Please... some input concerning Hex 55....

[willowfox]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by pakua
...Maybe we don't even need the question, just make the cast??? "

Only a master can do without questions, ordinary folks need a prop.

 

[bruce_g]

they all died with an amused smile in their faces...

L

If I can do this, my friend, my mission will be fulfilled.

 

[pakua]

"Well then I better ask a question my brain knows the answer to, or I’m not going to get an answer that makes any sense."

Why does the brain need to know the answer in order for you to get a sensible answer? Perhaps it (divination) simply allows you to reach some conclusions that normal reasoning or unaided intuition does not. Perhaps with this bit of help coming from left field, your mind can reach some deep insights, depending on your own natural or learned abilities. Perhaps divination works in a different way than we understand it.

"My brain doesn’t know the future. My brain doesn’t know the inner states of others."

I wouldn't agree. I think we know a lot about both (combining mind and brain - how can we separate them completely? nothing operates in a vacuum)


"Because I believe in God, and that God talks, and God is not my brain"

Some people do not believe in God, or at least not your God, and still have success with divining, which means belief in God is not a pre-requisite.

I think unless one knows how everything works, any belief one has may or may not be correct. There may be strong indicators, but in the end, one really doesn't know. Some beliefs may be right and others wrong, but that's just a matter of chance.

On the other hand, all of us might be right, in different ways.

 

[autumn]

This all seems really simple to me. I don't know why this keeps getting twisted.

Some people do not believe in God, or at least not your God, and still have success with divining, which means belief in God is not a pre-requisite.

That was never a part of the argument. I never said that you did. You most certainly do not have to believe any anything to ask, "will I get that job", and receive.. 14.2.6 (55) let's say, and interpret the answer as, "Great luck! You have been deemed capable of this responsibility. You've been chosen."

I wouldn't agree. I think we know a lot about both (combining mind and brain - how can we separate them completely? nothing operates in a vacuum)

Your response is not material to the comment that I made, but- again, the separation of mind/brain is not the argument. What I said was "YOU" whatever you want to call cannot know certain things. And yet, we ask questions about those things that are most precisely the most elusive. YOU (as we understand and experience our world communally- as a limited, finite place) cannot know what will happen in a meeting tomorrow with 5 different people. And if you can guess well enough, then why ask the I-ching at all? You can meditate to access your unconscious if that's all you want to do.

Why does the brain need to know the answer in order for you to get a sensible answer?

The word brain must be confusing you. If the answer is coming from inside YOU then it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE to walk into a room, see a person sitting on a couch, and say, "I-ching, will I marry that person?" Does it? No. It doesn't . It does not make sense to do that becasue regardless of where you think the answer is coming from within YOU it is a GUESS.

 

[bruce_g]

Autumn, you're coming in loud and clear here. No, I don't think it's complicated either.

 

[Trojina]

I often throw the same hex consecutively, say within 10 minutes I may receive 55 twice with same moving line. I mean how can that be random ? Then I feel like I'm talking to someone. So I don't think it needs alot of thinking about you just go by your experience Pakua. We all think differently about who or what we are consulting, no 'right' answer.

 

[luz]

I think the bottom line is: does it make any difference???

For all intents and purposes, does it matter where the answer is coming from? It either works for you or it doesn't. Why should we try to figure out how it works?

It might sound very 10 BC but the truth is that nobody alive is any more certain than those good old folks from 10 BC were about how the I Ching works. Some think they do know, but then again some others think they know the precise number of people that will pass through the gates of heaven, etc. etc. etc.

 

[martin]

Over-knowing, that’s an interesting idea, which sounds a bit like over-eating or over-indulging in general.

Ah, you use the word 'over-knowing' in a different sense then. I meant overlooking, i.e. not knowing. We tend to overlook the subtler parts of ourselves and our subtler knowing.

But I think your overknowing, too much knowing or rather too much trust in what we seem to know (and making it solid and certain) is partly responsible for this overlooking.

But I have become increasingly aware that an alert child already intrinsically knows all this stuff.

