Fife pushing his presumptous ideas and judgemental opinions

Post by Henosis Sage
fife’s profile photo
fife
9 Apr 2022, 01:27:04 (11 days ago)
to
What do you believe, how do you justify what you believe, and what have you decided is the truth about all this?
Pissing down everyone's neck every time you post just pisses people off and makes them want to come after you. It's got nothing to do with your veracity.
If you really want to question Eckankar, learn how to question its ontology and epistemology.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.religion.eckankar/c/8uMk2FC1cvQ/m/0ZoL7uzxFAAJ
Fife, you are the problem.

If you seriously cannot fathom the above is presumptous self-serving insulting faulty and judgmental and arrogant then please seek help from a professional.

Your refusal to prove a sensible example or two of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar is extremely obnoxious and disingenuous. in my opinion.

Your typical mode here unfortunately. The verbal swearing insults in response to your arrogant behavior are well deserved imho.

That you are not taken seriously is well founded. But occasionally I try again and posit a query to garner a mature credible reply to repeatedly be let down. What a waste of good pixels.

Henosis Sage

2022-04-20 01:38:49 UTC

If you seriously cannot fathom the above is presumptous self-serving insulting faulty and judgmental and arrogant then please seek help from a professional.
Your refusal to prove a sensible example or two of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar is extremely obnoxious and disingenuous. in my opinion.
Your typical mode here unfortunately. The verbal swearing insults in response to your arrogant behavior are well deserved imho.
That you are not taken seriously is well founded. But occasionally I try again and posit a query to garner a mature credible reply to repeatedly be let down. What a waste of good pixels.

TYPO (not prove)

refusal to PROVIDE a sensible example

Henosis Sage

2022-04-22 14:21:30 UTC

If you seriously cannot fathom the above is presumptous self-serving insulting faulty and judgmental and arrogant then please seek help from a professional.
Your refusal to prove a sensible example or two of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar is extremely obnoxious and disingenuous. in my opinion.
Your typical mode here unfortunately. The verbal swearing insults in response to your arrogant behavior are well deserved imho.
That you are not taken seriously is well founded. But occasionally I try again and posit a query to garner a mature credible reply to repeatedly be let down. What a waste of good pixels.

TYPO (not prove)
refusal to PROVIDE a sensible example

fife still cannot provide a sensible example of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar .

fife

2022-04-22 16:42:27 UTC

If you seriously cannot fathom the above is presumptous self-serving insulting faulty and judgmental and arrogant then please seek help from a professional.
Your refusal to prove a sensible example or two of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar is extremely obnoxious and disingenuous. in my opinion.
Your typical mode here unfortunately. The verbal swearing insults in response to your arrogant behavior are well deserved imho.
That you are not taken seriously is well founded. But occasionally I try again and posit a query to garner a mature credible reply to repeatedly be let down. What a waste of good pixels.

TYPO (not prove)
refusal to PROVIDE a sensible example

fife still cannot provide a sensible example of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar .

I suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar. But it turns out he doesn't want to question Eckankar. He loves it. He simply wants it reformatted to conform with his ideals.

It's your idea, not mine, that I give examples and provide personal experiences because that's what you would do. Well, thank God I'm not you.

Pugnacious hostility seems to be your method and obdurate stupidity his. By all means stick with what you know. You won't do any better.

Etznab

2022-04-22 21:41:47 UTC

If you seriously cannot fathom the above is presumptous self-serving insulting faulty and judgmental and arrogant then please seek help from a professional.
Your refusal to prove a sensible example or two of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar is extremely obnoxious and disingenuous. in my opinion.
Your typical mode here unfortunately. The verbal swearing insults in response to your arrogant behavior are well deserved imho.
That you are not taken seriously is well founded. But occasionally I try again and posit a query to garner a mature credible reply to repeatedly be let down. What a waste of good pixels.

TYPO (not prove)
refusal to PROVIDE a sensible example

fife still cannot provide a sensible example of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar .

I suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar. But it turns out he doesn't want to question Eckankar. He loves it. He simply wants it reformatted to conform with his ideals.
It's your idea, not mine, that I give examples and provide personal experiences because that's what you would do. Well, thank God I'm not you.
Pugnacious hostility seems to be your method and obdurate stupidity his. By all means stick with what you know. You won't do any better.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.religion.eckankar/c/qCfPZhH_atg/m/zlJInUkUAAAJ

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.religion.eckankar/c/WIW1WkO1IgU/m/Afm1awIQAAAJ

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.religion.eckankar/c/oVPyrb930yk/m/iyxlE27TLJYJ

Fife wants me to question Eckankar the way Fife thinks I should question Eckankar, using ontology and epistemology. Then Fife can't give any examples what he means. Nobody here (including me) seems to know what he is talking about. That he can't give examples doesn't make it easier.

