+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Science & Technology (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds (/showthread.php?tid=2354)
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - 3DMonkey - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 08:52 AM)unity100 Wrote: as for whether i am coming from a place of love, no, i am not.
Nice to hear you say that. Now I know I'm not crazy. I read you right, from the beginning.
I'm honest when I say I love you unity100. In that love, I ask that you respect me as equal. You don't have to come from a place of love, and if not, I don't expect to be accepted by you.
I'm thankful for the opportunity to express myself. No hostility everyone. Genuine expression. That is all.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - Aaron - 03-11-2011
At the risk of farther derailing the thread...
unity100 Wrote:in the thread that gaming was discussed, one of them, 3dmonkey, mistook me as one of the people saying 'games are evil', despite there was nothing related in any of my posts, and got aggravated by himself. not too surprising, since there were around 3-4 people implying such arguments to that end, and he was discussing with them. i had had made a remark about how gaming had become industrialized and the 'artful' games of the kind blatzaddict has spoken about were not being made by big corporations who sell big volumes anymore, and this side discussion got lumped in the same discussion 3dmonkey himself was having with a number of other members. he even carried his point, on this totally irrelevant confrontation he brought, to the point of calling me sts, and my acts (which act, i wonder) not being from a place of loving. so basically, he was saying that saying that state of gaming industry in regard to blockbuster sales being rehash of early games, is something sts, and 'not out of a place of love'.
afterwards, blatzaddict, with whom i was having the side discussion of 'blockbuster game sales versus artful indie games', had also jumped on the train, to call me 'your actions are sts'. i very much doubt that he even understood what was going on at that point.
upon querying what was sts, i had faced a deteriorating response sequence that ended up 'mama needing hugs' and some image of some 'forum troll' humor.
i bowed out of that discussion.
I actually am wondering where this whole "Video games are evil." sentiment came from! I went back and searched every page of the "slackers" thread for instances of the word "evil" to find that phrase. And the only time any mention was made directly of video games being evil was a non-serious comment by BlatzAdict: "actually 3DMonkey.. Super Mario Bros. 3 IS evil... lololol" (provided with link to funny video)
Nobody ever said video games were evil in that thread. (or even implied it as far as I know! I read the whole thing...) But a whole lot of posts were accusing others of coming from that stance.
It's never appropriate for anyone to judge where another person is on their spiritual path. And it becomes especially nasty when it's used to drive home a point or shut the other person out. In our miniature Ra world here with our lingo, calling someone STS is like calling them a witch in Salem in the... erm... was it 1800s? history has never been a strong point of mine...
Anyhow, it's hurtful and only serves to promote separation. So, is there still an open wound from your being accused of "STS actions" or the like? I know that if I were accused of bring STS, it would hurt my feelings!
unity100 Wrote:then, i open this thread, a totally irrelevant discussion, and 3dmonkey comes in here, apparently still continuing the 'something is evil should we ban it' discussion that has been leftover in the discussion of gaming he did with other people - STILL projecting the same argument to me, despite i had openly stated that i had no relevance with what he was perceiving me - ie 'games are evil we should ban them'. if you go back to that thread, you will still see the precursor of his arguments in this thread remaining in that thread, in the form of his replying 'ok you know now it is evil, and now, what are you going to do about it', to someone else than me, one of those he was having the games are evil discussion with.
as you can see, this entire situation is tied to his strong feelings on gaming, and the social question of whether games should be banned or not, and its just spilling over to this thread and being projected to me.
i still have no relevance to that discussion, of whether 'games/something is evil, should we ban them', however, yet he STILL discusses with me as if i had had made ANY such argument in these two threads, going to the extent of making accusations of 'not coming from a place of love', 'sts', 'not being at peace', this that.
The first post 3DMonkey made in this thread was focused on your viewpoint, rather than the topic you wanted to discuss. While it's true that what prompted that could have been your exchanges in the other thread, I don't think we can say for sure that he's carrying over the exact same argument. We don't know whether or not he made the assumption that you thought all higher technologies are evil and should be banned.
unity100 Wrote:noone has the obligation to try to make such dysfunctional discussions work. when someone you are NOT even discussing, mistakes you saying something that you have not said, keeps that perception on his/her mind despite you have EXPLICITLY said that you had no relevance to it, and carries over that perception to OTHER topics, and going to the extents of accusing you of various evilry or this or that, you just do NOT discuss with that person. that's not something that can be worked through discussion. im not even going to comment on the low age average, derogatory language that the 'discussion' deteriorated into in that other thread. its ridiculous when someone accusing others of supposedly 'not coming from a place of love' and 'wanting to have someone else to have peace', wanders of to uttering sentences lie 'mama needs a hug'.
