Yes interesting.Interestimg, eh?
except what we get for the most part is:
a hit, run and giggle coping strategy.
machinery.
Yes interesting.Interestimg, eh?
Who knows why he had/has another. Have you thought that (maybe) he was locked out of an email account for whatever reasons?Bobo wrote:Tomas: If 'everyone' is permitted multiple accounts where is this forum headed?
I'm aware that David Quinn had at least one another account.
A big thanks, Nick for the sublime of approval.Nick Treklis wrote:I don't know that Tomas is in especially good graces with anyone, but it is surprising to see him around this long after the closure of "worldly matters", be it on his own recognizance or the administrator's. His contributions are mildly entertaining at best, which I guess is slightly better than Alex attempting to suck the life out of the forum.Shahrazad wrote:Tomas,
And that could indeed happen, as Alex does not enjoy being in good graces with the 3 admins like you do. Even Dan, who is the friendliest of the 3, does not seem to like Alex.PS - Be careful, Alex, he just may try to marshal support (from Cory, Diebert, Carl, Foresta Gump etc.) and get you kicked off Genius Forums...
-
But most people are not built for real, revolutionary change. And those who are and do so still stay stuck in some of the same old ruts like Ghandi did.Alex Jacob wrote:I am genuinely sorry that you are distressed. But as Ghandi said, 'Be the change you wish to see in the world.'
The 'hit, run and giggle derisively' coping strategy is a piece of inauthentic machinery used by Opposition Leaders in Parliamentary debates against proposed Government legislation and as a way for Oppositions to get impact in media interviews in 5 minute grabs.It is not, with that in mind, at all difficult to grasp why I take such an oppositional stance to this forum (speaking generally) and why my 'project' is totally misunderstood. In fact it is not even seen.
mansman wrote:Did you see the married lesbian they want a baby have a family, sound nice you agree?
so yes somehow pregnant only one, baby growing all excited also her mother waiting, seem like nice to me (without thinking), BUT then what happen next is baby born! Turn out boy baby, a male! So two days in hospital all four go home, breatst feed also, they talk about how "precious" is little baby, they say "we so happy", all look good, BUT, inside me, feeling like "something is wrong with this picture", that my feeling, I begin to think, wait!..... this is a BOY a male baby but there is no male daddy, parent, whatever. Moe I think more feels wrong, maybe they have male friend that speend 2% time with little boy when he grows, BUT...more I think more I say not enough, this baby not will get enough MAN in his life.
Lets be honest, no, THEY be honest not us, let THEM be honest- Do they believe or understand that important, very important to have regular adult male for baby? Answer (if they honest, if you could read minds of lesies) answer is "fuck, WHO CARES if our baby is influence by daddy figure! truth is we really believe our boy is MUCh better off NOT to be influence by ANY Men, men suck, and will only be worse for our baby to be near to men.
WE will mold baby how WE want him to be, to learn 98% from US and our lesie friends. The thought of a man being with our baby scare the shit out of us, always potential for violation at any moment with dirty men. NO, we will pretend to let males raise our baby boy, but we watch and control activity very carefully when grandfather visit, when any men with our little boy. We pretend to trust men who must be near our child, but inside we know and keep secret how little we trust ALL men, how fearful we are they influence our boy, and how diligent we protect him all his life. Keep him close and safe always, make him loyal to us and always reduce male influence."
So Yes I know just by looking this couple how they will feminize this poor child. How they will ruin him. Make him see God=Mother (women), never will he learn truth, brainwashed.
First I feel how nice they have family, but now I think "how can this be alowed by our society?", sure a baby girl MAYBE, but a baby boy born to no father?
The more I see in this country of Americans the more worried i am.
Maybe I wrong, but in my gut seem terrible. In past remember why marriage is, because force father to remain after copulation because they learn impoertent to have man with women to raise all children. But now some people throw away what ancestors have learned and passed to us.
I think I know what kind of man 2 female parents make, but hard to say with words.
I see them sometimes acting on tv, one young man Im thinking I dont know his name but he is mid 20s thin good smile gentle bearded I see him at night on HBO show, very close to mother, dont think he ever have father. Seem perfectly normal well adjusted, quiet, not very shy really but reserved, everybody like him, very likeable but you (I) can see something missing in him. Hard to explain.