But then it is 'educated', brainwashed that is ...

 

[martin]

Umm, or mindwashed, whatever.

 

[bruce_g]

I think the bottom line is: does it make any difference???

For all intents and purposes, does it matter where the answer is coming from? It either works for you or it doesn't. Why should we try to figure out how it works?

It might sound very 10 BC but the truth is that nobody alive is any more certain than those good old folks from 10 BC were about how the I Ching works. Some think they do know, but then again some others think they know the precise number of people that will pass through the gates of heaven, etc. etc. etc.

I don't think it matters. It's just mind candy.

 

[martin]

.. but the truth is that nobody alive is any more certain than those good old folks from 10 BC were about how the I Ching works

Right! And they probably understood it better than we do.
We have a more advanced technology than they had but our understanding of things like this, and of life in general - it seems that we are the ones who are 'backward' sometimes.

 

[pakua]

Autumn,

What you might call "simple becoming twisted" is just one or both of us mis-communicating.... it happens all the time when we think we're not understood. We can stop any time you wish; it's just a discussion (Just ignore anyone who speaks out with dubious intentions)

"Some people do not believe in God, or at least not your God, and still have success with divining, which means belief in God is not a pre-requisite.

That was never a part of the argument. I never said that you did. "

But you said "Because I believe in God, and that God talks, and God is not my brain. That’s the argument I have with Chris" and I take that to mean, the materialist view does not explain enough for you, and so therefore that must mean some form of divinity must be present, in order for oracles to work. Is that an incorrect conclusion?

But assuming that conclusion, I am saying, a belief in God is not necessary, since some people divine without a belief in God.

I think the gist of your statements is that one cannot know certain things, and the gist of what I'm saying is I think one knows much more than one thinks, and, one can make very good guesses about the rest, especially someone with good insight and/or intuition, someone who has developed themself, and therefore a belief in what you've expressed in the previous post is not necessarily required as an explanation of how divining works.

""My brain doesn’t know the future. My brain doesn’t know the inner states of others."

I wouldn't agree. I think we know a lot about both (combining mind and brain "

I was saying two things here:

1. I do think we can know some of the future, and we can know some of the inner states of others.
2. You keep saying brain as if it's separate from mind. There must be a feedback loop, so it doesn't make sense to me to focus only on brain. Even if Chris is right, the brain must evolve and develope based on feedback from mind.

"it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE to walk into a room, see a person sitting on a couch, and say, "I-ching, will I marry that person?" Does it? No. It doesn't . "

Although there are people who do precisely that, without using Yi. They just "know" they'll marry that person, on first sight. Of course, whether they "know" it, or just make a decision right then and there and then follow through is another question.

I think what I'm saying, bottom line, is your examples are not enough evidence (for me) that there must be something other than a materialist something going on, and therefore doesn't justify having a belief strong enough to say "this is it" (again, for me).

I think there's so much going on, even if we only focus on one thing - the brain - which we don't understand, let alone the rest of the world, that I simply couldn't say, this is how it is, and reject any other possibilities.

And that's mainly because I think any belief system must be flawed.

 

[luz]

and so therefore that must mean some form of divinity must be present, in order for oracles to work. Is that an incorrect conclusion?

But assuming that conclusion, I am saying, a belief in God is not necessary, since some people divine without a belief in God.

Pakua, you are confusing two things in the quote above.
Saying that a God must exist for the oracle to work (if that is what anybody is saying) does NOT mean that you need to believe in him, for it to work.

God's existence is completely independant of your belief in him, or anybody's beliefs. You might be an atheist but if there is a god and there is a heaven and you are good enough (and he is not resentful of the fact that you didn't believe in him), you will go to heaven, whether you want to or not.

 

[autumn]

I take that to mean, the materialist view does not explain enough for you, and so therefore that must mean some form of divinity must be present, in order for oracles to work. Is that an incorrect conclusion?

