The 14 Worst Corporatations

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Not to be a stickler for details or anything

You should be a stickler for details more often.

BUT, I just wanted to be direct and specific: Are you saying that when you carry a gun, you do not have it loaded?

You cannot load a gun without ammunition, Angelica. However, you can always load a mind with an assumption.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Hold on. Just got here...

Nice try, you answered that post yesterday! It sounds like some kind of acquiescence to my will (;)) that you drop out of sight for a day while you formulate your answer. But I'm sure you'll have a "valid reason" for that.

farfromglorified

jammin1586 wrote:

farfromglorified, i like you.

Why thank you. Stick around.

farfromglorified

EB, abook, haven't missed your posts. Have no time today. I'll be back soon. Be good to one another.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

You should be a stickler for details more often.



You cannot load a gun without ammunition, Angelica. However, you can always load a mind with an assumption.

It's starting to look like you are lying by implying that you don't carry a loaded gun. Why else are you avoiding direct answers to direct questions? Not to mention that fact that you would not directly originally assert that you don't carry a loaded gun in the first place. Rather it looks like you tried to hand me that "assumption".

Do you use ammunition in your gun when you carry it? Do you carry a loaded weapon?

Lying by omission is still lying.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Nice try, you answered that post yesterday! It sounds like some kind of acquiescence to my will (;)) that you drop out of sight for a day while you formulate your answer. But I'm sure you'll have a "valid reason" for that.

Yeah...I misunderstood. Thought you were referring to something else.

El_Kabong

farfromglorified wrote:

EB, abook, haven't missed your posts. Have no time today. I'll be back soon. Be good to one another.

ok, hope all is well, don't work too hard

(pssst your roommate made you watch the english patient last, didn't she? )

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

It's starting to look like you are lying by implying that you don't carry a loaded gun.

Angelica, I'm not "implying". I'm telling you. I carry a gun loaded with assumptions, not bullets.

Why else are you avoiding direct answers to direct questions?

What question?

Not to mention that fact that you would not directly originally assert that you don't carry a loaded gun in the first place. Rather it looks like you tried to hand me that "assumption".

I did hand you that assumption. You still had to grab it.

Do you use ammunition in your gun when you carry it?

No. I don't even own any ammunition for my gun. It's been fired about 5 times at a shooting range 5 years ago.

Do you carry a loaded weapon?

An empty gun is not a weapon.

Lying by omission is still lying.

There is no such thing as a "lie by omission" my dear.

El_Kabong

farfromglorified wrote:

An empty gun is not a weapon.

you could hit someone w/ it or throw it at them

farfromglorified wrote:

There is no such thing as a "lie by omission" my dear.

i guess it depends on your definition of 'lie'. like if a kid gets his allowance from his mom then dad comes home and pays him...if the kid doesn't say his mom already paid him technicaly it would be a lie by omission...but again, it depends on definitions

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

you could hit someone w/ it or throw it at them

You're next on that list

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

ok, hope all is well, don't work too hard

So much time on this board is starting to catch up with me...

(pssst your roommate made you watch the english patient last, didn't she? )

No, LOTR 3 actually.....

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Angelica, I'm not "implying". I'm telling you. I carry a gun loaded with assumptions, not bullets.



What question?



I did hand you that assumption. You still had to grab it.



No. I don't even own any ammunition for my gun. It's been fired about 5 times at a shooting range 5 years ago.



An empty gun is not a weapon.



There is no such thing as a "lie by omission" my dear.

If you are trying to give someone a false impression, without outrightly stating something false, that IS a lie by omission. You're entitled to not agree. (and I'm not referring to the non-loaded gun....I'm referring to the fact that you did not at any point tell me you carried a non-loaded gun, then you did not even agree when I asked questions about the gun/it's-loadeness-or-lack-thereof...instead you said cute things like "that's my girl". When someone is so very indirect, it sets off an alarm bell for me as to 'what's with the "bait" ')

Alright, you've answered direct questions.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

If you are trying to give someone a false impression, without outrightly stating something false, that IS a lie by omission.

