‘Human sacrifice’ staged at CERN's Shiva Statue

[Grizzly]

Well. There it is... Case solved!

[guruilla]

Maybe I should have been clearer in explaining my intent when I posted my thoughts on the matter. I read Crowley's numbered prose poetically. It works for me, I get something useful out of it that way. I was sharing my experience with others.

Yes. The above is a world away from what you actually wrote:

he's speaking purely symbolic metaphor here, and always. If you don't get it, you misunderstand him, and he's not going to explain it to you.

One of the hardest things about forum discussions in general and this one in particular is how often people miss what is being said (the nuance) on the one hand, and how they fall back on selective memory about what they have said, on the other. It amounts to a lack of personal responsibility in which statements are made that are highly contentious (such as the above), and then, when they are contended, honestly if at times impatiently (guilty), the response is to act the "wronged" party and accuse the other of exaggerated responses, getting snarky, ad hominen attacks, or whatever other charges that are mostly irrelevant since the newly revised version of what's been said is not, in fact, accurate. The problem with this is that, the more a person tries to respond to the falsified version of the argument, the further he ends up from the argument he was trying to make.

Re: coffindodger and the error of trying to win points, agreed; but will you at least allow that there's a world a difference between the exasperation and impatience which Mac or myself is expressing, even as we continue to try to make cogent arguments and get stonewalled, misunderstood, mocked, or personally criticized, time and time again, and the sort of frenzied trolling and wacawaca i'm so smart & you're so dumb (cough* brekin, now on "ignore" so don't waste your insults on me *cough cough*) that contributes nothing but noise & seems intended only to try and goad the sincere participants into blowing their stack?

This has been a reality check. Only certain participants need respond.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Who gave you a free pass to troll this thread? What has happened to moderation here? (I will probably be banned again for asking.)

1. What separates your personal abuse from the responses your personal abuse gets you?

2. At what point does people calling you on your relentlessly vitriolic style become "trolling this thread" ?

Certainly, "YOUR PROBLEM IS YOU ALWAYS MAKE ARGUMENTS ABOUT YOU" is a recursive approach doomed to further recursion. Your opponents do themselves no favors. A lot of people here at RI find you an abrasive asshole; you do essentially nothing to prove them wrong or even disagree.

As for what has happened to the moderation here, I've been busy. I currently have two full-time jobs, and like I always say, every single one of you infant motherfuckers are older than I am.

If you want it to stop? Stop.

Any child could tell you that.

[guruilla]

Injustice is served.

[MacCruiskeen]

Injustice is served.

Thanks, guruilla. And yes.

This has been a reality check.

A post-reality check, rather. But instructive, yes, very.

(This is The New American Century, all right. Delivered as promised.)

Goodnight.

[dada]

"he (Crowley) is speaking purely symbolic metaphor here, and always. If you don't get it, you misunderstand him, and he's not going to explain it to you."

I stand by that. Didn't selectively forget about it. I added the clarification in my recent post, that this is how I see it, what works for me.

If I'd said, "in my opinion, he's speaking purely symbolic metaphor here, and always. To me, as I read him, he's implying that'if you don't get it, you misunderstand him, and he's not going to explain it to you." That would have been clearer. Applied general semantics takes the edge off.

In the same way, (in my opinion, of course ) the first paragraph of your most recent response would look something like this:

"In my opinion, one of the hardest things about forum discussions in general and this one in particular is how often people miss what is being said (the nuance) on the one hand, and how they fall back on selective memory about what they have said, on the other. The way I see it, it seems that it amounts to a lack of personal responsibility in which statements are made that are highly contentious (such as the above), and then, when they are contended, honestly if at times impatiently (guilty), the response is to act the "wronged" party and accuse the other of exaggerated responses, getting snarky, ad hominen attacks, or whatever other charges that are mostly irrelevant since the newly revised version of what's been said is not, in fact, accurate. To me, the problem with this is that, the more a person tries to respond to the falsified version of the argument, the further he ends up from the argument he was trying to make."

[brekin]

Injustice is served.

Thanks, guruilla. And yes.

This has been a reality check.