That is an incorrect conclusion. I never said anything must be present at all in a reading. Now, if you mean, "something else must exist"- just generally, do I believe in something other than the physical brain as the basis for all existence, then yes, you are correct, I am not a materialist- or... maybe a more correct way of putting it is I that I believe that there is something more than what we perceive, and I do believe in personal divinity, but none of those individual beliefs are a part of my reasoning for how a reading must work.

A reading could work because you fantasize an answer. A reading could work because you are communing with a deeper part of the self. A reading could work because you are communing with a lower spirt. A reading could work because you are communing with your highest guidance. Sometimes, oracles become mirrors, and the answers clearly begin communicating your deepest fears.

I don't think there is anything inherent in an oracle at all. I think you bring all of the above to the reading.

You keep saying brain as if it's separate from mind.

No, what I said was that isn't the level of the argument. Mind or brain or subconscious or creativity-for the purpose of this particular argument it is irrelevant. I personally don't think the "mind" is necessarily separate from the "brain" at all. I think they are perhaps different levels of existence. But again- what I think about it doesn't make any difference, because for the purpose of the argument I am contrasting the ability of the individual to know something with the realities of what can be known about the world.

It seems like I keep losing that critical piece of the argument in the discussion. What you are proposing, if you propose that you know the answer to the question and that is why divination works, is that (and this is what Chris argues, too)

1. There are no objective patterns in a reading. Regardless of the most appropriate translation, the answer will be fantasized by the querent.

THEREFORE, it is useless to ask others how to interpret a changing line. It doesn't matter what others think- since they don't know the answer- only YOU know the answer about the future meeting with 5 people. Now, Chris irritates me constantly by disagreeing with this very obvious tenet by using circular logic and claiming because all brains are genetically the same then anyone else can create the "fit" between the general symbol and the local context for you. But if that is true, then you should notice a sharp difference between the interpretive ability of others for your reading and your own interpretation. Others should never be able to "see" an answer or "predict" an answer on the basis of text alone that is a better fit than your own interpretation. But, in fact, it happens all of the time that others understand the inherent text of the Yi Jing better than the querent, and thus do a better job of deciphering an answer. How can that be, if the brain is fantasizing an answer? How can it be that the text itself was critical to the reading? That the answer was critical to the reading? If you are projecting an answer, then the text is IRRELEVANT, the only thing that matters is your ideas about what might happen.

I wouldn't agree. I think we know a lot about both (combining mind and brain "

We know what job we should take, on the basis of understanding the future of 1,000 different variables? We can perceive completely hidden variables in situations we have never visited and construct the formulas to discern the answers? AND then we can effectively manipulate the images in a "randomly" constructed hexagram to perfectly match that prior knowledge? Ok.

Your idea that every "belief system" is flawed is disingenious. You could not function one whole day if you didn't "believe" in things that cannot be materially pursued or in states of being remaining constant. You put one foot in front of the other everyday because you believe the earth is solid. You have never seen your brain, (probably) and noone knows exactly how you experience a sense of self on the basis of that organ alone, but you believe that you exist.

But this idea,

I think what I'm saying, bottom line, is your examples are not enough evidence (for me) that there must be something other than a materialist something going on, and therefore doesn't justify having a belief strong enough to say "this is it" (again, for me).

Why in the world would I care what you believe? You sound like you are relating to this discussion out of prior defensiveness regarding belief systems. I don't care what you choose to believe.

 

[lightofreason]

I wasn't talking to you, Chris,

when you refer to me or my perspectives in a corrupted manner I have every right to correct you - and this IS a public list and ANYONE can respond to a post. IF you want personal one-on-one then I suggest private email.

[quoter=autumn]
but as usual, your arguments are wholly derailed and your immersion in semantics regarding the dynamics of the brain irrelevant to the point I was attempting to make.[/QUOTE]

tsk tsk, such attitude in response to a sincerly written post aimed at clearing up some obvious misconceptions of yours - but apparently your ego got in the way in that you dont like being corrected! lol! .. the point you failed to make failed since you dont understand, nore appear to have made any attempt to understand, how you as a species member processes information - you prefer to remain ignorant and so allow room for your fantasies and in so doing offer no rebuttle, with references, to what is offered, all you can do is reply using rhetoric, a 'snarl' in words! LOL!