I agree with you that no-one is obligated to make a dysfunctional discussion work, and that communication totally broke down in the other thread.
Do you mean with these statements that you feel sort of "hounded" by 3DMonkey or others?
You say "It's something that cannot be worked through with discussion." Well, that's true that as long as perceptions of the other self are skewed, discussion will always devolve down to the catalyst that needs to be processed before the selves can open to eachother in acceptance and hace a mutually understanding conversation. So, in that sense, no, it cannot be solved by farther discussion. Instead, I offer that the communication should be focused on misperceptions of the other self.
P.S. All, I'm going to discuss with Monica the possibility of moving all forum relationship posts in this thread (including mine
) to the forum relations thread.unity100 Wrote:when i saw that, i thanked out of the discussion, but it was, SOMEHOW, perceived as 'sarcastic'.
excuse me, but i cant help that. noone can help anyone with that. if 'thank you' had become something that is unusable because it is used in sarcastic phrases, noone can do anything about that, and its not my or anyone else's responsibility.
You're right that you can't control what others think of you. Their thoughts are their choice. You can only control how you react to them.
unity100 Wrote:this situation has occurred before. however this time, im not willing to allow projection of various archetypes onto me, and participate in the unfolding of such discussions that some people feel so strongly on, and i have no interest in. at least, not in a manner like this.
am i looking down on these people ? of course not. being young is not a crime. all of us have used speech like 'mama needs a hug' while we were younger - either in age or in mind. i myself have participated in a lot of forums with low age averages and have talked even stronger than that in my time.
however, im not interested in doing advanced spiritual discussions, in such formats, language or behavior set.
What archetypes do you feel are being projected onto you? I'm not sure what you mean by that statement.
There's nothing wrong with making the observation that people are young. (although there's no age listed on anyone's profile here) And I can understand why you wouldn't want to participate in discussions with those people who are not seen by you to be those who yield fruitful discussions. But I can personally attest that just because someone's young, or even unawakened, doesn't mean they don't have something of the utmost value to share with you, if the catalyst is understood for its personal nature, and taken to the self for development.
However, I think to start saying that some people are young, and to imply that this discredits them in any way, is not seeing the entire picture. One doesn't have to be young in order to not be focused on the impersonal discussion of spiritual principles.
unity100 Wrote:as for whether i am coming from a place of love, no, i am not. i am coming from a place of balance. that is probably why i am here, in a forum related to Ra material in the first place.
This shows that you have a different idea of what bring4th should provide as a forum than other people, who are coming from different places, do. I think this might be a fruitful topic for a new thread...
3DMonkey Wrote:unity100 Wrote:as for whether i am coming from a place of love, no, i am not.Nice to hear you say that. Now I know I'm not crazy. I read you right, from the beginning.
I'm honest when I say I love you unity100. In that love, I ask that you respect me as equal. You don't have to come from a place of love, and if not, I don't expect to be accepted by you.
I'm thankful for the opportunity to express myself. No hostility everyone. Genuine expression. That is all.
You've left out part of what he said.
unity100 Wrote:as for whether i am coming from a place of love, no, i am not. i am coming from a place of balance. that is probably why i am here, in a forum related to Ra material in the first place.
Balance = love + wisdom. That means, unity100 self perceives that he comes from a place of love AND wisdom. This may highlight how valuable others' reflections of ourselves are. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty terrible at self perceiving whether or not my heart chakra is open, whether or not I'm speaking from a balanced place, whether or not I've fully integrated this or that particular catalyst... So, when others offer their perceptions of me, they offer me a view of myself that I couldn't see before. When people like 3DMonkey or BlatzAdict tell unity100 that he lacks love, they're reflecting an image of himself back to him. I don't think any image is accurate... They're all distortions because really, 3DMonkey, BlatzAdict, unity100, and everyone else is the one Infinite Creator. But that's how these perceptions of eachother can be utilized for a greater balance.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - unity100 - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 12:13 PM)Bring4th_Aaron Wrote: At the risk of farther derailing the thread...
I actually am wondering where this whole "Video games are evil." sentiment came from! I went back and searched every page of the "slackers" thread for instances of the word "evil" to find that phrase. And the only time any mention was made directly of video games being evil was a non-serious comment by BlatzAdict: "actually 3DMonkey.. Super Mario Bros. 3 IS evil... lololol" (provided with link to funny video)
Nobody ever said video games were evil in that thread. (or even implied it as far as I know! I read the whole thing...) But a whole lot of posts were accusing others of coming from that stance.
it came forth because around 4 or so people said that there were a lot of negativity in games, aggressiveness, killing, stealing, violence and so on. this had iterated a few times. gamers tend to take a defensive approach when this happens. its not particular to this forum or that subject. 5 years ago i would also reacted the same.
however i didnt at any point expect it to end up on me over something i have not said. this was a first.