There's a difference in giving someone a false impression and someone giving themselves a false impression, don't you think?

You're entitled to not agree. (and I'm not referring to the non-loaded gun....I'm referring to the fact that you did not at any point tell me you carried a non-loaded gun

I never, at any point, told you I carried a loaded gun. You told yourself that.

then you did not even agree when I asked questions about the gun/it's-loadeness-or-lack-thereof...instead you said cute things like "that's my girl". When someone is so very indirect, it sets off an alarm bell for me as to 'what's with the "bait" ')

You answered that question yourself.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm saying that it is not a conflict, angelica. There is no contradiction.

You said: "to suggest that an inner conflict will manifest itself in an external situation is perfectly valid and correct. To suggest that an inner conflict will manifest itself in an external situation unrelated to the conflict iteself is silly."

I'm saying if I have a battle inside between self and Self, where I am discarding aspects of myself, such as with addiction, I will block part of who I am inside. Old conflicts and issues. By blocking awareness one prevents the light of reason from resolving such issues. The issues then reflect around us and show up outside as our life. Remember you said evil is the opposite of reason. You also agreed that you smoking is evil and it is contrary to your very self.

According to psychology, by splitting our psyche in such a way, we force the conflict to show up outside of us, where wel face the patterns over and over until we own and resolve them. At this point, you deny your accountability is the contracts you play out around you, it seems--in terms of guns to your head and your attraction to such situations. And therefore you feel the force of "other" as beyond you. With Self mastery, one comes to own their part in what they create, and therefore one creates their life consciously in awareness. Our power struggles teach us such lessons.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

You said: "to suggest that an inner conflict will manifest itself in an external situation is perfectly valid and correct. To suggest that an inner conflict will manifest itself in an external situation unrelated to the conflict iteself is silly."

I'm saying if I have a battle inside between self and Self, where I am discarding aspects of myself, such as with addiction, I will block part of who I am inside.

Yes! Now, what's my battle vis a vis my gun?

Old conflicts and issues. By blocking awareness one prevents the light of reason from resolving such issues. The issues then reflect around us and show up outside as our life. Remember you said evil is the opposite of reason. You also agreed that you smoking is evil and it is contrary to your very self.

It is.

According to psychology, by splitting our psyche in such a way, we force the conflict to show up outside of us, where wel face the patterns over and over until we own and resolve them. At this point, you deny your accountability is the contracts you play out around you, it seems--in terms of guns to your head and your attraction to such situations. And therefore you feel the force of "other" as beyond you. With Self mastery, one comes to own their part in what they create, and therefore one creates their life consciously in awareness. Our power struggles teach us such lessons.

Angelica, in the context of force it is only the empty weapon that eliminates the conflict.

I do not feel the force of "other" as beyond me. I refuse to sink to its standards, by which I attempt to end it. Do you understand this??? I refuse to become the product of their conflict. Now, I'll ask you again. Do you understand these now:

farfromglorified wrote:

I own a gun. Why? To defend myself in the situation where my choice is simple: my life or my mind. My gun is not a tool of fear. It has no purpose in the face of another. It has only the purpose to defend my life, in and only in the event that it is necessary.

farfromglorified wrote:

Aggressive force is man's physical means of denial. Just as a man may shut off his mind in an effort to deny reality, a man may attack reality in an effort to destroy it.

farfromglorified wrote:

The gun I carry is a rejection of fear, not a tool of it.

The man who points a gun at you is a man telling you not to think. He tells you to sacrifice your mind for your fear. I seek to disappoint such men.

farfromglorified wrote:

I also own an umbrella. Got a problem with that?

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

There's a difference in giving someone a false impression....

