Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: A crul King of the Neotech religion.

Expand Messages
  • neotechdeepthinkers
    ... with ... mysticism,
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <parashakti108@...>
      wrote:
      >You changed the wording of my post. I'm gone!!!
      > --dantreble wrote:
      > > --"Mark" wrote:
      > > > --The Deep Thinker wrote:
      >
      > [...]
      > > > -M: The mystical is detectable, just not with engineered
      > instruments. It is concerned with experience, and not with false
      > ideas. By contrast, the mythical/magical is often not aligned
      with
      > reason. As such, it is frequently irrational and pathological.[...]
      > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > > > -M: Kate, the problem isn't mysticism, its people who exploit
      > myth in a pathological manner.
      >
      > >D: I agree. Whether one has any interest or concern with
      mysticism,
      > it isn't the mysticism that causes the problems.
      >
      > -M: Thanks Dan. And Kate:
      > Welcome to *deathtoreligion*!
      >
      > shanti
      > Mark, Seattle
      >
    • dantreble
      It s not a good idea to abbreviate someone s efforts right out of the box, Mark. It shows disrespect on your part. Dan ... [...] ... -
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        It's not a good idea to abbreviate someone's efforts right
        out of the box, Mark. It shows disrespect on your part.

        Dan

        ---- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "neotechdeepthinkers"
        <neotechdeepthinkers@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <parashakti108@>
        > wrote:
        > >You changed the wording of my post. I'm gone!!!
        > > --dantreble wrote:
        > > > --"Mark" wrote:
        > > > > --The Deep Thinker wrote:
        > >
        > > [...]
        > > > > -M: The mystical is detectable, just not with engineered
        > > instruments. It is concerned with experience, and not with false
        > > ideas. By contrast, the mythical/magical is often not aligned
        > with
        > > reason. As such, it is frequently irrational and pathological.
        [...]
        > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
        -
        > >
        > > > > -M: Kate, the problem isn't mysticism, its people who exploit
        > > myth in a pathological manner.
        > >
        > > >D: I agree. Whether one has any interest or concern with
        > mysticism,
        > > it isn't the mysticism that causes the problems.
        > >
        > > -M: Thanks Dan. And Kate:
        > > Welcome to *deathtoreligion*!
        > >
        > > shanti
        > > Mark, Seattle
        > >
        >
      • Mark
        ... of the box, Mark. It shows disrespect on your part. Dan -M: I broke no rules. She is just looking for an excuse to be a dodge-monkey. Another one. :-(
        Message 3 of 16 , Apr 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --dantreble wrote:

          >D: It's not a good idea to abbreviate someone's efforts right out
          of the box, Mark. It shows disrespect on your part. Dan

          -M: I broke no rules. She is just looking for an excuse to be a
          dodge-monkey. Another one. :-(

          shanti
          Mark, Seattle

          > --"neotechdeepthinkers" wrote:
          > > --"Mark" wrote:

          >K: You changed the wording of my post. I'm gone!!!

          -M: Dodge-monkey.

          > > > --dantreble wrote:
          > > > > --"Mark" wrote:
          > > > > > --The Deep Thinker wrote:
          > > >
          > > > [...]
          > > > > > -M: The mystical is detectable, just not with engineered
          instruments. It is concerned with experience, and not with false
          ideas. By contrast, the mythical/magical is often not aligned with
          reason. As such, it is frequently irrational and pathological.
          > [...]
          > > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------

          > > > > > -M: Kate, the problem isn't mysticism, its people who
          exploit myth in a pathological manner.
          > > >
          > > > >D: I agree. Whether one has any interest or concern with
          mysticism, it isn't the mysticism that causes the problems.
          > > >
          > > > -M: Thanks Dan. And Kate:
          > > > Welcome to *deathtoreligion*!
          > > >
          > > > shanti
          > > > Mark, Seattle
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • dantreble
          I didn t say you broke rules. You disected her post, and left part of it out. Bad idea. Dan ... -
          Message 4 of 16 , Apr 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            I didn't say you broke rules. You disected her post, and
            left part of it out. Bad idea.

