Sincerity brings down online barriers

@very-rusty said
And of course you happen to be one of her minions that agree with EVERYTHING she says!~ 😛 Or is it he? 😉

-VR

That's because she is invariably right.


(And enough already with the insipid gender slurs).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
That's because she is invariably right.


(And enough already with the insipid gender slurs).

LOL@ goad, what gender slurs....Have you ever seen this Suzie Q? 😛 😉

-VR

At this point, would an injection of sincerity do any good?

@fmf said
Oh the irony.

"My sincerity and ~ I'd say ~ my consistency on the Spirituality Forum has seen me repeatedly labelled as a liar by some people who don't share my views. I think it's important to stick with being sincere even when it is met by people playing the man rather than the ball.

Unlike some people on the internet who revel in pretending to be someone different [to varying degrees] from who they really are, I think a more enjoyable 'empowering' effect of being able to project oneself and one's ideas in debates and discussions online is the opportunity to be absolutely candid and true to oneself."

@fmf said
Oh the irony.


Indeed.

@divegeester said
I acknowledge your opinion but I completely disagree that you post here with sincerity.

In fact I would go as far as to say that while you perceive yourself to be sincere I contend that you are without doubt one of the regular posters and main contributors who allows their well meant directives to become highly compromised by an unprincipled partisanship.

My obser ...[text shortened]... pirituality forum, so you should not now feel obliged to express some level angry astonished aghast.

"unprincipled"

Because you don't like what I say, no doubt. This has always been your definition of "unprincipled" - something you don't agree with, said by someone you don't like.

Similar is your use of "unprincipled partisanship". Here you extend your definition of "unprincipled" to include things you don't agree with, said by a group of people you don't like.

A much better use of "unprincipled partisanship" is what you try to sell in the Spirituality Forum every day along with your 'partisans'.

"angry astonished aghast"

My post here is none of these things. Another example of your "unprincipled partisanship".

Pot, kettle, black.

Not to mention that you are entirely wrong about me, and always have been. You project your own "unpricipled partisanship" onto me, and always have, because I dared to speak out against your partisans in the SF. Making me a target has never shut me up. If you knew ANYthing about me, you might have started there. But you call that "unprincipled". As your partisan FMF says, "Oh, the irony."

Sorry, just being sincere.

@suzianne said
Indeed.

Which bit did you disagree with?

@suzianne said
Because you don't like what I say, no doubt. This has always been your definition of "unprincipled" - something you don't agree with, said by someone you don't like.

I think you've got the divegeester definition of "unprincipled" wrong.

I think it means 'Not sticking up for your beliefs or your standards when someone you like disagrees with you or when he does something that you invariably condemn, as if it were only intermittently a matter of principle, but getting ostentatiously hot and bothered when it's done by someone you dislike and/or someone you have spent huge amounts of time stalking with your almost invariably off-topic scorn-for-scorn's-sake internet persona.'

@suzianne said
"unprincipled"

Because you don't like what I say, no doubt. This has always been your definition of "unprincipled" - something you don't agree with, said by someone you don't like.

Similar is your use of "unprincipled partisanship". Here you extend your definition of "unprincipled" to include things you don't agree with, said by a group of people you don't lik ...[text shortened]... have started there. But you call that "unprincipled". As your partisan FMF says, "Oh, the irony."

There’s no need to sound surprised Suzianne, we have been exchanging on this topic for years.

Your posting over the years in the spirituality forum is clouded by an unprincipledness whereby you will never stand against something you believe to be wrong if it is posted by one of your forum buddies. Whereas if the same thing is posted by one of your detractors you slew in wielding your metaphorical axe.

You are well known for this, it is hardly controversial and why I feel justified in addressing your earlier post.

Suzie Q, Do you feel like you are getting a little of your own medicine thrown back your way? 😉

-VR

@very-rusty said
Suzie Q, Do you feel like you are getting a little of your own medicine thrown back your way? 😉

-VR

Do you ever feel like you're on a runaway train going the wrong direction?

You should.

@suzianne said
Do you ever feel like you're on a runaway train going the wrong direction?

You should.

Just wondering Suzie Q, I MIGHT defend you if goad and wolfy don't jump in IF YOU FELT like you were getting picked on....If you don't lets just say you are getting put in your place!!! 😉 😛

-VR

@handyandy said
At this point, would an injection of sincerity do any good?

I am going to go out on a limb here and say NO! 😉

-VR

@fmf said
I think you've got the divegeester definition of "unprincipled" wrong.

I think it means 'Not sticking up for your beliefs or your standards when someone you like disagrees with you or when he does something that you invariably condemn, as if it were only intermittently a matter of principle, but getting ostentatiously hot and bothered when it's done by someone you dislike and ...[text shortened]... nts of time stalking with your almost invariably off-topic scorn-for-scorn's-sake internet persona.'

So we disagree about your "pal".

Shocking, I know.

Oh, and yes, you're wrong, too.

You get away with your presentations in the Spirituality Forum as the master of misrepresentation.

Funny, but they always seem like just plain old lies to me.

It's this difference between my morals and yours (and not, as you always claim, my "misunderstanding" of your morals) that I highlight. We disagree. How blindingly obvious.

This has potential to backslide into childish tantrums, so I'm ending it here before you start bringing up "examples" that you think highlight your beefs. Sorry. I was actually done listening to your spin years ago. Unfortunately, others aren't. C'est la vie.

@divegeester said
There’s no need to sound surprised Suzianne, we have been exchanging on this topic for years.

Your posting over the years in the spirituality forum is clouded by an unprincipledness whereby you will never stand against something you believe to be wrong if it is posted by one of your forum buddies. Whereas if the same thing is posted by one of your detractors you slew ...[text shortened]... known for this, it is hardly controversial and why I feel justified in addressing your earlier post.

"Surprised"? No, actually, I'm not.

I get that you like to talk about yourself, and that every topic you approach lies in the shadow of your opinion of yourself.

It's not "surprising" at all.