Oh well - maybe ONE day you might use the brain you have... maybe one day you will update your thinking from 10th century BC to 21st century AD... and maybe pigs will fly... (genetic engineering at work!)

Light of darkness.

 

[lightofreason]

..
Because I believe in God, and that God talks, and God is not my brain.

There is an entry in DSM-IV for this sort of perspective.

If you and others spent more time focused on what you can contribute to your species (and so the spirit of the species) the world would be a better place. This exercise in mental masturbation does little other then elicits fights on 'my god being better than your god' - as we see with the 'religious right' of GWBush or the extremes of Islam of Judaism.

There is NO NEED for the 'god' hypothesis - all that need shows is a demand for instant gratification and the surrendering of social responsibility. Chunk down. Serve your local community. Show the human spirit for what it is - human. You dont need an excuse for caring, it is natural 'trait' that is often opposed in capitalist nations where competition rules (and a competition often supported with 'god is on OUR side'! yeah, right).

As a conscious human being you have choices and the cooperative nature of our being is hard coded, as is the competitive nature. You have choice in exploiting both without having support of some 'god' etc. If you want to aid the poor etc then aid them, no need for justification of you act in claiming it is the 'Christian' thing to do! - Islam and Judaism also support charities etc so there is no difference there - and why? because the underlying theme of cooperation and connectivity is at the species level and needs no grandizement - greed and charity are part of the full spectrum of our being as humans and there is no need for any institution of religion etc to exploit that (and religions do exploit - be it children or donations where deductions for 'costs' whittle down contributions to a few cents in the dollar!)

If you really need a 'god' figure - fine, just keep it in your head for your private moments - that can solve a lot of problems. There is NO evidence for any 'god' etc but there IS evidence for fantasising such realms based on ignorance of reality - read up more on neurosciences, psychology, anthropology, philosophy (especially neurosciences) and move into the 21st century AD and bring your children with you.

... here is prose written by a Rabbi trying to describe 'angels' - unaware of the depth of our instincts in processing the smallest of changes in a context and so showing context pushing our neurology, no angel needed:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/angels.html

You obviously have a brain Autumn but IMHO it is being abused. All that I cover in IC+ comes with references from IDM perspective that supports the findings of the IC as a good metaphor, and predictor, of context. There is no need for any 'magical' elements at this time or more so the 'magical' elements are not consistant and so lack efficency in using the IC when compared to questions etc etc.

Intense light of darkness.

 

[lightofreason]

I often throw the same hex consecutively, say within 10 minutes I may receive 55 twice with same moving line. I mean how can that be random ?

The odds in tossing a coin and getting heads or tails is even money - or a 'half'. This is based on an infinite time span and the odds dont 'sum'. I can toss a fair coin a hundred times and get heads each time, but over an infinite time span the chances remain 50/50.

This is one of the errors in lotto players, they assume that if ball 27 got up three times in a row then some will (a) not include it in their lists since it has happened three times in a row or (b) include it in their lists BECAUSE it is a 'hot' number!

These beliefs show lack of understanding about lotto systems in that each draw is unique, there is no magical score board marking off what numbers got up in the past and so their chances of getting up next week. People DO play this sort of game but it is delusion - small minds trying to understand big dynamics.

AS such they FIGHT probability when the idea is to GO with it (spread numbers over the whole card, favour 3-3 odd/even (or extend to 4-2 etc). If you divide a lotto matrix into four quadrants and work off 8 numbers (6 + 2 supps) then the 'spread' will USUALLY be 2 numbers from each quadrant. Playing these sorts of patterns allows for regular small prizes that supplement the cost whilst you try and score a big one (biggest I have done is 5 + a sup) - wheeling systems can also benefit by coming up with 18 well spread, even-odd, numbers and using a wheel to cover more bets etc. All probabilities and understanding that give consistant results - sure I can score big on the first go, but most dont and most dont cover the field as probabilities 'demand'.

