On delicate matters such as spiritual issues it seems important that communication should be respectful and based around a genuine desire to find the motivation and meaning behind posts by other people. Questions should be from a position of curiosity. The questioner should not presume to have a certain knowledge of the meaning of the poster and they certainly should not repeatedly hound the poster to try and make them yield to their certainty. A one down position would be more effective than ridiculing from on high and presuming to point out and label perceived deficiencies in the other.
I think it would take a significant change in the style of communication most commonly displayed in this forum for the title Spirituality Forum to be deemed as anything other than misleading. Please feel free to discuss.
@petewxyz saidYou're obviously still peeved about making a fool of yourself about what you think a "true" atheist is.
On delicate matters such as spiritual issues it seems important that communication should be respectful and based around a genuine desire to find the motivation and meaning behind posts by other people. Questions should be from a position of curiosity. The questioner should not presume to have a certain knowledge of the meaning of the poster and they certainly should not rep ...[text shortened]... itle Spirituality Forum to be deemed as anything other than misleading. Please feel free to discuss.
@petewxyz saidEven Ghost of a Duke told you to lick your wounds and put it behind you. Now, here you are licking your wounds in the most narcissistic and double-downing kind of way imaginable ~ a whole thread about how bent out of shape you got on a message board, like you are simply itching for a playground squabble. I'm pretty sure this was not what Ghost of a Duke had in mind.
I rest my case.
@petewxyz saidDo you think that the intellectually dishonesty displayed by yourself in this forum several days ago is something that should go unquestioned or unchallenged due to it being perhaps a “delicate matter” for you?
I think it would take a significant change in the style of communication most commonly displayed in this forum for the title Spirituality Forum to be deemed as anything other than misleading. Please feel free to discuss.
when i type words in this lil box i'm talking to myself
nobody else will read, hear, understand, contemplate, analyze any of the things i say
if, perchance, an accident occurs and an inadvertent eye scans the thoughts i present,
and only by chaos if another decides to put themself into the boots i wear,
and make some sort of small dance of thought,
perhaps finding a tiny bit of common ground,
then the beginning of a mindmeld, an alloy of thought, happens
worry not, my precious padawan
it will soon pass
@FMF & @Divegeester
You seem to feel that repetition makes what you do here okay, it doesn't. You're certainty and lack of curiosity about the meaning of the other certainly does not sit well with words like 'intellectual honesty'. Your misuse of psychological terms like 'narcissistic' in an attempt to demean the other does you no favours. Your approach to people does not sit well in a Spirituality Forum.
@petewxyz saidHear! Hear!
On delicate matters such as spiritual issues it seems important that communication should be respectful and based around a genuine desire to find the motivation and meaning behind posts by other people. Questions should be from a position of curiosity. The questioner should not presume to have a certain knowledge of the meaning of the poster and they certainly should not rep ...[text shortened]... itle Spirituality Forum to be deemed as anything other than misleading. Please feel free to discuss.
@petewxyz saidIf I think your complaining here exhibits an exaggerated sense of self-importance and pridefulness, what word should I use in conversation rather than "narcissistic"?
@FMF
Your misuse of psychological terms like 'narcissistic' in an attempt to demean the other does you no favours. Your approach to people does not sit well in a Spirituality Forum.
- Joined
- 23 Nov 09
- Moves
- 140189
@divegeester saidYou so obviously do not know what intellectual dishonesty means, it is sad.
intellectually dishonesty
@petewxyz saidI think you were intellectually dishonest on this thread Thread 186093. It's your prerogative if you disagree or, indeed, if you have some other word to describe your behaviour.
@FMF
You're certainty and lack of curiosity about the meaning of the other certainly does not sit well with words like 'intellectual honesty'.
@fmf saidThe thread simply serves to illustrate your lack of curiosity about what I was attempting to say. Your certainty that it illustrates the idea that you keep repeating is a good illustration of the style of communication that I comment on in the OP.
I think you were intellectually dishonest on this thread Thread 186093. It's your prerogative if you disagree or, indeed, if you have some other word to describe your behaviour.
@petewxyz saidYes. I stand by my side of our conversation on that thread. My curiosity was amply demonstrated by how long I endured your bizarre doubling-down and deflection.
The thread simply serves to illustrate your lack of curiosity about what I was attempting to say. Your certainty that it illustrates the idea that you keep repeating is a good illustration of the style of communication that I comment on in the OP.
I am communicating to you that I stand by what I said to you on that thread. I am communicating to you that I think you are still doubling down in a prideful and self-obsessed way. [Exhibit A, that thread; Exhibit B, this thread].
You should have taken Ghost of a Duke's advice.
@petewxyz saidIf you don't like my style of communication, that's a matter for you. I would point out though that you yourself also "keep repeating" yourself. So, it's not clear to me whether you are in favour of people who "keep repeating" themselves or against them.
Your certainty that it illustrates the idea that you keep repeating is a good illustration of the style of communication that I comment on in the OP.