I can question Eckankar the way I choose; have questioned Eckankar probably more than anybody in a.r.e. Fife can either explain and give examples what he means, or keep his inept communications to himself.

Here's a question for you, Fife. If Rebazar Tarzs is not real and never was real, then who did Kinpa and all those people in examples by Rich Smith talk to?

Please use ontology and epistemology to explain this, Mr. Wise Guy

Henosis Sage

2022-04-23 02:44:25 UTC

If you seriously cannot fathom the above is presumptous self-serving insulting faulty and judgmental and arrogant then please seek help from a professional.
Your refusal to prove a sensible example or two of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar is extremely obnoxious and disingenuous. in my opinion.
Your typical mode here unfortunately. The verbal swearing insults in response to your arrogant behavior are well deserved imho.
That you are not taken seriously is well founded. But occasionally I try again and posit a query to garner a mature credible reply to repeatedly be let down. What a waste of good pixels.

TYPO (not prove)
refusal to PROVIDE a sensible example

fife still cannot provide a sensible example of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar .

I suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar. But it turns out he doesn't want to question Eckankar. He loves it. He simply wants it reformatted to conform with his ideals.
It's your idea, not mine, that I give examples and provide personal experiences because that's what you would do. Well, thank God I'm not you.
Pugnacious hostility seems to be your method and obdurate stupidity his. By all means stick with what you know. You won't do any better.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.religion.eckankar/c/qCfPZhH_atg/m/zlJInUkUAAAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.religion.eckankar/c/WIW1WkO1IgU/m/Afm1awIQAAAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.religion.eckankar/c/oVPyrb930yk/m/iyxlE27TLJYJ
Fife wants me to question Eckankar the way Fife thinks I should question Eckankar, using ontology and epistemology. Then Fife can't give any examples what he means. Nobody here (including me) seems to know what he is talking about. That he can't give examples doesn't make it easier.
I can question Eckankar the way I choose; have questioned Eckankar probably more than anybody in a.r.e. Fife can either explain and give examples what he means, or keep his inept communications to himself.
Here's a question for you, Fife. If Rebazar Tarzs is not real and never was real, then who did Kinpa and all those people in examples by Rich Smith talk to?
Please use ontology and epistemology to explain this, Mr. Wise Guy

You're not allowed to question fife etznab. He's unquestionably unquestionable!

You only get to do what he tells you / suggest you do. Even if you do not comprehend his meaning or methods.

Don't you dare question him by asking another question. He knows what you and I think better than we do. Apparently.

Yet he still cannot give an example of using his recommended methodologies.

Weird huh? Yes very weird.

Argumentative judgemental know-it-all bully and definitely not humorous.

Henosis Sage

2022-04-23 01:51:31 UTC

If you seriously cannot fathom the above is presumptous self-serving insulting faulty and judgmental and arrogant then please seek help from a professional.
Your refusal to prove a sensible example or two of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar is extremely obnoxious and disingenuous. in my opinion.
Your typical mode here unfortunately. The verbal swearing insults in response to your arrogant behavior are well deserved imho.
That you are not taken seriously is well founded. But occasionally I try again and posit a query to garner a mature credible reply to repeatedly be let down. What a waste of good pixels.

TYPO (not prove)
refusal to PROVIDE a sensible example

fife still cannot provide a sensible example of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar .

I suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar. But it turns out he doesn't want to question Eckankar. He loves it. He simply wants it reformatted to conform with his ideals.
It's your idea, not mine, that I give examples and provide personal experiences because that's what you would do. Well, thank God I'm not you.
Pugnacious hostility seems to be your method and obdurate stupidity his. By all means stick with what you know. You won't do any better.

you're talking your presumptuous opinionated bullshit again.

just like matt, you're no mind reader nor psychic.

what i said is true and accurate. no self-righteous mind-reading presumptions or opinionated judgemental put downs were involved---- i am just reporting the facts as they are ......"fife still cannot provide a sensible example of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar"......

you make shit up all the time. i simply tell the truth. is that why you're so obsessed with us two?

