XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen
XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
From: evelyn.ruut@gmail.com
"Catawumpus" wrote in message
news:kimmerian-803F37.09382915082010@news.octanews.com...
> Jigme Dorje :
>
>> OK, you win. Everybody's an idiot except you.
>
> Definitely idiotic of you to think that your little clique
> is everybody.
>
>> The means justify the ends, and if you have to twist the other
>> person's words, throw around invalid arguments to confuse the
>> issue and misrepresent the others' positions, that's ok, just as
>> long as you get the last word in - it's a battle of attrition.
>
> Heh. I just lately gave you the last word in a half-dozen
> or so places and then returned to politely ignoring you.
> Result: here you are back again, blathering away just as usual.
> You're an attention whore.
>
> Of course that wouldn't matter if you'd backed up what you
> said. But instead you've made accusations w/out giving one
> bit of evidence, proving only that you're having a fit of pique.
>
> halfawake :
>
>> If he does look that way, no doubt it is because he misrepresented key
>> portions of the Lotus Sutra in a previous lifetime.
>
> Heh. Rob can't show I misrepresented the Lotus Sutra here
> in this discussion, so he babbles about what he imagines I
> might have done in another life -- his alternative to admitting
> that the sutra describes the Bodhisattva
> Sarvasattvapriyadarsana immolating himself to honor the
> Buddha, an act labeled "the most sublime worship of the law" by
> the eight Buddhas who watch.
>
> zenworm :
>
>> Perhaps Catawumpus is a woman who has lost a child and suffers from
>> the anger of grief.
>
> Perhaps zenworm speculates about me because he's unable to
> address what I've said. When last heard from he was busy
> making excuses, stamping his feet, and referring to examples he
> hadn't given.
>
> Evelyn :
>
>> There is something very angry about him/her that simply cancels out the
>> possibility of rational discussion.
>
> Excuses, excuses. Evelyn's attempt at rational discussion
> was based on the obvious falsehood that I halted my
> interpretation of the Four Noble Truths at the first one: same
> lie she's recited during earlier conversations. But she
> doesn't want to concede they take a highly critical perspective
> on worldly existence, so all she can do is toss
> always-unsupported accusations. Pathetic, of course, but there
> she is.
>
> Keynes :
>
>> We'd like to help, but we haven't enough skill.
>
> But you compensate for your lack of skill with a plenitude
> of eel-wriggling. I hope that you know a really good
> dry-cleaner, because you've been dragging your soul through the
> mud.
>
> Jigme Dorje :
>
>> Yes, you are both very perceptive, and that is of course what I was
>
> You claimed I insisted on having the last word even though
> I had just given it to you in several different places.
> Obviously what really bothers you is being ignored. To get the
> attention you're desperate for you tossed some totally
> unsupported accusations, same way you make laughable assertions
> about religion and philosophy.
>
> halfawake :
>
>> It's not the anger that cancels it out for me. It is just that he
>> will repeat his assertions and completely ignore anything you say to
>
> A shame that Rob has to lie to himself that way. Truth be
> told I've given more attention to what he said than he
> appreciated and more than it deserved. He began by
> constructing a stawman when he argued "There's nothing negative
> about being liberated from delusion and attachment." I'd
> never claimed differently. My point was that Buddhism includes
> among other things teachings highly critical of worldly
> existence (a shock and a scandal to certain worldlings in these
> newsgroups).
>
> Rob finished, several thousand words of bullshit later, by
> falsely claiming that my interpretation of the First Noble
> Truth included only "physical suffering." A plain lie.
> Rather than insisting on the restriction Rob wrongly attributed
> me, I explicitly listed mourning.
>
> Hardly worth summarizing the rest of the dialogue, so I'll
> let those examples be the alpha and omega of halfawake's
> nattering unless he wants to go into detail on his other errors
> and evasions.
>
> Nobody in Particular :
>
>> It's an ego thing. He must always be right. If you don't acknowledge
>> his
>
> If "it's an ego thing," then the personal attacks aimed in
> my direction by Rob, Jigme, Nobody, Evelyn, et al. show who
> the dented egos belong to, since none of their commentary comes
> equipped with anything more than name-calling: nothing
> demonstrating I was in the wrong on the stuff we discussed, and
> nothing to excuse the crap that they've talked about the
> Bible, the Buddhist scriptures, etc. They're merely throwing a
> collective tantrum.
>
> Evelyn :
>
>> I think you have him figured out! LOL
>
> LOL fits: Evelyn's head is lolling on her shoulders while
> she waits for nurse to come.
>
> Jigme Dorje :
>
>> When a deeply disturbed man engages others' egos, this is not
>
> When Jigme plays dime-store psychoanalyst it's a sure sign
> he feels deeply disturbed, probably because something has
> stopped him from fawning over himself in his usual way. In the
> case here his self-admiration was rudely interrupted by my
> comments about his misreadings of various scriptures, plus some
> other observations on his nattering. He keeps referring to
> "moving on" but he always comes back again: another indication
> he can't let go.
>
> Evelyn :
>
>> Or if you don't have any more "ammo" than that..........
>
> My point exactly: about half-a-dozen posts here attacking
> me personally, none with any ammunition better than
> name-calling, and all dodging the topics. You folks are firing
> blanks.
>
> -- Catawumpus
Go back to bed Catawumpus. You need the rest.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
In the stony fastness of the mountains there is a strange market, where one
may barter the vortex of life for boundless bliss. - Milarepa
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