Then I feel like I'm talking to someone.

sure - such tools as the IC reflect contributions of many brains and so will reflect a 'brain' - and a live one if you dont understand probabilities or brain dynamics. Mathematics comes across as a idiot savent - you can detect 'intelligence' but only for Mathematics and emotion - but BOTH of these are rooted in the SAME form and so share space - and the IC shares the same space - such that interactions with them elicit a feel for the intelligence put into these tools.

 

[pakua]

Autumn,

To start with your ending first, I think ultimately everything comes down to a belief system. That's why I keep coming back to that. Of course nobody cares what others believe, but I like to keep questioning beliefs in order to try to weed out flawed thinking and illusions, in order to try to understand what's real. After all, that's the main reason why I divine.

Yes it's true in a practical sense, we need to believe certain things in order to survive in this physical world, but there's not much we can do about those beliefs. However, the rest of our beliefs are open to choice. (btw, have you read Illusions, by Richard Bach?)

Right from your first post I thought you took the position that the materialist position was insufficient.... "remain open to the possibility of unknown, personal signficiance in divination." and that some outside agency (God?) is involved with divination.... "consider that something both meaningful and purposeful is creating the answer outside of one's own consciousness.".... "we are tapping an interconnected source of real knowledge- "... "So, why would I waste my time asking my self (brain) questions that my self (brain) cannot know the answer to?

Because I believe in God, and that God talks, and God is not my brain. That’s the argument I have with Chris."


I was questioning that belief, and for every example you (and Martin) gave in support of that belief, I gave a counter-suggestion, saying, in effect, your example is not very strong support. (I actually pretty much have always supported those same ideas, but the last few years I question them more and more, because the other side also makes pretty convincing arguments and there's new information coming out all the time. Now I'm trying to understand if there's a way both sides can be true.).


I'm confused when you now say a reading (or oracles in general?) doesn't require divinity, when based on my above quotes it seems you previously said it does, or at least, divinity was involved.

"It seems like I keep losing that critical piece of the argument in the discussion. What you are proposing, if you propose that you know the answer to the question and that is why divination works"

I don't have any answers I'm just questioning and posing alternate views.

I think the critical piece you mean, is that you think the mind/brain can't know some things. Is that correct? But I did respond numerous times to that statement/belief, eg the person who "knows" they will marry someone and then they do so (without using Yi).

"Regardless of the most appropriate translation, the answer will be fantasized by the querent"

I don't like the using the word fantasized. Why must it be fantasy? If it's true for the person then it's not fantasy, regardless of how it developed.

"because all brains are genetically the same then anyone else can create the "fit" between the general symbol and the local context for you"

It seems to me that if all brains are the same, then thought processes will also be the same or similar, so if reader 1 comes up with a particular result, then reader 2 probably will also. Of course, I'm aware you can get different answers from each reader, but I'm thinking the answers will fit a common theme. Also of course it depends on the skill level etc. China invented a wheel, but so did Europe and so did America. Same brain process. You need a common starting point (the text) and then if the process is the same, you should get a common end point ie no square wheels

It seems to me that the mind/brain is such an amazing thing that people don't give it enough credit for what it can do. After all,

"We know what job we should take, on the basis of understanding the future of 1,000 different variables? We can perceive completely hidden variables in situations we have never visited and construct the formulas to discern the answers"

people have been getting jobs for many years now, without using Yi, and dealing with each other in complex situations. Somehow we draw the right conclusions from all those variables.

 

[autumn]

Pakua,
It's not within my purpose to convince people whose spiritual eyes are closed that there is something more than the physical world. You have deliberately closed your eyes, and as evidence of that, your thinking and reasoning seems to be blocked, as in several cases above you have come to a wrong conclusion about the point I was attempting to make or read conclusions into my words that were not there.