Quote:It's never appropriate for anyone to judge where another person is on their spiritual path. And it becomes especially nasty when it's used to drive home a point or shut the other person out. In our miniature Ra world here with our lingo, calling someone STS is like calling them a witch in Salem in the... erm... was it 1800s? history has never been a strong point of mine...
Anyhow, it's hurtful and only serves to promote separation. So, is there still an open wound from your being accused of "STS actions" or the like? I know that if I were accused of bring STS, it would hurt my feelings!
i have no problem in anyone analyzing me, or my actions, or dubbing any of them self serving or this or that, and speaking their opinion about it. what i have a problem with, is however, people contradicting themselves, projecting the images about irrelevant things in their mind onto me, or accusing me of something while contradicting themselves with their accusation.
i am even ok with those who are inclined to green ray compassion perceiving or dubbing balanced paths as 'sts'. actually that kind of analysis would make great reflection and be useful. so, im ok with that. DESPITE that we are discussing in the forum of a material the bringer of which openly states that they are without polarity, despite the balance of 5, and 6d is being higher in vibrations and closeness to totality than green ray compassion, i have no problem with the perception of them as such.
but, as said, if someone contradicts the declared pursuit of green ray by assaulting, belittling, ridiculing, accusing others and demanding them to do x, or y, it becomes totally ridiculous.
Quote:The first post 3DMonkey made in this thread was focused on your viewpoint, rather than the topic you wanted to discuss. While it's true that what prompted that could have been your exchanges in the other thread, I don't think we can say for sure that he's carrying over the exact same argument. We don't know whether or not he made the assumption that you thought all higher technologies are evil and should be banned.
element of doubt exists in what i see, however, the immediacy of the reaction and nature, and the way it folded out, gave me that impression.
not to mention he never commenting on what i said about he misperceiving me as someone saying games are evil/should be banned in that other thread, despite he made quite clear pointers to that.
Quote:I agree with you that no-one is obligated to make a dysfunctional discussion work, and that communication totally broke down in the other thread.
Do you mean with these statements that you feel sort of "hounded" by 3DMonkey or others?
it somewhat seems so. i dont have any problems with that, but it seems to discourage others from participating in the threads such as these.
Quote:You say "It's something that cannot be worked through with discussion." Well, that's true that as long as perceptions of the other self are skewed, discussion will always devolve down to the catalyst that needs to be processed before the selves can open to eachother in acceptance and hace a mutually understanding conversation. So, in that sense, no, it cannot be solved by farther discussion. Instead, I offer that the communication should be focused on misperceptions of the other self.
that is correct, however when such situations tend to repeat over and over, it makes discussion of delicate subjects impossible. as soon as someone reacts as such in any subject they are feeling strongly about, the thread gets derailed. in the game case, there was quite distasteful and low age average correspondence involved too.
again, i dont have a problem with that either - because i have been in a lot of low age average forums or places that people were talking with quite sharp tongues. but, i know that when such low age jargon is used, older people seem to bail out of that discussion asap.
Quote:What archetypes do you feel are being projected onto you? I'm not sure what you mean by that statement.
seems to be already detailed above.
Quote:There's nothing wrong with making the observation that people are young. (although there's no age listed on anyone's profile here) And I can understand why you wouldn't want to participate in discussions with those people who are not seen by you to be those who yield fruitful discussions. But I can personally attest that just because someone's young, or even unawakened, doesn't mean they don't have something of the utmost value to share with you, if the catalyst is understood for its personal nature, and taken to the self for development.
However, I think to start saying that some people are young, and to imply that this discredits them in any way, is not seeing the entire picture. One doesn't have to be young in order to not be focused on the impersonal discussion of spiritual principles.
quite. age has no strong direct relevance to maturity. however, when you get replied to your inquiry in a form that can be summarized as 'neener neener', you understand that you cant make it work.
Quote:This shows that you have a different idea of what bring4th should provide as a forum than other people, who are coming from different places, do. I think this might be a fruitful topic for a new thread...
3DMonkey Wrote:unity100 Wrote:as for whether i am coming from a place of love, no, i am not.Nice to hear you say that. Now I know I'm not crazy. I read you right, from the beginning.