Henosis Sage

2022-04-23 02:57:14 UTC

If you seriously cannot fathom the above is presumptous self-serving insulting faulty and judgmental and arrogant then please seek help from a professional.
Your refusal to prove a sensible example or two of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar is extremely obnoxious and disingenuous. in my opinion.
Your typical mode here unfortunately. The verbal swearing insults in response to your arrogant behavior are well deserved imho.
That you are not taken seriously is well founded. But occasionally I try again and posit a query to garner a mature credible reply to repeatedly be let down. What a waste of good pixels.

TYPO (not prove)
refusal to PROVIDE a sensible example

fife still cannot provide a sensible example of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar .

I suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar. But it turns out he doesn't want to question Eckankar. He loves it. He simply wants it reformatted to conform with his ideals.
It's your idea, not mine, that I give examples and provide personal experiences because that's what you would do. Well, thank God I'm not you.
Pugnacious hostility seems to be your method and obdurate stupidity his. By all means stick with what you know. You won't do any better.

poor fife. still cannot see the three fingers pointing back at him while criticizing everyone else for what he himself has been doing for years.

pissing off people
pissing down their necks
Pugnacious hostility
obdurate stupidity
judgemental projections
fake mind-reading presumptions
self-righteous bullying

the same soc and toxic attitude as kinpoop.

yes, thank god you're not me, because then I truly would be crazy!

Henosis Sage

2022-04-23 03:20:37 UTC

If you seriously cannot fathom the above is presumptous self-serving insulting faulty and judgmental and arrogant then please seek help from a professional.
Your refusal to prove a sensible example or two of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar is extremely obnoxious and disingenuous. in my opinion.
Your typical mode here unfortunately. The verbal swearing insults in response to your arrogant behavior are well deserved imho.
That you are not taken seriously is well founded. But occasionally I try again and posit a query to garner a mature credible reply to repeatedly be let down. What a waste of good pixels.

TYPO (not prove)
refusal to PROVIDE a sensible example

fife still cannot provide a sensible example of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar .

I suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar. But it turns out he doesn't want to question Eckankar. He loves it. He simply wants it reformatted to conform with his ideals.
It's your idea, not mine, that I give examples and provide personal experiences because that's what you would do. Well, thank God I'm not you.
Pugnacious hostility seems to be your method and obdurate stupidity his. By all means stick with what you know. You won't do any better.

Judgemental projections onto others and flawed accusations doesn't change anything here.

You fife were still outright insulting and offensive (for no good reason) and then suggested to eztnab "how" to question eckankar.

putting the inexcusable insults to one side .... It remains a normal natural sensible thing to ask someone giving suggestions how to do that, or to provide examples, and to explain what they mean by that.

That's normal, that's sane, that's natural and balanced. Everything you are not.

You see old chap, it's you fife who is pissing off people, pissing down their necks, constantly with the Pugnacious hostility and your obdurate stupidity to see reason or an iota of respect for others along the way.

again the very same disruptive argumentative toxic traits kinpoop brings to these pages.

sure i get shitty at times totally within the bounds of normal when being slandered by lying dishonest toxic dim wits such as yourself and the mentally disturbed matt sharpe.

people read what you say. they can and they do make up their own minds about us all.

Henosis Sage

2022-04-23 07:36:21 UTC

If you seriously cannot fathom the above is presumptous self-serving insulting faulty and judgmental and arrogant then please seek help from a professional.
Your refusal to prove a sensible example or two of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar is extremely obnoxious and disingenuous. in my opinion.
Your typical mode here unfortunately. The verbal swearing insults in response to your arrogant behavior are well deserved imho.
That you are not taken seriously is well founded. But occasionally I try again and posit a query to garner a mature credible reply to repeatedly be let down. What a waste of good pixels.

TYPO (not prove)
refusal to PROVIDE a sensible example

fife still cannot provide a sensible example of how anyone might use ontology and epistemology to specifically LEARN HOW TO question Eckankar .

I suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar. But it turns out he doesn't want to question Eckankar. He loves it. He simply wants it reformatted to conform with his ideals.
It's your idea, not mine, that I give examples and provide personal experiences because that's what you would do. Well, thank God I'm not you.
Pugnacious hostility seems to be your method and obdurate stupidity his. By all means stick with what you know. You won't do any better.