Now, I know this will continue, but I cannot spend my energy here anymore. Chris has already accused me of being mentally ill and insinuated I am an insufficient mother because I disagree with him, so I choose to withdraw from this discussion.

Fore example, here,

I'm confused when you now say a reading (or oracles in general?) doesn't require divinity, when based on my above quotes it seems you previously said it does, or at least, divinity was involved.

you ignore what I said on this matter and read your own conclusion into the words.

Here,

I was questioning that belief, and for every example you (and Martin) gave in support of that belief,

you imagine that I have given you several examples to support a belief in God, when in fact I did nothing except encourage you to reason out of your own experience and ask yourself whether your answers truly could have originated within you (as you understand yourself). I've given you no examples to support my belief.

Here,

I think the critical piece you mean, is that you think the mind/brain can't know some things. Is that correct? But I did respond numerous times to that statement/belief, eg the person who "knows" they will marry someone and then they do so (without using Yi).

I am absolutely lost as to what point you are attempting to make. This seems to support my position that experiences of fore-knowledge are real. If you truly are a materialist, then you will reason correctly that the brain cannot predict the future about invisible matters (the inner states of others and the fortuitousness of a potential partnership on first sight).

Here,

I don't like the using the word fantasized. Why must it be fantasy? If it's true for the person then it's not fantasy, regardless of how it developed.

You once again ignore the level of the argument, and split hairs regarding the definition of mental phenomenon, which is wholly irrelevant.

Here,

people have been getting jobs for many years now, without using Yi, and dealing with each other in complex situations. Somehow we draw the right conclusions from all those variables.

the point has been drowned. I don't know where to begin to retrieve it. The point was that different paths have different consequences, and we therefore try to choose the path that is best for us overall according to our objectives in life. The better job can be chosen without the Yi, of course. What does that prove about the potential usefulness of the advice, or about the accuracy of its advice, if a person were to consult the Yi before choosing a job?

 

[martin]

Now, I know this will continue, but I cannot spend my energy here anymore. Chris has already accused me of being mentally ill and insinuated I am an insufficient mother because I disagree with him, so I choose to withdraw from this discussion.

Ignore him!
Why Hilary chooses to ban posters like Willowfox (who apparently has a problem with a few others but is otherwise well behaved) but does nothing about mr Lofting and his continuous insults and his endless repetitive efforts to force his opinions through our throat is a mystery to me.

 

[Sparhawk]

Well, I can't remember an instance where Chris has threaten anybody with death...

Not that he's a saint, mind you, and he would bore you into a brain-dead zombie, but being on the receiving end of flying poo would make you dirty and smelly (and would make you throw some of it back) but not much else. Flying bullets on the other hand...

L

 

[luz]

Luis, we agreed that no poo throwing was allowed!!!!!

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to shoot you ...
with a tranqulizer dart, of course...

 

[martin]

Luis!

Since when is "Do I have to fly to Mexico and personally shoot the guy or what?" (that is what Willowfox wrote) a death threat?

It's just a question, it doesn't say "I will kill that guy!" and WF was very probably kidding anyway.
Jesed also knows that, of course.

What's the matter with you anyway, you don't suddenly have a crush on mr Lofting or his poo, or do you?

 

[pakua]

Autumn,

I suppose all I can respond is "huh?"

If you're not interested in continuing, that's ok. We seem not to be connecting the dots very well.

Keep in mind though that I said on more than one occasion that I did think there was more than the physical world, and that I did think it likely there was some kind of divinity, but I was simply questioning that belief, so I don't know why you would say:

"It's not within my purpose to convince people whose spiritual eyes are closed that there is something more than the physical world. You have deliberately closed your eyes,"

and

"If you truly are a materialist,"

I'm not, and said so numerous times. All I'm saying is, I also like to look at that side of the picture to see what can be gleaned.

If you're withdrawing from a discussion with me because of what someone else said to you, I'm not sure that's fair, but it's your decision. (I did say at one point, ignore anything spoken with questionable intentions)

Anyway I hope you didn't get too stressed out about it?