Kind of man who "have trouble fight himself out of wet paper bag" as they say. I want to say passive but not exactly right. Maybe you know the actor I mean. They make movies on the show, dont know the name but on HBO I think. Really I dont know much of his past, think he lost father early mom grew him up.
Regardless, hope to hear from others so to help me figure out if my negative feeling is reasonable or just Im shocked because newness of manless family.
"enough said!"
I think DQ's case was more of a Kierkegaard like pseudonym than anything else.Tomas wrote:Who knows why he had/has another. Have you thought that (maybe) he was locked out of an email account for whatever reasons?Bobo wrote:Tomas: If 'everyone' is permitted multiple accounts where is this forum headed?
I'm aware that David Quinn had at least one another account.
Better yet, PM him and ask for the dirty.
While you're at it, inform him of Alex's five accounts. That should go over well.
Just checked it, my information is false.Bobo wrote:I'm aware that David Quinn had at least one another account.
What's our problem here?Bobo wrote:I think DQ's case was more of a Kierkegaard like pseudonym than anything else.Tomas wrote:Who knows why he had/has another. Have you thought that (maybe) he was locked out of an email account for whatever reasons?Bobo wrote:Tomas: If 'everyone' is permitted multiple accounts where is this forum headed?
I'm aware that David Quinn had at least one another account.
Better yet, PM him and ask for the dirty.
While you're at it, inform him of Alex's five accounts. That should go over well.
Rowden has once made one account, in another forum, for dialetics (in which he was a woman).
This is the first good question I have seen you ask, so I will answer it.Dennis wrote: All we've heard from you is 'persistent complaint'. A political stance. Not spiritual. What do you stand for spiritually? 'Strenghthening of self'? Where is it at for Alex when it's not a persistent complaint craving the authenticity of a powerful stand? Is there Leadership in Alex?
Alex T. Jacob wrote:Yet there are people here who cannot and will not examine themselves ironically.
What makes you think Dennis or anyone can be reached, assuming that they've not been reached? What makes you think irony is the only tool that can reach people? You seem to be highly and quite eclectically knowledgeable and insightful, but sorely lacking in true wisdom and humility. Rendering you too much the book-learned buffoon and too little the life-learned saint or true 'Knight of Faith'.Alex T. Jacob wrote:To be truthful, irony is the only tool now and in the future that will ever be able to reach you.
They're intellectually intelligent enough to know that they are lying but they don't have the courage or the self-respect to admit it.Dennis Mahar wrote:Alex,
forget about smashing Tomas.
you and basil got the deception happening,
Tomas cracked the case.
Quit the bullshit and man up.
To be authentic is to admit your inauthenticity.
How can anyone enrol in what you or what you say if you persist in tricky wordsmithing.
play it straight please.
Irony doesn't matter.
Your entire stand is based on the assumption that you know 'everything'.
Tell me of 'everything'.
Here is Life's response, Life's deep ironical response: "You fool! You're so close to death's door I can reach out and touch your hair, and yet you will carry on this fool's display right up until the final moment! FOOL!" And Life busts out in terrible laughter!
Life doesn't say that at all.Here is Life's response, Life's deep ironical response: "You fool! You're so close to death's door I can reach out and touch your hair, and yet you will carry on this fool's display right up until the final moment! FOOL!" And Life busts out in terrible laughter!
You REALLY cared that cuz ought not be identified as brokie.No one of you can REALLY care if cousinbasil is Nanook of the North or the Easter Bunny, and yet in this incredible display of foolishness you carry on as if it matters,
Ethics would be the care,If you were honest about why (it is so important to you), the conversation would move more into the area of what I personally care about.
From what?Alex T. Jacob wrote:No, what I care about is something very radically different.
Why would you suggest it was unwitting?Alex T. Jacob wrote:Because of Tomas's unwitting reference to Isaiah, I was looking over the part: "Be seeing and never understanding" and a whole group of attitudes and assumptions people get invested in when (but what is it really?!) When they are not connected to themselves, when they are caught in the webs of self-deception.
Trying to check the evils of multiple accounts with pseudonyms or even non-pseudonyms or what you like.Tomas wrote:What's our problem here?
Should we tell'em who we really are?Tomas wrote: You show up November, 2010.
Who were you before then?