Judgemental projections onto others and flawed accusations doesn't change anything here.
You fife were still outright insulting and offensive (for no good reason) and then suggested to eztnab "how" to question eckankar.
putting the inexcusable insults to one side .... It remains a normal natural sensible thing to ask someone giving suggestions how to do that, or to provide examples, and to explain what they mean by that.
That's normal, that's sane, that's natural and balanced. Everything you are not.
You see old chap, it's you fife who is pissing off people, pissing down their necks, constantly with the Pugnacious hostility and your obdurate stupidity to see reason or an iota of respect for others along the way.
again the very same disruptive argumentative toxic traits kinpoop brings to these pages.
sure i get shitty at times totally within the bounds of normal when being slandered by lying dishonest toxic dim wits such as yourself and the mentally disturbed matt sharpe.
people read what you say. they can and they do make up their own minds about us all.

Naturally, of course, there is no compunction upon fife or anyone to do what other people ask of him.
But of course Fife really doesn't care how/what etznab or anyone else uses to question eckankar ... merely another opportunity to throw mud ... disingenuous all the way down. Made up his mind long ago and has absolutely zero respect for him .... The putdowns and toxic judgements have never stopped. As I have said before, it's all recorded. and it's obvious.
And yet he still claims I am the "crazy one" the "pugnacious one"?
Mmmmmmmm well well well. go figure. ;-)

It would have been good to hear about how to use ontology epistemology to question eckankar and any other philosophy idea concept. what a bummer of a lost opportunity.

Henosis Sage

2022-04-25 04:11:06 UTC

Post by fife
I suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar. But it turns out he doesn't want to question Eckankar. He loves it. He simply wants it reformatted to conform with his ideals.
It's your idea, not mine, that I give examples and provide personal experiences because that's what you would do. Well, thank God I'm not you.
Pugnacious hostility seems to be your method and obdurate stupidity his. By all means stick with what you know. You won't do any better.

I never asked for personal experiences.

There’s a lesson in this for anyone interested in seeing it, which is that if you try to make the world fit neatly into an ideological box, you’ll have to distort or ignore reality to do it — usually with terrible consequences.

I think that’s true for all "philosophies of life". It’s very easy to fall into this trap of believing that if only everybody followed this or that principle, then society would become this perfect system.

Henosis Sage

2022-04-27 04:57:58 UTC

I never asked for personal experiences.
There’s a lesson in this for anyone interested in seeing it, which is that if you try to make the world fit neatly into an ideological box, you’ll have to distort or ignore reality to do it — usually with terrible consequences.
I think that’s true for all "philosophies of life". It’s very easy to fall into this trap of believing that if only everybody followed this or that principle, then society would become this perfect system.

Paul Graham came up with a “Debate Pyramid” for classifying the “level” of people’s ability or lack thereof to genuinely “debate” and/or "discuss/present" useful information/perspectives on an issue.

Thinking about the context of "I (fife) suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar."" and then being asked to explain/suggest how that could be done and help "anyone" ......

Those levels are :

1) Refuting the Central Point : Explicitly refutes the central point

2) Refutation : Finds the mistake and explains why it’s mistaken using quotes

3) Counterargument : Contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence

4) Contradiction : States the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence

5) Responding to Tone : Criticises the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument

6) Ad Hominem : Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer (etznab & myself) without addressing the substance of the argument

7) Name Calling [ and/or Abuse ] : Sounds something like “You are an ass hat” or "pissing everyone off on the eckankar forum"

fife

2022-04-27 13:26:41 UTC

I never asked for personal experiences.
There’s a lesson in this for anyone interested in seeing it, which is that if you try to make the world fit neatly into an ideological box, you’ll have to distort or ignore reality to do it — usually with terrible consequences.
I think that’s true for all "philosophies of life". It’s very easy to fall into this trap of believing that if only everybody followed this or that principle, then society would become this perfect system.

Paul Graham came up with a “Debate Pyramid” for classifying the “level” of people’s ability or lack thereof to genuinely “debate” and/or "discuss/present" useful information/perspectives on an issue.
Thinking about the context of "I (fife) suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar."" and then being asked to explain/suggest how that could be done and help "anyone" ......
1) Refuting the Central Point : Explicitly refutes the central point
2) Refutation : Finds the mistake and explains why it’s mistaken using quotes
3) Counterargument : Contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
4) Contradiction : States the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
5) Responding to Tone : Criticises the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
6) Ad Hominem : Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer (etznab & myself) without addressing the substance of the argument
7) Name Calling [ and/or Abuse ] : Sounds something like “You are an ass hat” or "pissing everyone off on the eckankar forum"

Quick temper, slow mind. Do you think the world wants to be like you, should be like you, wants to debate with you, should debate with you, wants to live in turmoil like you do? No. You just don't want to be alone.

