[MD] Step One

Wed Oct 20 11:59:23 PDT 2010

John Carl
 aan moq_discuss

details weergeven 19:23 (27 minuten geleden)

Greetings, adrie.

To the first part, I will simply take you to be chiming in with dan's
critique of my style.  Ok.  Got you. duly noted and when the audience is
unhappy, the tomatoes rain from the balconey even, then certainly the artist
must bow out, duck behind a curtain, stay off the stage.  Understood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Adrie)
Nope,engaging is not chiming in, and no, its not about Dan's critique on
your style.
Its about sneaking out on the presented subject, by deviating the
conversation
to the subject of Bo,on a moment in time badly chosen, and solely for the
purpose
of deviating to something you want to throw in, clearly to associate Dan
with the
Bo-subject.
Its a mechanism, like the mentionings in your last what? 50 posts of Horse's
name-,completely
off context-off topic, and without filling in the field, pointing the other
listers attention
to think about Horse as cause of your trouble, cause off Bo's trouble.
Guiding the attention by association, suggestion and autosuggestion.
You work the same way now , throwing in Mary's name, Marscha, Bo,
Platt,...in the silent hope that
they wil feel adressed and advocated on their behalfs, and hopefully will
chime in to rescue you.
Suggestion/autosuggestion.Trying to shelter in their armpits

No?

How many names are following after this? , in the following answers you
gave?
can you count?

Same goes for the deviation on the issue here, you deviate to the question
about
individuals to be excluded, but this was not the issue,and mind this, i made
no question
what so ever to exclude Bo, nor he is booted out, like you are implying
here, very suggestive.
Tell me, doe you like to know my opinion, Horse his opinion, or do you like
to shove Bo's
opinion, or mary's or marsha's up my ass?, ...
Or is there, in the fog out there , a better answer?...like this , this is
not the current issue!.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second part, I would deal with the following construction on your part:

Adrie:

To be quit honest, i think you are trying to shelter in Bo's armpit, or
Ham's, or platt's, .

John:

You think Adrie?  Or even Marsha's perhaps?  After all, it really isn't
"bo's" beef anymore, is it.  He isn't here, and Marsha has adopted it.  So
individuals might be excluded, but ideas evolve and persist.  An interesting
phenomena, don't you think?  Perhaps we ought to really deal with it?  With
Intellect, as defined, we have a big problem that Bo pointed out.  Not just
Marsha.  But Platt, Mary and I also saw the problem, although I went on a
different tack.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Adrie)
The defenitions of intellect.
these are , in dictionary's, condensed models to formulate some aspects,
hopefully the most important ones, but they will always remain condensed
models.
If Bo like's to attack a defenition in a dictionary, its his call, not mine.
But again, hoping marsha, Mary or Bo will chime in because their points or
issue's are raised,
is your goal here.
I cannot agree upon "we saw the problem," nope, Bo created the problem, you
and mary tried to
exploit it, export it, attaching value to it , in the hope to please Bo.
It is merely a mindfucking game, delusional/obsessive and very recurrent.
Once you have an obsession, its very difficult to get rid of it.

* deal with it? , in the absense of the promotor? to become obsessive? no
thanks.
trying to shelter in a case that is not a case, hoping Bo will chime in,
....

--------------------------------------------------------------------
John
I do that, sometimes.  Take an unexpected tack, go off on my own tangent or
follow my own individual urges.  You know what I don't do, Adrie?  I don't
shelter in anybody's armpit.  I stand on my own thoughts and words and you
can shove your "armpit" up where the son don't shine.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adrie:

Ps , i'm not very confident anymore that you even did read or understand
"LILA", same goes for Bo, what Dan is saying, and Dave
about the lilac's is true, and i was aware of it,.

John:

You think knowing something is all about sniffing the lilacs Adrie?  This is
so tiresome, to repeat myself and have to explain the same thing over and
over.

So I won't.

I'll let you test me, instead.  Ask me a question about Lila.  See if I
understand it.  Judge according to your skill and understanding, MY
conceptions of Lila - what each passage portends, ask me the meaning of a
narrative that seemingly wanders, goes so far astray, we start with Indians
and we end up with a woman of questionable morals, picked up in a bar.  What
could be the possible meaning of such a narrative?  How is it that an
ongoing enquiry can be so easily led astray?

A struggle just as alive today and in us, as anything else we "experience".

Go ahead, Adrie.  Ask me about Lila. O double-dog dare you.