            Dan

            --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <parashakti108@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > --dantreble wrote:
            >
            > >D: It's not a good idea to abbreviate someone's efforts right out
            > of the box, Mark. It shows disrespect on your part. Dan
            >
            > -M: I broke no rules. She is just looking for an excuse to be a
            > dodge-monkey. Another one. :-(
            >
            > shanti
            > Mark, Seattle
            >
            > > --"neotechdeepthinkers" wrote:
            > > > --"Mark" wrote:
            >
            > >K: You changed the wording of my post. I'm gone!!!
            >
            > -M: Dodge-monkey.
            >
            > > > > --dantreble wrote:
            > > > > > --"Mark" wrote:
            > > > > > > --The Deep Thinker wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > [...]
            > > > > > > -M: The mystical is detectable, just not with engineered
            > instruments. It is concerned with experience, and not with false
            > ideas. By contrast, the mythical/magical is often not aligned with
            > reason. As such, it is frequently irrational and pathological.
            > > [...]
            > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
            -
            >
            > > > > > > -M: Kate, the problem isn't mysticism, its people who
            > exploit myth in a pathological manner.
            > > > >
            > > > > >D: I agree. Whether one has any interest or concern with
            > mysticism, it isn't the mysticism that causes the problems.
            > > > >
            > > > > -M: Thanks Dan. And Kate:
            > > > > Welcome to *deathtoreligion*!
            > > > >
            > > > > shanti
            > > > > Mark, Seattle
            > > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • Mark
            ... part of it out. Bad idea. Dan -M: Leaving part(s) out is usually how it is done, and a point-by- point is respectful. I think that my response was very
            Message 5 of 16 , Apr 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --dantreble wrote:

              >D: I didn't say you broke rules. You disected her post, and left
              part of it out. Bad idea. Dan

              -M: Leaving part(s) out is usually how it is done, and a point-by-
              point is respectful. I think that my response was very good.
              Don't dodge-monkeys annoy you?

              There is Sun Tzu:
              "To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape."

              Maybe the problem is that I gave Kate no easy way to counter my
              points.

              shanti
              Mark, Seattle

              > --"Mark" wrote:
              > > --dantreble wrote:

              > > >D: It's not a good idea to abbreviate someone's efforts right
              out of the box, Mark. It shows disrespect on your part. Dan

              > > -M: I broke no rules. She is just looking for an excuse to be a
              > > dodge-monkey. Another one. :-(

              > > > --"neotechdeepthinkers" wrote:
              > > > > --"Mark" wrote:
              > >
              > > >K: You changed the wording of my post. I'm gone!!!
              > >
              > > -M: Dodge-monkey.
              > >
              > > > > > --dantreble wrote:
              > > > > > > --"Mark" wrote:
              > > > > > > > --The Deep Thinker wrote:
              > > > > >
              > > > > > [...]
              > > > > > > > -M: The mystical is detectable, just not with
              engineered instruments. It is concerned with experience, and not
              with false ideas. By contrast, the mythical/magical is often not
              aligned with reason. As such, it is frequently irrational and
              pathological.
              > > > [...]
              > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
              ---
              > -
              > >
              > > > > > > > -M: Kate, the problem isn't mysticism, its people who
              > > exploit myth in a pathological manner.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > >D: I agree. Whether one has any interest or concern with
              > > mysticism, it isn't the mysticism that causes the problems.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > -M: Thanks Dan. And Kate:
              > > > > > Welcome to *deathtoreligion*!
            • dantreble
              ... D: I m surprised that you asked my opinion on that. It isn t a matter of rules. It s a matter of emotional intelligence. ... D: An escape route would help,
              Message 6 of 16 , Apr 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <parashakti108@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > --dantreble wrote:
                >
                > >D: I didn't say you broke rules. You disected her post, and left
                > part of it out. Bad idea. Dan
                >
                > -M: Leaving part(s) out is usually how it is done, and a point-by-
                > point is respectful. I think that my response was very good.
                > Don't dodge-monkeys annoy you?
                >

                D: I'm surprised that you asked my opinion on that. It isn't
                a matter of rules. It's a matter of emotional intelligence.

                > There is Sun Tzu:
                > "To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape."
                >
                > Maybe the problem is that I gave Kate no easy way to counter my
                > points.
                >

                D: An escape route would help, but not leaving her post first
                intact was inconsiderate. She could either complain about it,
                which would get her nowhere, or she could just say "See ya."