Try to understand that Sean. Everyone's just trying not to be alone.

Henosis Sage

2022-04-28 06:10:52 UTC

I never asked for personal experiences.
There’s a lesson in this for anyone interested in seeing it, which is that if you try to make the world fit neatly into an ideological box, you’ll have to distort or ignore reality to do it — usually with terrible consequences.
I think that’s true for all "philosophies of life". It’s very easy to fall into this trap of believing that if only everybody followed this or that principle, then society would become this perfect system.

Paul Graham came up with a “Debate Pyramid” for classifying the “level” of people’s ability or lack thereof to genuinely “debate” and/or "discuss/present" useful information/perspectives on an issue.
Thinking about the context of "I (fife) suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar."" and then being asked to explain/suggest how that could be done and help "anyone" ......
1) Refuting the Central Point : Explicitly refutes the central point
2) Refutation : Finds the mistake and explains why it’s mistaken using quotes
3) Counterargument : Contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
4) Contradiction : States the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
5) Responding to Tone : Criticises the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
6) Ad Hominem : Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer (etznab & myself) without addressing the substance of the argument
7) Name Calling [ and/or Abuse ] : Sounds something like “You are an ass hat” or "pissing everyone off on the eckankar forum"

Quick temper, slow mind. Do you think the world wants to be like you, should be like you, wants to debate with you, should debate with you, wants to live in turmoil like you do? No. You just don't want to be alone.
Try to understand that Sean. Everyone's just trying not to be alone.

oh do shove your obnoxious self-serving anti-social bs where it belongs. you are as dumb as dirt fife. and a inveterate liar. it's easy to understand. you make it so obvious all the time you judgemental creep.

Henosis Sage

2022-04-28 06:11:30 UTC

I never asked for personal experiences.
There’s a lesson in this for anyone interested in seeing it, which is that if you try to make the world fit neatly into an ideological box, you’ll have to distort or ignore reality to do it — usually with terrible consequences.
I think that’s true for all "philosophies of life". It’s very easy to fall into this trap of believing that if only everybody followed this or that principle, then society would become this perfect system.

Paul Graham came up with a “Debate Pyramid” for classifying the “level” of people’s ability or lack thereof to genuinely “debate” and/or "discuss/present" useful information/perspectives on an issue.
Thinking about the context of "I (fife) suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar."" and then being asked to explain/suggest how that could be done and help "anyone" ......
1) Refuting the Central Point : Explicitly refutes the central point
2) Refutation : Finds the mistake and explains why it’s mistaken using quotes
3) Counterargument : Contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
4) Contradiction : States the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
5) Responding to Tone : Criticises the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
6) Ad Hominem : Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer (etznab & myself) without addressing the substance of the argument
7) Name Calling [ and/or Abuse ] : Sounds something like “You are an ass hat” or "pissing everyone off on the eckankar forum"

Quick temper, slow mind. Do you think the world wants to be like you, should be like you, wants to debate with you, should debate with you, wants to live in turmoil like you do? No. You just don't want to be alone.
Try to understand that Sean. Everyone's just trying not to be alone.

short version : Idiot!

fife

2022-04-28 19:38:09 UTC

I never asked for personal experiences.
There’s a lesson in this for anyone interested in seeing it, which is that if you try to make the world fit neatly into an ideological box, you’ll have to distort or ignore reality to do it — usually with terrible consequences.
I think that’s true for all "philosophies of life". It’s very easy to fall into this trap of believing that if only everybody followed this or that principle, then society would become this perfect system.

Paul Graham came up with a “Debate Pyramid” for classifying the “level” of people’s ability or lack thereof to genuinely “debate” and/or "discuss/present" useful information/perspectives on an issue.
Thinking about the context of "I (fife) suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar."" and then being asked to explain/suggest how that could be done and help "anyone" ......
1) Refuting the Central Point : Explicitly refutes the central point
2) Refutation : Finds the mistake and explains why it’s mistaken using quotes
3) Counterargument : Contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
4) Contradiction : States the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
5) Responding to Tone : Criticises the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
6) Ad Hominem : Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer (etznab & myself) without addressing the substance of the argument
7) Name Calling [ and/or Abuse ] : Sounds something like “You are an ass hat” or "pissing everyone off on the eckankar forum"

Quick temper, slow mind. Do you think the world wants to be like you, should be like you, wants to debate with you, should debate with you, wants to live in turmoil like you do? No. You just don't want to be alone.
Try to understand that Sean. Everyone's just trying not to be alone.

short version : Idiot!