I'm honest when I say I love you unity100. In that love, I ask that you respect me as equal. You don't have to come from a place of love, and if not, I don't expect to be accepted by you.
I'm thankful for the opportunity to express myself. No hostility everyone. Genuine expression. That is all.
You've left out part of what he said.
yes he indeed did. quite conveniently too.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - 3DMonkey - 03-11-2011
And you all agree that the above post is love + wisdom = balance?
Please. Someone. Show me the love and the wisdom in that post. Please. Break it down in the same manner, and show me.
It's not there people. How am I misinterpreting it? How am I twisting it into negative when you say it isn't?
(my intuition told me to leave and never return. I ignored it. I regret it. Now I've set myself up to be ridiculed for ignoring my intuition as a "low age response". [ For the record: Wisdom knows the painful blow that this statement truly is. Wisdom KNOWS it. You all are wise enough to know it. ] Trying is the first step in making something work. Of course it's not going to work if you don't want it to.)
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - Ankh - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 02:07 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: Please. Someone. Show me the love and the wisdom in that post. Please. Break it down in the same manner, and show me.
Oh for the sake of "orange ray need some work" purpose, I'll go for it!
If it resonates with you, here is my contribution - read unity100's words again and again, til you see unity100 as your loving teacher. Just feel him as your true light bringer, your loving brother that incarnated to teach you something that you were in need of, but now - forgot. As the shift in your consciousness occurs where you perceive his words as light, the shield of selfprotection will start to loose its power over you, and you find yourself in the state of releasing. In that state your intellect can work with catalysts as they are, and your heart can feel beyond the polarity. You are in that state heading towards deeper balance, where you feel the compassion/love and "see/perceive" things as light.
EDIT: What I mean is that you changing your perception from the phrase where unity claims to come from the balance (which is between unity100 and unity100) into the fact that you perceive unity100 and his words as love/light, ie love+light=balance.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - unity100 - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 02:36 PM)Ankh Wrote: ........
alternatively, one can just read one's own words, and then see if there are any conflicts in between what s/he is praising, and saying.
the contradiction of belittling/assaulting someone in one thread, and then, after apologizing, doing it again in another thread and still accusing the other person of lack of green ray compassion, is not something too vague to spot in this case.
in another note, the contrast in between claiming green ray behavior but demanding someone to comply with a certain perspective with accusations of misperceived evilry, while the person who is irrelevantly accused still does not expect anything on any condition, may also be helpful.
these are all in the case someone claims/works on green ray, of course.
if, the situation is approached from a perspective of blue ray or higher, it would be a much different, longer and detailed subject.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - turtledude23 - 03-11-2011
It seems to me its easy to unnecessarily prolong drama by talking about approaching things from this ray or that ray, but do any of us truly know what that even means? We're all just speculating. Why not just go with your gut? My gut, and logic, both tell me that If I'm not seeing eye to eye with someone on a particular discussion and causing drama, that it would be better for me to just move on and ignore it. Arguing with a politician on TV might be different, your persistence could get a point across to the public and bring change, but on a forum? Come on. If unity and 3Dmonkey don't agree on something and misinterpret each others remarks then why not just leave it alone? We don't have to solve all issues. If you really want to look at this from a "higher ray" why not consider that: some people read a thread to learn about and discuss the topic of the title and original post, not to get caught up in drama or try to filter out which posts are drama and which posts aren't. You could do the green, blue, and indigo things all at once by creating a separate topic for this stuff - some of us actually want to discuss the topic this thread was created for.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - Ankh - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 02:49 PM)unity100 Wrote: alternatively, one can just read one's own words, and then see if there are any conflicts in between what s/he is praising, and saying.
the contradiction of belittling/assaulting someone in one thread, and then, after apologizing, doing it again in another thread and still accusing the other person of lack of green ray compassion, is not something too vague to spot in this case.
Why not, my brother? I am truelly curious - why not just let it go? Or is it your catalyst?
(03-11-2011, 02:49 PM)unity100 Wrote: these are all in the case someone claims/works on green ray, of course.
I would like to emphasize the word work. It doesn't mean that it's fully developed. Firing away that blue gas of yours can show us our weak spots. Thank you!
With the above said, yes, I see that you get too little credit for your tremendious work/effort you put in teachings. But do you learn something in return?
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - 3DMonkey - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 02:36 PM)Ankh Wrote:(03-11-2011, 02:07 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: Please. Someone. Show me the love and the wisdom in that post. Please. Break it down in the same manner, and show me.
Oh for the sake of "orange ray need some work" purpose, I'll go for it!