A post-reality check, rather. But instructive, yes, very.
(This is The New American Century, all right. Delivered as promised.)
Goodnight.

Oh my god, Yes, The horror, the horror!

Reality check: Words were written that one didn't agree with.

The candle of civilization is not snuffed out when someone doesn't agree with your point of view on a discussion forum.

[Novem5er]

post deleted since Wombaticus already jumped in. I don't need to add more to the fire.

[Novem5er]

One of the hardest things about forum discussions in general and this one in particular is how often people miss what is being said (the nuance) on the one hand, and how they fall back on selective memory about what they have said, on the other. It amounts to a lack of personal responsibility in which statements are made that are highly contentious (such as the above), and then, when they are contended, honestly if at times impatiently (guilty), the response is to act the "wronged" party and accuse the other of exaggerated responses, getting snarky, ad hominen attacks, or whatever other charges that are mostly irrelevant since the newly revised version of what's been said is not, in fact, accurate. The problem with this is that, the more a person tries to respond to the falsified version of the argument, the further he ends up from the argument he was trying to make.

Re: coffindodger and the error of trying to win points, agreed; but will you at least allow that there's a world a difference between the exasperation and impatience which Mac or myself is expressing, even as we continue to try to make cogent arguments and get stonewalled, misunderstood, mocked, or personally criticized, time and time again, and the sort of frenzied trolling and wacawaca i'm so smart & you're so dumb (cough* brekin, now on "ignore" so don't waste your insults on me *cough cough*) that contributes nothing but noise & seems intended only to try and goad the sincere participants into blowing their stack?

This has been a reality check. Only certain participants need respond.

I love how guruilla takes the role of exasperated martyr; the victim of insults and misunderstanding. Let's review the tape, shall we?

What's so funny about it? It's funny that with maybe $100 (in cloaks) and an hour of planning, a group of friends can get internet-famous (anonymously) and spend a few weeks laughing at the analysis. It's called trolling.

This is just plain wrong. You obviously haven't had much experience with theater or organization in general. The fact that there is some discussion here at all (and if I may say, tho not to be contentious, it's certainly not the sharpest pencils in the pack who are dismissing the video as a prank) indicates that the job was well done. Had it been done in the manner you suggest, I doubt we'd have even heard about the video at all, much less be discussing it.

Why don't you spend the afternoon and make a similar video for us, to prove your point? I'll even give you two hours, and spot you the $100. But you have to repay it if it doesn't cut mustard.

Oh, he's such a victim! And his response is summed up as, "well, I was impatient, but wouldn't you be too if you had put up with all this nonsense you've forced me to read?"

I fully suspect I'm on his ignore list after I called him out earlier on his bullshit (much like brekin). I only post, again, because I can't stand people building their own narrative and letting it go unchallenged. I've engaged with guruilla in a few other threads and every time he pulls this passive aggressive behavior and then acts the impatient "guru" when called on it. I understand that it takes a lot of energy to flap back and forth everywhere in bat-form, but it's no reason to be such an insufferable jerk to everyone who is genuinely here to explore interesting topics and socialize.

[OP ED]

I've always found traveling in bat-form to be fairly relaxing.

[Harvey]

I've always found traveling in bat-form to be fairly relaxing.

Speaking of which (to let off some steam):

[divideandconquer]

I love Mac and guruilla!!! Without them--and a few others-- this place would offer little more than mainstream-politically correct thought and opinion.

[Grizzly]

love Mac and guruilla!!! Without them--and a few others-- this place would offer little more than mainstream-politically correct thought and opinion

Agreed.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I love Mac and guruilla!!! Without them--and a few others-- this place would offer little more than mainstream-politically correct thought and opinion.

I feel the same. I also feel none of our feelings matter, only the questions and data points do.

If you're right, history -- or at least Google -- will record that.

For ETI archaeologists who don't speak English. Yet.

[guruilla]

I am sort of speechless, having been ready to climb on my horse & tip my hat; either that or launch a Molotov cocktail.

Hearrtfelt gratitude for having the balls to love when it was most needed, D&C/Grr/W-R.