If you are not deliberately giving someone a false impression of something, and they get a false impression, the misunderstanding is entirely on them. If you are deliberately giving someone a false imression and they are getting a false impression, the "misunderstanding" is entirely on you.

and someone giving themselves a false impression, don't you think?

I acknowledge my assumption posts ago. Directly.

However, I am interested in why when I've obviously had this "false impression" for so long, that you've chosen not to clear up what to you, apparently, was an obvious misunderstanding.

I never, at any point, told you I carried a loaded gun. You told yourself that.

I remember many moons ago, in talking about your gun I talked about how we all consider it acceptable to shoot someone in self defense and yet in order to do so and not consider the far-reaching ramifications of the effects on family of the 'victim', etc, we might be asking for trouble. You told me you would take that into consideration. You did not, at that time, mention your gun was unloaded. Again, if you carry an unloaded gun, that seems like an interesting way to address my point at that time. You opted not to clarify for me the communication issue between the two of us, for whatever reason.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes! Now, what's my battle vis a vis my gun?



It is.



Angelica, in the context of force it is only the empty weapon that eliminates the conflict.

I do not feel the force of "other" as beyond me. I refuse to sink to its standards, by which I attempt to end it. Do you understand this??? I refuse to become the product of their conflict. Now, I'll ask you again. Do you understand these now:

Of course if you carry an unloaded weapon, I see a very different situation than one of you bowing to fear and oppression and carrying a loaded weapon and being part of the fear and oppressive cycles.

At the same time, if you are contracted to run up against a speeding ticket next Wednesday or if your girlfriend is getting "overbearing" tomorrow night, it is an inner conflict of yours that will hook into those situations and create you fulfilling your part of the contract.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

If you are not deliberately giving someone a false impression of something, and they get a false impression, the misunderstanding is entirely on them. If you are deliberately giving someone a false imression and they are getting a false impression, the "misunderstanding" is entirely on you.

A misundertanding is never entirely on either side. It is entirely on both sides.

I acknowledge my assumption posts ago. Directly.

Yes you did. I'm not trying to imply that you did not.

However, I am interested in why when I've obviously had this "false impression" for so long, that you've chosen not to clear up what to you, apparently, was an obvious misunderstanding.

Because I was waiting for one of my favorite paradox-posters to call out the contradiction, of course

I remember many moons ago, in talking about your gun I talked about how we all consider it acceptable to shoot someone in self defense and yet in order to do so and not consider the far-reaching ramifications of the effects on family of the 'victim', etc, we might be asking for trouble. You told me you would take that into consideration.

My response was:

"I will defend my life against force. I will not use force to achieve my life. Do you understand the difference?"

and later:

"Who said anything about killing them?"

You did not, at that time, mention your gun was unloaded. Again, if you carry an unloaded gun, that seems like an interesting way to address my point at that time.

It would have been interesting. But not nearly as interesting as before you started looking at it logically as you have now.

farfromglorified

Angelica,

I'll call your attention to another conversation we once had:

angelica wrote:

We are talking about potentially killing or maiming another human being.

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes we are

angelica wrote:

If you get this, I think you would acknowledge the validity of what I'm saying.

farfromglorified wrote:

I completely get the validity of what you're saying. You're simply applying it to the wrong side of the equation.

I'd invite you to consider this again in the context of everything I've ever said about force.

I have to run. I'll see you all soon.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

My response was:

"I will defend my life against force. I will not use force to achieve my life. Do you understand the difference?"

and later:

"Who said anything about killing them?"

Incorrect. I am referring to one of those threads back in the day, like the Wal-Mart thread...I looked for it and could not trace it.

It would have been interesting. But not nearly as interesting as before you started looking at it logically as you have now.

this is what I see: You withheld information regarding the potency of the weapon you carry. Information that could have cleared up what you knew to be a misunderstanding. Now you apparently are wielding this circumstance as a way to point to faulty logic on my part and so on. I reject that outrightly.

If you have ideas how I "should" think, that's about you. I think and do what is right for me.