If it resonates with you, here is my contribution - read unity100's words again and again, til you see unity100 as your loving teacher. Just feel him as your true light bringer, your loving brother that incarnated to teach you something that you were in need of, but now - forgot. As the shift in your consciousness occurs where you perceive his words as light, the shield of selfprotection will start to loose its power over you, and you find yourself in the state of releasing. In that state your intellect can work with catalysts as they are, and your heart can feel beyond the polarity. You are in that state heading towards deeper balance, where you feel the compassion/love and "see/perceive" things as light.
You're attitude really fits "Ankh" nicely. Goes well together.I admit, I've practiced that a couple of times effectively already. (Before I post, I might add). If you will, understand that I accept unity100 (sorry for any burning sensations in you ears uni), and I'm not upset emotionally. I know, unity100 is probably reading that as contradiction in actions. It is not. I do accept it for what it is (or isn't). Discussing the matter in depth is helping us all, I believe it is anyway. The discussion is not a reflection of an inability to accept. It's really not directly about unity100 anymore at this point. It's more about processes.
The funniest truth here is that I'm probably more like unity100 than he even realizes. What he sees as childish emotional backlash, is not me at all. I, too, possess a detached style of reasoning that, maybe, he hasn't seen in me yet. It's been here seen I began. Oh my gosh, that could be it.
This is probably the best way everybody. Logic for logic.
Hey, unity100, I didn't say that you said anything. I was addressing the subject matter entirely with no accusations whatsoever. Here is my direct quote (also, this quote came before any comment about STS ridicule)
Quote:Post #30. I don't care about video games. I don't even play video games anymore. (okay, I play supermario bros 3 on occasion). I'm not going to call out those who do with "you're subjecting yourself to evil". Neither am I going to ascribe negative value to those who create the games. Its just a game.
I value allowing people to be themselves. Actually, people can't be changed anyway. They'll change if they want to, when they know who they are.
Speeding this post along.... I later made a sarcastic comment toward the treatment I felt was destructive toward another member:
Quote:Post #35: Wow. Lots of STS right here in bring4th. I'll save my gaming bucks and log in right here to receive my daily barrage of hate.
I apologize here and now. I'm sorry. The post wasn't even intended to be toward you. The pure logic behind it was to send love to another. (Nobody needs to tell me that my later posts with the same sentiment backfired. I've made my amends privately for that.)
I assure everyone. My post in this thread about weapons is completely literal and not carried over vendetta. It never was. It was not a mistake. I make no concessions in that respect. .... Having "talk to the hand" shoved in my face did set me off, and I did consciously practice Ankh's style. Then it all became a group discussion, which is not a bad thing.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - unity100 - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 03:06 PM)turtledude23 Wrote: If unity and 3Dmonkey don't agree on something and misinterpret each others remarks then why not just leave it alone? We don't have to solve all issues.
i left it alone in the other thread i was mistaken for saying something i have not said, but it followed me here, with accusations of evilry, 'not coming from a place of love' or something and so on. when i had just didnt respond in kind, i ended up 'seeing someone beneath me to reply to them'
im not so keen on playing that game.
Quote:If you really want to look at this from a "higher ray" why not consider that: some people read a thread to learn about and discuss the topic of the title and original post, not to get caught up in drama or try to filter out which posts are drama and which posts aren't.
yes, however 1 and a half page so far, has been on 3dmonkey's perceived problem.
(03-11-2011, 03:10 PM)Ankh Wrote:(03-11-2011, 02:49 PM)unity100 Wrote: alternatively, one can just read one's own words, and then see if there are any conflicts in between what s/he is praising, and saying.
the contradiction of belittling/assaulting someone in one thread, and then, after apologizing, doing it again in another thread and still accusing the other person of lack of green ray compassion, is not something too vague to spot in this case.
Why not, my brother? I am truelly curious - why not just let it go? Or is it your catalyst
let what go ?
for 1.5 pages, i have not been talking. i come to see that i have been concluded to be a lot of things without me being present, this that, a lot of talk totally irrelevant of the thread having had done before me. i have not made a single remark about this, for 1.5 pages and, if you count the odd situation in the other thread about gaming, 2 pages of 2 different threads,
yet,
you come and ask me why 'i' cant let it go ? what gives ....
Quote:I would like to emphasize the word work. It doesn't mean that it's fully developed. Firing away that blue gas of yours can show us our weak spots. Thank you!
With the above said, yes, I see that you get too little credit for your tremendious work/effort you put in teachings. But do you learn something in return?
unfortunately not, since we are not even able to discuss anything about what we initially set out to discuss in the first place. see, here we are.
