04-27-2012, 01:21 PM
(04-27-2012, 01:17 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:(04-27-2012, 12:51 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: You describe yourself.
I think that's always true whenever we describe someone else. What we notice about them is relevant to our own balances. If there's an emotional charge, it may be something we're having difficulty accepting or forgiving.
Yes. I didn't mean to leave myself out. Nobody escapes it, IMO.
(04-27-2012, 01:09 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:(04-27-2012, 12:51 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: I asked you about your bias of the concept "indifference", and I provided a quote. Then Pickle starting twisting us up (like he enjoys doing). I was not providing the quote to begin a discussion on "support". You chose not to recognize my question.
Monkey, no one is intentionally twisting your words. You speak rather sparsely, so it's just difficult for us to understand sometimes.
Suggestion: Why not give us the benefit of the doubt, and trust that we really do want to understand you correctly, rather than assuming we're trying to twist your words?
Well, my difficulty is how often you veer off track from the conversation at hand. It is literally impossible to get your full attention.
(04-27-2012, 01:09 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:(04-27-2012, 12:51 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: The balance is entity specific. The entity is a thought. I'm no more an "advanced" being than anyone else, and I never indicated I was.
OK good to know. But it was a valid question. I was wondering what you meant, when you posted that quote. That's all. Just having a conversation.
In what way did you display wonder for what I meant?
(04-27-2012, 01:09 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:(04-27-2012, 12:51 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: You describe yourself.
Are we doing the tit-for-tat thing again? Sorry, I'm not playing that game.
That was not a post to you. This is an example of veering off track to create an entirely different conversation.