It's simple, Sean. Just keep my name out of your whining, moaning, self pitying, self justifying postings.

Etznab

2022-04-28 20:35:09 UTC

I never asked for personal experiences.
There’s a lesson in this for anyone interested in seeing it, which is that if you try to make the world fit neatly into an ideological box, you’ll have to distort or ignore reality to do it — usually with terrible consequences.
I think that’s true for all "philosophies of life". It’s very easy to fall into this trap of believing that if only everybody followed this or that principle, then society would become this perfect system.

Paul Graham came up with a “Debate Pyramid” for classifying the “level” of people’s ability or lack thereof to genuinely “debate” and/or "discuss/present" useful information/perspectives on an issue.
Thinking about the context of "I (fife) suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar."" and then being asked to explain/suggest how that could be done and help "anyone" ......
1) Refuting the Central Point : Explicitly refutes the central point
2) Refutation : Finds the mistake and explains why it’s mistaken using quotes
3) Counterargument : Contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
4) Contradiction : States the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
5) Responding to Tone : Criticises the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
6) Ad Hominem : Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer (etznab & myself) without addressing the substance of the argument
7) Name Calling [ and/or Abuse ] : Sounds something like “You are an ass hat” or "pissing everyone off on the eckankar forum"

Quick temper, slow mind. Do you think the world wants to be like you, should be like you, wants to debate with you, should debate with you, wants to live in turmoil like you do? No. You just don't want to be alone.
Try to understand that Sean. Everyone's just trying not to be alone.

short version : Idiot!

It's simple, Sean. Just keep my name out of your whining, moaning, self pitying, self justifying postings.

You've already said as much to everybody in this group who thinks you're a jerk.

Doesn't change the fact people perceive you as an idiot and are constantly willing to remind you.

Simple solution. Try behaving like a grownup adult.

fife

2022-04-28 23:18:57 UTC

I never asked for personal experiences.
There’s a lesson in this for anyone interested in seeing it, which is that if you try to make the world fit neatly into an ideological box, you’ll have to distort or ignore reality to do it — usually with terrible consequences.
I think that’s true for all "philosophies of life". It’s very easy to fall into this trap of believing that if only everybody followed this or that principle, then society would become this perfect system.

Paul Graham came up with a “Debate Pyramid” for classifying the “level” of people’s ability or lack thereof to genuinely “debate” and/or "discuss/present" useful information/perspectives on an issue.
Thinking about the context of "I (fife) suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar."" and then being asked to explain/suggest how that could be done and help "anyone" ......
1) Refuting the Central Point : Explicitly refutes the central point
2) Refutation : Finds the mistake and explains why it’s mistaken using quotes
3) Counterargument : Contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
4) Contradiction : States the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
5) Responding to Tone : Criticises the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
6) Ad Hominem : Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer (etznab & myself) without addressing the substance of the argument
7) Name Calling [ and/or Abuse ] : Sounds something like “You are an ass hat” or "pissing everyone off on the eckankar forum"

Quick temper, slow mind. Do you think the world wants to be like you, should be like you, wants to debate with you, should debate with you, wants to live in turmoil like you do? No. You just don't want to be alone.
Try to understand that Sean. Everyone's just trying not to be alone.

short version : Idiot!

It's simple, Sean. Just keep my name out of your whining, moaning, self pitying, self justifying postings.

You've already said as much to everybody in this group who thinks you're a jerk.
Doesn't change the fact people perceive you as an idiot and are constantly willing to remind you.
Simple solution. Try behaving like a grownup adult.

:-)
"everybody in this group"
You mean you and Sean.

"people perceive you"
You mean you and Sean.

Two people in the whole world.

Ah, but to a true believer that can be the whole world. Is it?
Don't waste your time, Richard. Turn your attention to one of your silly ideas.

Henosis Sage

2022-04-29 02:48:20 UTC

I never asked for personal experiences.
There’s a lesson in this for anyone interested in seeing it, which is that if you try to make the world fit neatly into an ideological box, you’ll have to distort or ignore reality to do it — usually with terrible consequences.
I think that’s true for all "philosophies of life". It’s very easy to fall into this trap of believing that if only everybody followed this or that principle, then society would become this perfect system.