(03-11-2011, 03:28 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: Hey, unity100, I didn't say that you said anything. I was addressing the subject matter entirely with no accusations whatsoever. Here is my direct quote (also, this quote came before any comment about STS ridicule)
all your posts in that thread, revolve around the gaming discussion, and about violence of gaming and so on. in the process you have expended that 'sts' identification in the quote you have made from your own post, against a post of mine discussing gaming's industrialization state. leaving aside that providing proof for some information is not some self service destructive behavior, but you have proceeded on to another post you have, so conveniently, missed to include in here - which makes your apology appear to have been made unnecessarily, whereas it wasnt :
http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=2335&pid=31413#pid31413
(03-09-2011, 05:29 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: I think they are both just plain stupid, don't you unity100?
they must not have brains. Too much modern media, I guess.
Oo oo ee ee aw aw awww.
I love your thickness. So soft.
even as of now, the last post in that thread is yours, and it is your redoubling of inquiry of what derek is going to do about games/gaming, now that he concluded that games were negative/violent/aggressive/whatever in nature.
so, there is no doubting that for the duration of that thread you had been arguing over games and gaming, a discussion i had not participated in.
let me give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that you only reacted and labeled me as sts, out of concern for 'treatment' of blatzaddict.
yet, when we observe this thread, i just see the continuance of the same kind of accusations, character analysis, attributions of lack of love, sts, rude/aggressive/uncaring/impolite/belittling behavior of others etc etc and so on.
so basically, the situation/discussion in the gaming thread, is still continuing here. i have not replied to this character-oriented baseless discussion, yet, this time you started accusations of belittling others.
yet, as of this moment, we were still unable to discuss in even 10 posts about the main topic of this thread. we are still discussing your issue that you carried over from that thread.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - 3DMonkey - 03-11-2011
Quote:yet, as of this moment, we were still unable to discuss in even 10 posts about the main topic of this thread. we are still discussing your issue that you carried over from that thread.
This includes you as well. I did not carry over a vendetta against you. I absolutely did not.
However, I do maintain my stance that key words like "danger", "weapons" and "blow up" are concepts that I feel very compelled to present a positive view on, as I believe that some people may misconstrue the topic to advocating the forceful removal of such things or, worse, living in fear of them.
I am very willing to engage you on this very topic. I did so with questions directly to you about your intent. Plain and simple, it could have been any member.
On my latest entry on gaming: if Derek agrees with you, I will speak further to Derek on the matter, and if apologies are due, I will deliver them without question.
I just posted. "today's posts" shows I posted. I don't see it in thread. are we moving them now?
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - yossarian - 03-11-2011
Two quotes that seem relevant here. I'm not directing these at anyone in particular.
1:
Ra: It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity
2:
Ra: I am Ra. The lobes of your physical complex brain are alike in their use of weak electrical energy. The entity ruled by intuition and impulse is equal to the entity governed by rational analysis when polarity is considered. The lobes may both be used for service to self or service-to-others.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - 3DMonkey - 03-11-2011
Touché Yossarian. You can point that weapon directly at me. I needed it and it feels good.
(the weapon comment is a joke. I know Yossarian was not firing anything at me. It is humorous to me because we are in a "weapons", not to be taken literally in this particular context, thread. The true emotion I was trying to portray is that the quotes provided hit home with me, a figure of speech, and I thank yossarian for posting them)
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - unity100 - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 04:21 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: This includes you as well. I did not carry over a vendetta against you. I absolutely did not.
that doesnt include me. i wasnt the one discussing about someone else in a totally off topic fashion for 1.5 pages in this thread. i had to respond, because it had STILL not ended after 1.5 pages. youre still projecting what you have done, to me - again, you have discussed about me in this thread, for almost 1.5 pages. i didnt participate in that until this point.
Quote:I am very willing to engage you on this very topic. I did so with questions directly to you about your intent. Plain and simple, it could have been any member.
im not willing to discuss with you after your approaches and format in these two threads. you are yourself free to do whatever you choose.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - yossarian - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 04:45 PM)unity100 Wrote: youre still projecting what you have done,
How can you know this?
Seems like jumping to a conclusion.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - unity100 - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 04:50 PM)yossarian Wrote:(03-11-2011, 04:45 PM)unity100 Wrote: youre still projecting what you have done,
How can you know this?
Seems like jumping to a conclusion.
the latest pointer, i already mentioned just in that post.
