Guest guest Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 Lene: (I think) This is what Werner asked: 'are there limits where your good-guy/bad-guy philosophy will end ?' Rest he was just using to explain/elaborate it by giving an example. Tim: (I think) This is what Werner asked: 'are there limits where your no good-guy/bad-guy 'no philosophy' will end ?' IOW... is there any life situation in which you would call someone or something bad and someone or something good? Rest he was just using to explain/elaborate it by giving an example. [...] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming wrote: > > > Lene: > > (I think) This is what Werner asked: > > 'are there limits where your good-guy/bad-guy philosophy will end ?' > > > Rest he was just using to explain/elaborate it by giving an example. > > > Tim: > > > (I think) This is what Werner asked: > > 'are there limits where your no good-guy/bad-guy 'no philosophy' will end ?' > > IOW... is there any life situation in which you would call someone or something bad and someone or something good? > > > > > Rest he was just using to explain/elaborate it by giving an example. > [...] AC - Thank you for explaining to the group the thought process of Werner. Unfortunately, though, you aren't able to know the thought process of Werner. You are reporting the thought process of AC. And I don't have any further thoughts to report about that. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Lene: > > > > > > (I think) This is what Werner asked: > > > > > > 'are there limits where your good-guy/bad-guy philosophy will end ?' > > > > > > > > > Rest he was just using to explain/elaborate it by giving an example. > > > > > > > > > Tim: > > > > > > > > > (I think) This is what Werner asked: > > > > > > 'are there limits where your no good-guy/bad-guy 'no philosophy' will end ?' > > > > > > IOW... is there any life situation in which you would call someone or something bad and someone or something good? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rest he was just using to explain/elaborate it by giving an example. > > > [...] > > > > AC - > > > > Thank you for explaining to the group the thought process of Werner. > > Dear Dr. Dan B. Jee: You are either acting like a blatant idiot; which I don't think you are. Or, you are acting blatantly dishonest; which even many " scholars " and seemingly " intelligent " people are, in fact many use it as a " strategy " . I don't think I can have a real (read *honest*) communication, if the other party is not willing to be honest. All I can really do in that situation is either go round and round... or, just depart and look for someone willing to talk " honestly " . If you are acting blatantly dishonest, then, I don't see much point in communicating further. I can't be " skillfully dishonest " in communication. I have extremely rarely tried it and now, it might be too late to learn. If you want to act " dishonest " to win a debate or argument... just consider yourself 'having won' and let me know... so that I can exit. I have no interest in 'winning a debate' on these forums. The best I can do is try to honestly express what I know, feel or experience and best I can hope is for the others to do the same. I am not here to learn the 'art of debate'. This is what I wrote above: .... (I think) This is what Werner asked: I am just trying to " comprehend " and " understand " what Werner wrote and I am not trying to claim to be an expert on how he thinks. By ___I think___ I am already saying that I am expressing what " I think " Werner was saying based on what I read. By saying " I think " , I am admitting that I can't be 100% certain of what Werner might actually think, I am interpreting based on what I read in this thread. Now, why do " I think " this is what Werner meant? Is there any reason for me to think that way? That answer too is available in the very same thread: Nisargadatta/message/82783 ============================ > > Ok Dan, > > > > If some guy raped your daughter you won't call the police because that would mean you see yourself as the good guy and the rapist as the bad guy. > > > > Or are there limits where your good-guy/bad-guy philosophy will end ? > > > > Werner > > Werner - > > Is that how you see this? The same as someone raping your daughter? Dan, I knew that you will ride that horse because you are unable or unwilling to read my complete question: That part of it, which is the more important of it but difficult to answer, you avoided or didn't want to refer to: 'Or are there limits where your good-guy/bad-guy philosophy will end ?' Werner =============================== This is what I read Werner say in that message: That part of it, which is the _____more important of it___ but difficult to answer, you avoided or didn't want to refer to: ____'Or are there limits where your good-guy/bad-guy philosophy will end ?'_____ .... Based on the above, I think his question was: ____'are there limits where your good-guy/bad-guy philosophy will end ?'____ Unfortunately, it is not the first time I have seen you use these kind of evasion and diversion tactics, Dr. Dan Jee! To me, talk on these forums is never about " winning an argument " . I would rather be proven wrong, be corrected and learn something new. However, I am not eager to waste my time if the other party is mainly focussed on 'winning a argument' or 'proving a point' and will dishonest tactics to accomplish that. To me, talks on these forums is more like two friends " sharing tips " and less like Democrats and Republicans debating in an effort to prove themselves right, the other wrong and to... 'hod their ground'! I am not sure what to make of our " communication " in this thread. You are either actings as an idiot, which I don't think you are. Or, you are dishonest, which is possible and unfortunate and makes any real (honest) communication very difficult. or, You and I dramatically different comprehension of same thing. That too is possible and that two is unfortunate. In that case, mistake can be either mine or yours. If I have read and understood something wrong, then everyone including Werner is welcome to point it out and correct me. However, if you are someone else is going to " twist " or " overlook " things just to win the debate, it doesn't interest me. I will rather watch republicans and democrats endlessly " debate " , if that is what I really I want to see. I am sorry for having used harsh and disrespectful words. I greatly respect your degrees and education credentials; I am not yet sure, if your honesty and openness in communication is deserving of same respect or not. If I am wrong, I am very willing to learn and be corrected. However, I am not eager to participate in a communication which is not honest. > > > > > Unfortunately, though, you aren't able to know the thought process of Werner. > > > > You are reporting the thought process of AC. > > > > And I don't have any further thoughts to report about that. > > > > - D - > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 Hi AC - Thanks for sharing your thoughts. - Dan - Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Lene: > > > > > > > > (I think) This is what Werner asked: > > > > > > > > 'are there limits where your good-guy/bad-guy philosophy will end ?' > > > > > > > > > > > > Rest he was just using to explain/elaborate it by giving an example. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim: > > > > > > > > > > > > (I think) This is what Werner asked: > > > > > > > > 'are there limits where your no good-guy/bad-guy 'no philosophy' will end ?' > > > > > > > > IOW... is there any life situation in which you would call someone or something bad and someone or something good? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rest he was just using to explain/elaborate it by giving an example. > > > > [...] > > > > > > AC - > > > > > > Thank you for explaining to the group the thought process of Werner. > > > > > Dear Dr. Dan B. Jee: > > You are either acting like a blatant idiot; which I don't think you are. > > Or, you are acting blatantly dishonest; which even many " scholars " and seemingly " intelligent " people are, in fact many use it as a " strategy " . > > I don't think I can have a real (read *honest*) communication, if the other party is not willing to be honest. All I can really do in that situation is either go round and round... or, just depart and look for someone willing to talk " honestly " . > > If you are acting blatantly dishonest, then, I don't see much point in communicating further. > > I can't be " skillfully dishonest " in communication. I have extremely rarely tried it and now, it might be too late to learn. If you want to act " dishonest " to win a debate or argument... just consider yourself 'having won' and let me know... so that I can exit. I have no interest in 'winning a debate' on these forums. The best I can do is try to honestly express what I know, feel or experience and best I can hope is for the others to do the same. I am not here to learn the 'art of debate'. > > > > > This is what I wrote above: > > ... > > (I think) This is what Werner asked: > > > I am just trying to " comprehend " and " understand " what Werner wrote and I am not trying to claim to be an expert on how he thinks. > > > By ___I think___ I am already saying that I am expressing what " I think " Werner was saying based on what I read. By saying " I think " , I am admitting that I can't be 100% certain of what Werner might actually think, I am interpreting based on what I read in this thread. > > > Now, why do " I think " this is what Werner meant? > > Is there any reason for me to think that way? > > That answer too is available in the very same thread: > > > > Nisargadatta/message/82783 > > > ============================ > > > > Ok Dan, > > > > > > If some guy raped your daughter you won't call the police because that would > mean you see yourself as the good guy and the rapist as the bad guy. > > > > > > Or are there limits where your good-guy/bad-guy philosophy will end ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > Werner - > > > > Is that how you see this? The same as someone raping your daughter? > > > Dan, > > I knew that you will ride that horse because you are unable or unwilling to read > my complete question: > > That part of it, which is the more important of it but difficult to answer, you > avoided or didn't want to refer to: > > 'Or are there limits where your good-guy/bad-guy philosophy will end ?' > > Werner > > > =============================== > > This is what I read Werner say in that message: > > That part of it, which is the _____more important of it___ but difficult to answer, you avoided or didn't want to refer to: > > ____'Or are there limits where your good-guy/bad-guy philosophy will end ?'_____ > > > > ... > > Based on the above, I think his question was: > > ____'are there limits where your good-guy/bad-guy philosophy will end ?'____ > > > > > Unfortunately, it is not the first time I have seen you use these kind of evasion and diversion tactics, Dr. Dan Jee! > > To me, talk on these forums is never about " winning an argument " . I would rather be proven wrong, be corrected and learn something new. However, I am not eager to waste my time if the other party is mainly focussed on 'winning a argument' or 'proving a point' and will dishonest tactics to accomplish that. > > To me, talks on these forums is more like two friends " sharing tips " and less like Democrats and Republicans debating in an effort to prove themselves right, the other wrong and to... 'hod their ground'! > > > I am not sure what to make of our " communication " in this thread. > > You are either actings as an idiot, which I don't think you are. > > Or, you are dishonest, which is possible and unfortunate and makes any real (honest) communication very difficult. > > > or, You and I dramatically different comprehension of same thing. That too is possible and that two is unfortunate. In that case, mistake can be either mine or yours. If I have read and understood something wrong, then everyone including Werner is welcome to point it out and correct me. However, if you are someone else is going to " twist " or " overlook " things just to win the debate, it doesn't interest me. I will rather watch republicans and democrats endlessly " debate " , if that is what I really I want to see. > > > I am sorry for having used harsh and disrespectful words. I greatly respect your degrees and education credentials; I am not yet sure, if your honesty and openness in communication is deserving of same respect or not. If I am wrong, I am very willing to learn and be corrected. However, I am not eager to participate in a communication which is not honest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, though, you aren't able to know the thought process of Werner. > > > > > > You are reporting the thought process of AC. > > > > > > And I don't have any further thoughts to report about that. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.