What a truly irrelevant way to defend using ad homs, condescension, blanket negative judgments of people now, pretend-mindreading, insults and accusations.
Okay…
If this is what you really want to believe here, then okay.
A moment of lovely irony:
anew: Agreed.
one usually accepts something first, before they set out to see if it works or not.
anew: How many people have accepted your theory of three principles of happiness here?
anew: Although the logical flaws were just pointed out, to you.
anew: So, you believe that your theory here is not being accepted because of other people, and not because of any flaws within your theory, right?
anew: you can propose things until the day you “die”. But, if people inform you of why your theory/s are not being accepted, then do not take this on. Instead, blame others, or worse still blame ‘institutions’ for not listening to you.
Can one recognize oneself in the mirror?
Original post here: The paradox of pacifism - #36 by anew1
The one who ‘knows’ the way to Peace and Harmony often has the least charitable interpretation of other people’s motives when he pretend mind reads.
Ah, he who allows hath spoken. The King without a country. The cult leader without a cult. So, his ‘response’ falls to the ground like the proclamations of the Three Christs of Ypisilanti.
We who are blessed with this regal acceptance, feel the appropriate level of gratitude.
All three in a 12 hour period of such royal tolerance.
And, written in ‘a way’ knowing this one would “pick it up”.
And, as expected ‘this one’ has not yet recognized ‘the difference’. Or, at least it has chosen not to mention and talk about ‘the difference’, once again.
LOL This is funny, especially considering coming from the one with the intention it has.
Imagine spending your days looking for another’s posts, searching through them, to only copy and paste or present them in a particular way, hoping to achieve something.
Acltalls: Yes I quite literally do because I value understanding an entire argument before responding.
Yes, I’ve noticed this habit of anew1’s. He reads a sentence. He reacts, sometimes quite critically, even asking questions, questions that are answered in the next sentence. He criticizes but the criticisms no longer apply if one reads the next sentence or they are addressed, at least, but he writes about how things should be included, that are included in the next sentence.
Anew gets to the next sentence and instead of saying: Ah, ok. He just critiques that sentence or on rare occasions agrees or asks questions as if his reactions to sentence one have faded from memory. No acknowledgement.
This is a mild phenomenon, but odd, nonetheless, and given all the other communication ‘quirks’ part of the noise.
Anew: Okay. Thank you for, at least, answering this question.
and that’s it.
Acltalls notices anew1 responds piece by piece (which leads to the problems mentioned in the previous post). Anew tries to see if he is hypocritical. Acltalls is not. No, explanation for why the objections to responding without understanding the context is not a problem. Just the challenge around consistency. Subject over when that potential criticism disappears.
IOW he ignored the criticism.
There is a simple solution here: read the post first, then respond. Or at least, note that the next sentence of rest of the paragraph addressed the criticisms and questions. This would improve communication, something anew claims to want to do.
Again, this one still has absolutely no clue nor idea.
Even though ‘I’ have informed ‘it’.
Again, this one still has absolutely no clue nor idea.
Even though ‘I’ have informed ‘it’.
Again, this one still has absolutely no clue nor idea.
Even though ‘I’ have informed ‘it’.
(One can only hope that one day anew meets someone with the exact rhetorical ‘style’ anew has.)
Anew: Again, if this is what you really want to believe is true, then okay.
Another regal nod from anew. HIs Lordship’s Permissiveness is an endless spring today.
Yeah but here she just acknowledges that we humans of the past were Retarded: we believed wrong things, and since beliefs are absolute, nothing can be done about it. That’s what she means by ‘okay’.
The Royalness of the gesture is what stands out for me. It’s okay is objective speak. Not, it’s okay with me or even I don’t mind if you stick with your false beliefs. It’s a status cue. And it’s funny, if rude and empty of topic content.
We should be forever grateful that we get to hang out with God at all.
I’m still hoping for this to happen…
“ken / Age / anew1” finally realized that he typed “LOL” one too many times in his condescending replies to his forum interlocutors.
‘We’ can hope.
Since Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want to change for the better within communication is, exactly, what leads to creating and living in Universal Peace forever more.