Quote:(03-11-2011, 04:21 PM)3DMonkey Wrote:Quote:yet, as of this moment, we were still unable to discuss in even 10 posts about the main topic of this thread. we are still discussing your issue that you carried over from that thread.This includes you as well. I did not carry over a vendetta against you. I absolutely did not.
that doesnt include me. i wasnt the one discussing about someone else in a totally off topic fashion for 1.5 pages in this thread. i had to respond, because it had STILL not ended after 1.5 pages. youre still projecting what you have done, to me - again, you have discussed about me in this thread, for almost 1.5 pages. i didnt participate in that until this point.
in short, he had had been discussing about me, without my participation, in an offtopic fashion in this thread for 1.5 pages, and when i had had said that he carried over something from the other thread, and we are still discussing that, he included me in that.
this is why i am saying he is projecting what he is doing to me - i didnt at any point participate in what happened in this thread in regard to what he was discussing about me, for 1.5 pages. he himself discussed with other people, in my absence. yet, he still included me with it just in that post, responding to me. its as if i was still a 'ghost participant', despite i havent participated in this discussion about my 'character and manners' for entirety of 1.5 pages of this thread.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - yossarian - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 04:55 PM)unity100 Wrote: in short, he had had been discussing about me, without my participation, in an offtopic fashion in this thread for 1.5 pages, and when i had had said that he carried over something from the other thread, and we are still discussing that, he included me in that.
this is why i am saying he is projecting what he is doing to me - i didnt at any point participate in what happened in this thread in regard to what he was discussing about me, for 1.5 pages. he himself discussed with other people, in my absence. yet, he still included me with it just in that post, responding to me. its as if i was still a 'ghost participant', despite i havent participated in this discussion about my 'character and manners' for entirety of 1.5 pages of this thread.
Are you sure that he thinks he was discussing what you think he was discussing?
I mean he is insisting that he didn't carry over stuff from the other thread, but you are insisting that he did. But to me it seems like the authority on 3DMonkey's internal mental activities is 3DMonkey.
3DMonkey might say "I assure you, when I told you that I meant it in a different way!"
And then I would reply, "Oh, ok, I guess I am misunderstanding you then. You are the expert on your internal mental activities, I can only infer their existence. Why do you keep harping on X, though? If it's not due a carryover from the other thread then I don't understand what you're saying at all."
I guess what I'm saying is: the best person to tell us what is going on inside 3DMonkey's head is 3DMonkey. And he claims that you are misunderstanding what is going on in his head.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - unity100 - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 05:22 PM)yossarian Wrote: I mean he is insisting that he didn't carry over stuff from the other thread, but you are insisting that he did.
yet, he says 'this includes you as well', despite i had had not even discussed anything regarding that for 1.5 pages. i just let what had happened in that thread, go, and didnt even return to it. yet, it was being discussed in my stead here, without my participation. lets say he didnt carry over anything from that other thread, but discussed about me, my character, this and that, out of love of pure science or spirituality. then the fact that he still includes me in that act together with himself, despite i had not participated in it at any point while it was being discussed in my stead, leaves a lot of questions. 'that includes you as well' part, is the part that contains the projection here - either because i was included in some activity that i have not participated at all, or, there was an actual carrying over of issues, because for an entire 1.5 pages, me/my character was discussed in my absence.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - yossarian - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 05:33 PM)unity100 Wrote:(03-11-2011, 05:22 PM)yossarian Wrote: I mean he is insisting that he didn't carry over stuff from the other thread, but you are insisting that he did.
yet, he says 'this includes you as well', despite i had had not even discussed anything regarding that for 1.5 pages. i just let what had happened in that thread, go, and didnt even return to it. yet, it was being discussed in my stead here, without my participation. lets say he didnt carry over anything from that other thread, but discussed about me, my character, this and that, out of love of pure science or spirituality. then the fact that he still includes me in that act together with himself, despite i had not participated in it at any point while it was being discussed in my stead, leaves a lot of questions. 'that includes you as well' part, is the part that contains the projection here - either because i was included in some activity that i have not participated at all, or, there was an actual carrying over of issues, because for an entire 1.5 pages, me/my character was discussed in my absence.
I agree it leaves a lot of questions.
I just think the best thing to do with those questions is ask them. Take those questions to 3DMonkey directly and see how he answers.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - unity100 - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 05:36 PM)yossarian Wrote: I just think the best thing to do with those questions is ask them. Take those questions to 3DMonkey directly and see how he answers.
and the reason i should do that, after all that has been said and done and discussed, instead of discussing the topic i actually wanted to discuss, would be ?
