Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Now I've stopped believing you.
To have "stopped" believing me you need to have started somewhere along the line, which, according to you, you never did, correct?
Which, if true, means you actually were believing me until now but falsely telling me otherwise.
Which would actually be fairly consistent with your behavior as I've observed it to the present.
And is reflected even in your responses to me before now:
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Tell me, Shaky ... is honesty a tenet of Buddhism?
mmm
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=583683&pagenumber=14#post14592164
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What are you talking about?Taking responsibility for all things in your life is a tenet of Buddhism.
Was President Roosevelt being honest when he lied to the public to cover up the invasion of Normandy?
If your wife says to you "does this make me look fat" do you tell her the truth and ruin the evening, or do you lie to her, so she will enjoy the event?
Now, what are you talking about? Stop beating around the bush and say it!
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
In the case of your wife, tell her, "I always liked that Blue number best
(or whatever outift you actually like that DOES flatter her appearance)
... I was kind of hoping you would wear THAT one this evening".In most cases, it is possible to be honest and tactful at the same time.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I wasn't really asking you those questions. I was asking you to think about what you were asking. Taking responsibility for all things in your life is far more valuable then honesty. There are time when honesty is not appropriate, like if you are trying to save someone's life.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=589090&pagenumber=33
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
To have "stopped" believing me you need to have [b]started somewhere along the line, which, according to you, you never did, correct?Which, if true, means you actually were believing me until now but falsely telling me otherwise.
Which would actually be fairly consistent with your behavior as I've observed it to the present.
And is reflected even in your responses to me before now: [/B]
You really need to lighten up. You seem to be clueless when people are joking around. Just look at the mental flaming hoops you just went through in the above post. To be honest, you don't matter enough for me to go trough all that trouble.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonYou really need to lighten up. You seem to be clueless when people are joking around. Just look at the mental flaming hoops you just went through in the above post. To be honest, you don't matter enough for me to go trough all that trouble ...
😬
Seriously ... what could have possibly happened between 2005 and now
to divorce Shakyamunison from the apparently consistent frankness and vulnerability of his younger self?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Maybe if you apologized ... things would be better between us.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I use the language and the way I write to get my point out in as few words a possible. I'm not a good speller and sometimes I can't spell the word I want to say, so I say the word I can spell. I am extremely dyslexic, if you talked to me in person you would understand that I do not believe that I am better than you.I have a lot of pain still in my heart, from the days when I HATED Christians. Talking to you and others is helping me understand this pain. I am sorry if, form time to time, you see the pain in me ...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Car[e]ful now, he might us[e] a Wikipedia reference on you ...
1. Wikipedia isn't edit-able to any extent remotely comparable to its earliest years.
2. It's interesting that you praise science for essentially being "edit" able, presumably your precise complaint against Wikia and reason for disparaging it.
3. Rob's charge of the Panda being "specialized", or an "outlier" does nothing to counter the proposal that many carnivores of today could have lived "in harmony" (i.e. without killing other animals) in the earliest days.
Again, even many considered great killers today get along fine with mostly plant based diets:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dietary habits
The Brown Bear is one of the most omnivorous animals in the world and has been recorded as consuming the greatest variety of foods of any bear.[34] Throughout life, this species is regularly curious about the potential of eating virtually any organism or object that they encounter. Food that is both abundant and easily accessed or caught is preferred. Their jaw structure has evolved to fit their dietary habits. Their diet varies enormously throughout their differing areas based on opportunity.
Despite their reputation, most brown bears are not highly carnivorous, as they derive up to 90% of their dietary food energy from vegetable matter.[64] They often feed on a variety of plant life, including berries, grasses, flowers, acorns and pine cones as well as fungi such as mushrooms.[3] Among all bears, brown bears are uniquely equipped to dig for tough foods such as roots and shoots. They use their long, strong claws to dig out earth to reach the roots and their powerful jaws to bite through them.[3] In spring, winter-provided carrion, grasses, shoots, sedges and forbs are the dietary mainstays for brown bears internationally.[34] Fruits, including berries, become increasingly important during summer and early autumn. Roots and bulbs become critical in autumn for some inland bear populations if fruit crops are poor.[34]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_bear#Dietary_habits
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
1. Wikipedia isn't edit-able to any extent remotely comparable to its earliest years.2. It's interesting that you praise science for essentially being "edit" able, presumably your precise complaint against Wikia and reason for disparaging it.
3. Rob's charge of the Panda being "specialized", or an "outlier" does nothing to counter the proposal that many carnivores of today could have lived "in harmony" (i.e. without killing other animals) in the earliest days.
Again, even many considered great killers today get along fine with mostly plant based diets:
There is a lot of garbage on Wikipedia.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
😬Seriously ... what could have possibly [b]happened
between 2005 and now
to divorce Shakyamunison from the apparently consistent frankness and vulnerability of his younger self?... [/B]
Cutting and pasting random posts is trolling. If you continue, I will report you.
You are taking things out of context, and painting a picture that does not exist.
You have taken obvious jokes and cut and pasted them to come up with a false meaning.
Also, stop changing my posts. I don't care if I have something misspelled. DO NOT CHANGE MY POSTS!!!!!
If you continue this I will report you!
Let me show people what bluewaterrider is doing.
Here is the original post that I made:
"Point one: Maybe if you apologized for falsely accusing me of having JIA banned, then things would be better between us.
Point two: Being called a sock can lead to being banned, but I've been here so long that no one would believe you. I don't recall, but I was probably joking around."
Here is what bluewaterrider quoted:
"Maybe if you apologized ... things would be better between us."
You can see how the original meaning has been changed.
Then he takes posts from years ago, and completely different context, and adds that. I'm not sure why. I suspect it somehow furthers his false position.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
3. Rob's charge of the Panda being "specialized", or an "outlier" does nothing to counter the proposal that many carnivores of today could have lived "in harmony" (i.e. without killing other animals) in the earliest days.
The panda being specialized to its current diet after millions of years does nothing to prove your proposal that carnivores of today could have lived harmony in the Garden of Eden (which was the original point until you keep moving around).
I used the source you cited as proof against your position, stop cherry-picking just the parts that fit your narrative and deal with it 🙂