through dialogue.
I always find that suggestion of 'lets agree to disagree' during a discussion to be an indicator that the one suggesting it, is the one who is most attached to his view, not the one who is interested in continuing to converse.
Conversations on a forum, even ones that get very heated (hell, probably mostly the ones that get very heated!) are at their crux, 'explorations.'
The suggestion to 'agree to disagree' is a means of stopping that further exploration. I'd advise anyone whose go to during a contentious discussion is 'lets agree to disagree' to take a long hard look at what's really behind that.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 12, 2020 16:19:44 GMT
Sorry Laffy but I think you are way too focused upon the idea of minds being changed or not, through a particular discussion.
Is that the only reason you ever counter assertions made on these forums? Because of the possibility of changing the other's mind?
The most sincere forum conversations are fueled by Truth/clarity itself, bubbling up, finding expression, regardless of how open or not the poster being responded to is deemed to be.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jan 12, 2020 16:31:17 GMT
ZD, you are the absolute worst for this; Except unlike Laffy, you don't just drop the subject. While you expect the other poster to stop conversing with you about the topic in question, you continue to allude to his points in your posts to others and when he tries to jump back into the conversation to counter your posts about him, you circle back around to 'I thought we agreed to disagree.'
These are spiritual discussion forums which makes them as venues, much different than encountering a fundy Christian in the grocery store.
Instead of taking countering points as evidence that one is trying to make you change your mind, try looking at it all from a less personal vantage point.
Again, on a spiritual discussion forum, who is the one most attached to his view? the one who wants to keep discussion going or the one who insists on agreeing to disagree? I say it's very clearly the one who insists upon agreeing to disagree. He's the one who is least open to a new point of view as he's the one shutting things down (or at least attempting to).
"Agree to disagree' on a spiritual forum is the best means one has for holding to his view, not having his views challenged. You ZD are someone who apparently has great difficulty in having his views challenged. The moment things get even a little heated, you bow out of the discussion. Have you ever looked into that?
|
|