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - 3DMonkey - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 05:45 PM)unity100 Wrote:(03-11-2011, 05:36 PM)yossarian Wrote: I just think the best thing to do with those questions is ask them. Take those questions to 3DMonkey directly and see how he answers.
and the reason i should do that, after all that has been said and done and discussed, instead of discussing the topic i actually wanted to discuss, would be ?
Discuss it then already. Anything I say to you is interpreted as projection. Whatever. Tell us your thoughts about laser guns. You have the floor from here on out.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - yossarian - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 05:45 PM)unity100 Wrote:(03-11-2011, 05:36 PM)yossarian Wrote: I just think the best thing to do with those questions is ask them. Take those questions to 3DMonkey directly and see how he answers.
and the reason i should do that, after all that has been said and done and discussed, instead of discussing the topic i actually wanted to discuss, would be ?
To understand him.
Of course, you have to choose the best way to spend your time. So maybe that's a waste of time to you.
I think you're spending quite a bit of time on this issue anyway though, whether you like it or not.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - unity100 - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 06:11 PM)yossarian Wrote:(03-11-2011, 05:45 PM)unity100 Wrote:(03-11-2011, 05:36 PM)yossarian Wrote: I just think the best thing to do with those questions is ask them. Take those questions to 3DMonkey directly and see how he answers.
and the reason i should do that, after all that has been said and done and discussed, instead of discussing the topic i actually wanted to discuss, would be ?
To understand him.
Of course, you have to choose the best way to spend your time. So maybe that's a waste of time to you.
I think you're spending quite a bit of time on this issue anyway though, whether you like it or not.
quite. and i wont be doing that anymore.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - Ankh - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 04:00 PM)unity100 Wrote: let what go ?
What I mean is that you let go people of the hook, people who claim to come from green vibrations, but are still learning that lesson.
(03-11-2011, 04:00 PM)unity100 Wrote: for 1.5 pages, i have not been talking. i come to see that i have been concluded to be a lot of things without me being present
you come and ask me why 'i' cant let it go ? what gives ....
Thank you for telling that. I understand you, my brother. And yes, it is probably very disturbing.
(03-11-2011, 04:00 PM)unity100 Wrote:Quote:I would like to emphasize the word work. It doesn't mean that it's fully developed. Firing away that blue gas of yours can show us our weak spots. Thank you!
With the above said, yes, I see that you get too little credit for your tremendious work/effort you put in teachings. But do you learn something in return?
unfortunately not, since we are not even able to discuss anything about what we initially set out to discuss in the first place. see, here we are.
That is most important in my view. Do you wish to pursue the topic itself or the upcoming relationships as your lessons?
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - unity100 - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 07:26 PM)Ankh Wrote: That is most important in my view. Do you wish to pursue the topic itself or the upcoming relationships as your lessons?
im wondering why are you still directing that question to me, despite what i had said in the last few posts already.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - Ankh - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 07:48 PM)unity100 Wrote:(03-11-2011, 07:26 PM)Ankh Wrote: That is most important in my view. Do you wish to pursue the topic itself or the upcoming relationships as your lessons?
im wondering why are you still directing that question to me, despite what i had said in the last few posts already.
No reason at all, my brother. I am just wondering whether you find that these side-discussions, off topic, are teaching you anything or not? Do they?
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - unity100 - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 07:53 PM)Ankh Wrote:(03-11-2011, 07:48 PM)unity100 Wrote:(03-11-2011, 07:26 PM)Ankh Wrote: That is most important in my view. Do you wish to pursue the topic itself or the upcoming relationships as your lessons?
im wondering why are you still directing that question to me, despite what i had said in the last few posts already.
No reason at all, my brother. I am just wondering whether you find that these side-discussions, off topic, are teaching you anything or not? Do they?
im not attracted to this subject, or what has recurred in regard to that, with any measure. it has been shoved onto me despite my disinterest, without my participation, in my absence.
what im wondering is, why we are STILL on this side discussion or the something expanded on that, in relation to me. despite, i had openly stated that, i am not interested in participating that, im still being queried on this.
i am not interested in discussing, or attracted to this subject.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - Ankh - 03-11-2011
(03-11-2011, 08:08 PM)unity100 Wrote: i am not interested in discussing, or attracted to this subject.
Thank you, my brother.
Namasté
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - unity100 - 03-12-2011
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T1
even though this was a peaceful use of technology, it is still a good example of allowing technology at the hands of immature planets.
RE: Dangers of allowing advanced technology in immature worlds - 3DMonkey - 03-12-2011
http://www.sword-buyers-guide.com/knight-sword.html
http://veracitystew.com/2010/09/09/dangers-of-the-watermelon-slingshot-video/