                > shanti
                > Mark, Seattle
                >
                > > --"Mark" wrote:
                > > > --dantreble wrote:
                >
                > > > >D: It's not a good idea to abbreviate someone's efforts right
                > out of the box, Mark. It shows disrespect on your part. Dan
                >
                > > > -M: I broke no rules. She is just looking for an excuse to be a
                > > > dodge-monkey. Another one. :-(
                >
                > > > > --"neotechdeepthinkers" wrote:
                > > > > > --"Mark" wrote:
                > > >
                > > > >K: You changed the wording of my post. I'm gone!!!
                > > >
                > > > -M: Dodge-monkey.
                > > >
                > > > > > > --dantreble wrote:
                > > > > > > > --"Mark" wrote:
                > > > > > > > > --The Deep Thinker wrote:
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > [...]
                > > > > > > > > -M: The mystical is detectable, just not with
                > engineered instruments. It is concerned with experience, and not
                > with false ideas. By contrast, the mythical/magical is often not
                > aligned with reason. As such, it is frequently irrational and
                > pathological.
                > > > > [...]
                > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------
                -
                > ---
                > > -
                > > >
                > > > > > > > > -M: Kate, the problem isn't mysticism, its people who
                > > > exploit myth in a pathological manner.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >D: I agree. Whether one has any interest or concern with
                > > > mysticism, it isn't the mysticism that causes the problems.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > -M: Thanks Dan. And Kate:
                > > > > > > Welcome to *deathtoreligion*!
                >
              • Mark
                ... left part of it out. Bad idea. Dan ... point is respectful. I think that my response was very good. Don t dodge-monkeys annoy you? ... -M: I m not suprised
                Message 7 of 16 , Apr 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --dantreble wrote:
                  > --"Mark" wrote:
                  > > --dantreble wrote:

                  > > >D: I didn't say you broke rules. You disected her post, and
                  left part of it out. Bad idea. Dan

                  > >-M: Leaving part(s) out is usually how it is done, and a point-by-
                  point is respectful. I think that my response was very good.
                  Don't dodge-monkeys annoy you?

                  >D: I'm surprised that you asked my opinion on that.

                  -M: I'm not suprised that you DODGED giving the requested opinion,
                  but I gave you a chance.

                  >D: It isn't a matter of rules. It's a matter of emotional
                  intelligence.

                  -M: Then maybe you and Kate should have emotional intelligence
                  toward those who value the rules, such as myself.

                  > >M: There is Sun Tzu:
                  > > "To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape."

                  > >M: Maybe the problem is that I gave Kate no easy way to counter
                  my points.

                  >D: An escape route would help, but not leaving her post first
                  intact was inconsiderate.

                  -M: Bullshit! Most people leave my posts incomplete, and no one
                  complains.

                  >D: She could either complain about it, which would get her nowhere,
                  or she could just say "See ya."

                  -M: Fine. This is a problem?

                  shanti
                  Mark, Seattle

                  > > > --"Mark" wrote:
                  > > > > --dantreble wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > > >D: It's not a good idea to abbreviate someone's efforts
                  right
                  > > out of the box, Mark. It shows disrespect on your part. Dan
                  > >
                  > > > > -M: I broke no rules. She is just looking for an excuse to
                  be a
                  > > > > dodge-monkey. Another one. :-(
                  > >
                  > > > > > --"neotechdeepthinkers" wrote:
                  > > > > > > --"Mark" wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > >K: You changed the wording of my post. I'm gone!!!
                  > > > >
                  > > > > -M: Dodge-monkey.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > > > > --dantreble wrote:
                  > > > > > > > > --"Mark" wrote:
                  > > > > > > > > > --The Deep Thinker wrote:
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > [...]
                  > > > > > > > > > -M: The mystical is detectable, just not with
                  > > engineered instruments. It is concerned with experience, and not
                  > > with false ideas. By contrast, the mythical/magical is often
                  not
                  > > aligned with reason. As such, it is frequently irrational and
                  > > pathological.
                  > > > > > [...]
                  > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------
                  ---
                  > -
                  > > ---
                  > > > -
                  > > > >
                  > > > > > > > > > -M: Kate, the problem isn't mysticism, its people
                  who
                  > > > > exploit myth in a pathological manner.
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > >D: I agree. Whether one has any interest or concern
                  with
                  > > > > mysticism, it isn't the mysticism that causes the problems.
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > > -M: Thanks Dan. And Kate:
                  > > > > > > > Welcome to *deathtoreligion*!
                  > >
                  >
                • Mark
                  ... [...]It isn t a matter of rules. It s a matter of emotional intelligence.[...] but not leaving her post first intact was inconsiderate. She could either
                  Message 8 of 16 , Apr 1, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --dantreble wrote:
                    > --"Mark" wrote:
                    > > --dantreble wrote:

                    > > >D:[...]You disected her post, and left part of it out. Bad idea.
                    [...]It isn't a matter of rules. It's a matter of emotional
                    intelligence.[...] but not leaving her post first intact was
                    inconsiderate. She could either complain about it, which would get
                    her nowhere, or she could just say "See ya." [...]It's not a good
                    idea to abbreviate someone's efforts right out of the box, Mark. It
                    shows disrespect on your part. Dan

                    -M: My first post here was responded to by *N* and Bestie. Have you
                    complained that they left my post incomplete? Even worse, have you
                    complained about the dodge-monkeys here?

                    Double standards, eh?

                    shanti
                    Mark, Seattle
                  • dantreble
                    I wasn t here then. ... idea.
                    Message 9 of 16 , Apr 1, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I wasn't here then.

                      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <parashakti108@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > --dantreble wrote:
                      > > --"Mark" wrote:
                      > > > --dantreble wrote:
                      >
                      > > > >D:[...]You disected her post, and left part of it out. Bad
                      idea.
                      > [...]It isn't a matter of rules. It's a matter of emotional
                      > intelligence.[...] but not leaving her post first intact was
                      > inconsiderate. She could either complain about it, which would get
                      > her nowhere, or she could just say "See ya." [...]It's not a good
                      > idea to abbreviate someone's efforts right out of the box, Mark. It
                      > shows disrespect on your part. Dan
                      >
                      > -M: My first post here was responded to by *N* and Bestie. Have you
                      > complained that they left my post incomplete? Even worse, have you
                      > complained about the dodge-monkeys here?
                      >
                      > Double standards, eh?
                      >
                      > shanti
                      > Mark, Seattle
                      >
                    • Mark
                      ... -M: You can still complain now. Are you going to? shanti Mark, Seattle ... idea. [...]It isn t a matter of rules. It s a matter of emotional
                      Message 10 of 16 , Apr 1, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --dantreble wrote:

                        >D: I wasn't here then.

                        -M: You can still complain now. Are you going to?

                        shanti
                        Mark, Seattle

                        > --"Mark" wrote:
                        > > --dantreble wrote:
                        > > > --"Mark" wrote:
                        > > > > --dantreble wrote:

                        > > > > >D:[...]You disected her post, and left part of it out. Bad
                        idea. [...]It isn't a matter of rules. It's a matter of emotional
                        intelligence.[...] but not leaving her post first intact was
                        inconsiderate. She could either complain about it, which would get
                        her nowhere, or she could just say "See ya." [...]It's not a good
                        idea to abbreviate someone's efforts right out of the box, Mark. It
                        shows disrespect on your part. Dan

                        > > -M: My first post here was responded to by *N* and Bestie. Have
                        you complained that they left my post incomplete? Even worse, have
                        you complained about the dodge-monkeys here? Double standards, eh?
                      • erik kruger
                        ... nonsense. the mysticism prepares one for every other crime. cf. my quotation from Thomas Paine elsewhere. Erik. There is no question of giving up
                        Message 11 of 16 , Apr 3, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > D: I agree. Whether one has any interest or
                          > concern with
                          > mysticism, it isn't the mysticism that causes the
                          > problems.

                          nonsense. the mysticism "prepares one for every other
                          crime." cf. my quotation from Thomas Paine elsewhere.

                          Erik.


                          "There is no question of giving up criticism, but of taking note of the fact that the democratic world endlessly makes promises that it does not keep. It is in the name of these promises, then, that one should perhaps criticize it, in the name of the present, the subversive potential of such an attitude being more powerful than was formerly believed to be found in the future, or currently in the past."
                          --from Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut's French Philosophy of the Sixties: An Essay on Antihumanism.

                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          http://mail.yahoo.com
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.