Adrie:

.i strongly suspect that
you will try to advokate Bo back in to make YOU look like a lesser fool.

John:

You look like a fool to suggest such a thing.  How could I look like a
lesser fool than a be a man who praises foolishness?  duh?

I advocate Bo back because I believe in Loyalty and Community and Bo put
more of himself into MD for more years than almost anybody.  Sure, it could
be annoying to always have this strong windy opinion blowing, but any sailor
knows that a strong dependable wind can be a good thing.

Unless it's blowing out of the exactly wrong direction.  Which I guess is
debatable.  Which is why Marsha's point is worthy of more debate.  Imo.

Not that the opinion of a clown means anything, admittedly.

Adrie:

Don't bother to try, you can never reach to Bo's knees

John:

At last you speak wisdom.  I cannot attain to his stature.  I can attain
foolishness.  I aim for the possible.

You watch your aim and I'll watch mine.

------------------------------------------------------
(Adrie)
only in this last part i can see some honesty, i did not comment on it , nor
on the one-liners,
nor on the duh's, i know you like to read yourself, so i left them intact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2010/10/20 John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>

> Greetings, adrie.
>
> To the first part, I will simply take you to be chiming in with dan's
> critique of my style.  Ok.  Got you. duly noted and when the audience is
> unhappy, the tomatoes rain from the balconey even, then certainly the
> artist
> must bow out, duck behind a curtain, stay off the stage.  Understood.
>
> Second part, I would deal with the following construction on your part:
>
> Adrie:
>
> To be quit honest, i think you are trying to shelter in Bo's armpit, or
> Ham's, or platt's, .
>
> John:
>
> You think Adrie?  Or even Marsha's perhaps?  After all, it really isn't
> "bo's" beef anymore, is it.  He isn't here, and Marsha has adopted it.  So
> individuals might be excluded, but ideas evolve and persist.  An
> interesting
> phenomena, don't you think?  Perhaps we ought to really deal with it?  With
> Intellect, as defined, we have a big problem that Bo pointed out.  Not just
> Marsha.  But Platt, Mary and I also saw the problem, although I went on a
> different tack.
>
> I do that, sometimes.  Take an unexpected tack, go off on my own tangent or
> follow my own individual urges.  You know what I don't do, Adrie?  I don't
> shelter in anybody's armpit.  I stand on my own thoughts and words and you
> can shove your "armpit" up where the son don't shine.
>
>
> Adrie:
>
> Ps , i'm not very confident anymore that you even did read or understand
> "LILA", same goes for Bo, what Dan is saying, and Dave
> about the lilac's is true, and i was aware of it,.
>
> John:
>
> You think knowing something is all about sniffing the lilacs Adrie?  This
> is
> so tiresome, to repeat myself and have to explain the same thing over and
> over.
>
> So I won't.
>
> I'll let you test me, instead.  Ask me a question about Lila.  See if I
> understand it.  Judge according to your skill and understanding, MY
> conceptions of Lila - what each passage portends, ask me the meaning of a
> narrative that seemingly wanders, goes so far astray, we start with Indians
> and we end up with a woman of questionable morals, picked up in a bar.
>  What
> could be the possible meaning of such a narrative?  How is it that an
> ongoing enquiry can be so easily led astray?
>
> A struggle just as alive today and in us, as anything else we "experience".
>
>
> Go ahead, Adrie.  Ask me about Lila. O double-dog dare you.
>
> Adrie:
>
> .i strongly suspect that
> you will try to advokate Bo back in to make YOU look like a lesser fool.
>
>
> John:
>
> You look like a fool to suggest such a thing.  How could I look like a
> lesser fool than a be a man who praises foolishness?  duh?
>
> I advocate Bo back because I believe in Loyalty and Community and Bo put
> more of himself into MD for more years than almost anybody.  Sure, it could
> be annoying to always have this strong windy opinion blowing, but any
> sailor
> knows that a strong dependable wind can be a good thing.
>
> Unless it's blowing out of the exactly wrong direction.  Which I guess is
> debatable.  Which is why Marsha's point is worthy of more debate.  Imo.
>
> Not that the opinion of a clown means anything, admittedly.
>
> Adrie:
>
> Don't bother to try, you can never reach to Bo's knees
>
> John:
>
> At last you speak wisdom.  I cannot attain to his stature.  I can attain
> foolishness.  I aim for the possible.
>
>
> You watch your aim and I'll watch mine.
>
>
> John
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>

-- 
parser