Paul Graham came up with a “Debate Pyramid” for classifying the “level” of people’s ability or lack thereof to genuinely “debate” and/or "discuss/present" useful information/perspectives on an issue.
Thinking about the context of "I (fife) suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar."" and then being asked to explain/suggest how that could be done and help "anyone" ......
1) Refuting the Central Point : Explicitly refutes the central point
2) Refutation : Finds the mistake and explains why it’s mistaken using quotes
3) Counterargument : Contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
4) Contradiction : States the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
5) Responding to Tone : Criticises the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
6) Ad Hominem : Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer (etznab & myself) without addressing the substance of the argument
7) Name Calling [ and/or Abuse ] : Sounds something like “You are an ass hat” or "pissing everyone off on the eckankar forum"

Quick temper, slow mind. Do you think the world wants to be like you, should be like you, wants to debate with you, should debate with you, wants to live in turmoil like you do? No. You just don't want to be alone.
Try to understand that Sean. Everyone's just trying not to be alone.

short version : Idiot!

It's simple, Sean. Just keep my name out of your whining, moaning, self pitying, self justifying postings.

You've already said as much to everybody in this group who thinks you're a jerk.
Doesn't change the fact people perceive you as an idiot and are constantly willing to remind you.
Simple solution. Try behaving like a grownup adult.

:-)
"everybody in this group"
You mean you and Sean.
"people perceive you"
You mean you and Sean.
Two people in the whole world.
Ah, but to a true believer that can be the whole world. Is it?
Don't waste your time, Richard. Turn your attention to one of your silly ideas.

ROTFLMFAO

The jack ass says: "Pissing down everyone's neck every time you post just pisses people off"

YOU MEAN IT PISSES YOU OFF.
IT MAKES YOU ANGRY.
YOU MEAN THAT YOU CANNOT HANDLE IT.

The jack ass says: "and makes them want to come after you."

YOU MEAN IT MAKES YOU WANT TO COME AFTER HIM ....

The jack ass says: "It's got nothing to do with your veracity."

IT'S GOT EVERYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR LACK OF CREDIBILITY AND ABSENCE OF VERACITY.
NEVER BEING TRUE, HONEST OR ACCURATE ABOUT ANYTHING.
ALWAYS TWISTING WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED OR SAID INTO SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY.

BECAUSE YOU ARE A LIAR AND A FRAUD.
AND AN OBNOXIOUS ABUSIVE JACK ASS.

A VERY LONELY ONE.

THE GOLLUM OF A.R.E.

Henosis Sage

2022-04-29 02:57:30 UTC

I never asked for personal experiences.
There’s a lesson in this for anyone interested in seeing it, which is that if you try to make the world fit neatly into an ideological box, you’ll have to distort or ignore reality to do it — usually with terrible consequences.
I think that’s true for all "philosophies of life". It’s very easy to fall into this trap of believing that if only everybody followed this or that principle, then society would become this perfect system.

Paul Graham came up with a “Debate Pyramid” for classifying the “level” of people’s ability or lack thereof to genuinely “debate” and/or "discuss/present" useful information/perspectives on an issue.
Thinking about the context of "I (fife) suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar."" and then being asked to explain/suggest how that could be done and help "anyone" ......
1) Refuting the Central Point : Explicitly refutes the central point
2) Refutation : Finds the mistake and explains why it’s mistaken using quotes
3) Counterargument : Contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
4) Contradiction : States the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
5) Responding to Tone : Criticises the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
6) Ad Hominem : Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer (etznab & myself) without addressing the substance of the argument
7) Name Calling [ and/or Abuse ] : Sounds something like “You are an ass hat” or "pissing everyone off on the eckankar forum"

Quick temper, slow mind. Do you think the world wants to be like you, should be like you, wants to debate with you, should debate with you, wants to live in turmoil like you do? No. You just don't want to be alone.
Try to understand that Sean. Everyone's just trying not to be alone.

short version : Idiot!

It's simple, Sean. Just keep my name out of your whining, moaning, self pitying, self justifying postings.

You've already said as much to everybody in this group who thinks you're a jerk.
Doesn't change the fact people perceive you as an idiot and are constantly willing to remind you.
Simple solution. Try behaving like a grownup adult.

:-)
"everybody in this group"
You mean you and Sean.
"people perceive you"
You mean you and Sean.
Two people in the whole world.
Ah, but to a true believer that can be the whole world. Is it?
Don't waste your time, Richard. Turn your attention to one of your silly ideas.

ROTFLMFAO
The jack ass says: "Pissing down everyone's neck every time you post just pisses people off"
YOU MEAN IT PISSES YOU OFF.
IT MAKES YOU ANGRY.
YOU MEAN THAT YOU CANNOT HANDLE IT.
The jack ass says: "and makes them want to come after you."
YOU MEAN IT MAKES YOU WANT TO COME AFTER HIM ....
The jack ass says: "It's got nothing to do with your veracity."
IT'S GOT EVERYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR LACK OF CREDIBILITY AND ABSENCE OF VERACITY.
NEVER BEING TRUE, HONEST OR ACCURATE ABOUT ANYTHING.
ALWAYS TWISTING WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED OR SAID INTO SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY.
BECAUSE YOU ARE A LIAR AND A FRAUD.
AND AN OBNOXIOUS ABUSIVE JACK ASS.
A VERY LONELY ONE.
THE GOLLUM OF A.R.E.

It's all been so unbelievably pathetic and sad. What a waste.

Just when you think it couldn't be possible have even less respect for a "person"/identity" they prove you're wrong.

JR, Kinpa, this idiot, all suffer the same deep scars and behave accordingly. Another very sad anecdotal story about Eckankar and Eckists.

Henosis Sage

2022-04-29 03:45:04 UTC

I never asked for personal experiences.
There’s a lesson in this for anyone interested in seeing it, which is that if you try to make the world fit neatly into an ideological box, you’ll have to distort or ignore reality to do it — usually with terrible consequences.
I think that’s true for all "philosophies of life". It’s very easy to fall into this trap of believing that if only everybody followed this or that principle, then society would become this perfect system.

Paul Graham came up with a “Debate Pyramid” for classifying the “level” of people’s ability or lack thereof to genuinely “debate” and/or "discuss/present" useful information/perspectives on an issue.
Thinking about the context of "I (fife) suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckankar."" and then being asked to explain/suggest how that could be done and help "anyone" ......
1) Refuting the Central Point : Explicitly refutes the central point
2) Refutation : Finds the mistake and explains why it’s mistaken using quotes
3) Counterargument : Contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
4) Contradiction : States the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
5) Responding to Tone : Criticises the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
6) Ad Hominem : Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer (etznab & myself) without addressing the substance of the argument
7) Name Calling [ and/or Abuse ] : Sounds something like “You are an ass hat” or "pissing everyone off on the eckankar forum"

Quick temper, slow mind. Do you think the world wants to be like you, should be like you, wants to debate with you, should debate with you, wants to live in turmoil like you do? No. You just don't want to be alone.
Try to understand that Sean. Everyone's just trying not to be alone.

short version : Idiot!

It's simple, Sean. Just keep my name out of your whining, moaning, self pitying, self justifying postings.

You've already said as much to everybody in this group who thinks you're a jerk.
Doesn't change the fact people perceive you as an idiot and are constantly willing to remind you.
Simple solution. Try behaving like a grownup adult.

:-)
"everybody in this group"
You mean you and Sean.
"people perceive you"
You mean you and Sean.
Two people in the whole world.
Ah, but to a true believer that can be the whole world. Is it?
Don't waste your time, Richard. Turn your attention to one of your silly ideas.

ROTFLMFAO
The jack ass says: "Pissing down everyone's neck every time you post just pisses people off"
YOU MEAN IT PISSES YOU OFF.
IT MAKES YOU ANGRY.
YOU MEAN THAT YOU CANNOT HANDLE IT.
The jack ass says: "and makes them want to come after you."
YOU MEAN IT MAKES YOU WANT TO COME AFTER HIM ....
The jack ass says: "It's got nothing to do with your veracity."
IT'S GOT EVERYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR LACK OF CREDIBILITY AND ABSENCE OF VERACITY.
NEVER BEING TRUE, HONEST OR ACCURATE ABOUT ANYTHING.
ALWAYS TWISTING WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED OR SAID INTO SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY.
BECAUSE YOU ARE A LIAR AND A FRAUD.
AND AN OBNOXIOUS ABUSIVE JACK ASS.
A VERY LONELY ONE.
THE GOLLUM OF A.R.E.

It's all been so unbelievably pathetic and sad. What a waste.
Just when you think it couldn't be possible have even less respect for a "person"/identity" they prove you're wrong.
JR, Kinpa, this idiot, all suffer the same deep scars and behave accordingly. Another very sad anecdotal story about Eckankar and Eckists.

It doesn't matter what name/nym/ID he uses the outcomes are the same.

Doesn't matter what forum / social media group he posts to, the outcomes are the same.

It doesn't matter what eck centre or social group he goes to the outcomes are the same.

What a disingenuous loser. (shrug)

Henosis Sage

2022-05-01 06:41:57 UTC