 

[jesed]

It's just a question, it doesn't say "I will kill that guy!" and WF was very probably kidding anyway.
Jesed also knows that, of course.

Wrong Martin, I don't know if that is a kidding or an actual threat; but when after that statement, WF try to sabotage my personal web, well that is beyond kiddings and words; don't you think?

 

[Trojina]

Oh come on Martin didn't you see all the torrents of abuse around here a few days back. Wfox PMd me to apologise and we kind of sorted it out, clearly she was very upset. But with Jesed she was carrying it on and in my view its simply not acceptable whichever way you look at it. Its a form of violence and threats especially written ones are taken seriously from a legal point of view.

I feel quite angry you feel the need to minimize this and go on about Chris. You weren't on the receiving end of the threats so who are you to trivialise them ?

I haven't seen Chris make actual threats though I can see why he annoys because he seems on some kind of missionary quest to save us from delusional thinking. If you want to talk about your issues with Chris (again) feel free but don't presume to say what happened here didn't affect some of us and indeed Wfox herself, nor suggest Hilarys action was inappropriate. I cannot see that she could reasonably do anything else.

I might add Chris was banned for a week a while back, so the two have been treated the same.

You engage with Chris more than anyone else here. Why not just stop talking to him, cos by your constant arguing with him you just encourage him more.

 

[martin]

Hi Jesed,

I didn't know that WF tried to sabotage your site, of course. I only see her statements on this site.
But an effort to 'kill' your site is still very far from trying to kill you in person, isnt'it?

 

[autumn]

Martin, I appreciate what you're saying .... but I also know that I am not crazy nor am I an inadequate mother, but that isn't the point. Sometimes people cross the line persistently, and noone should have to put up it.

Jesed did challenge her at first, but still- the responses to him were way out of line. She also threatened to cast a spell on him. I would be concerned with that level of hatred and animosity being directed toward me, too. And here, in this last post, Jesed did not attack her. He addressed a reading she gave indirectly, and that was well within his right. I do not have animosity for Willowfox but I do believe (as a mother) limits are sometimes necessary. I wish her healing peace.

 

[Sparhawk]

Since when is "Do I have to fly to Mexico and personally shoot the guy or what?" (that is what Willowfox wrote) a death threat?

It's just a question, it doesn't say "I will kill that guy!" and WF was very probably kidding anyway.
Jesed also knows that, of course.

What's the matter with you anyway, you don't suddenly have a crush on mr Lofting or his poo, or do you?

Well, let me put it this way: While Europe is not a bed of roses regarding violence, here in the U.S. we live in what I call a "state of educated paranoia" regarding it. We have complete schools lock-downs, with police and bomb squads searching every inch of the premises just by finding words like "today I will kill Kenny" in a bathroom wall. We are talking about 6 to 17 year olds... Kids found guilty of writing such threats are suspended and many times prosecuted in juvenile court. That's for kids. Adults, by age default, should be taken more seriously. Does that makes some sense in this context? Hey, perceived reality is what it is, right or wrong...

Perhaps what WF needs is just that, a Mexican vacation in Cancun. Just don't pack heat and stay a 1000 feet away from Jesed...

As for Chris, may death find me confessed the day I become a fan of 21 century thinking! No, I like my 10 century BC look of life, thank you. On the other hand, I don't discard off-hand everything Chris post. Furthermore, and most important, I would never paint myself into the corner of aggravation with him (or anybody, for that matter). I pick an choose what I find interesting and then I discard the rest. In that regard, I'm a scavenger of information. Most can't find a single thing of value there; many times, I certainly do.

BTW, Chris is not my type. I imagine him like a big, beer drinking bubba, with his brain wired to a keyboard... I rather take a female bonobo, thank you...

L

 

[martin]

I feel quite angry you feel the need to minimize this and go on about Chris. You weren't on the receiving end of the threats so who are you to trivialise them ?

It was not my intent to trivialise what happened. And I can very well understand how you felt about it.
But I don't trivialise mr Lofting's behaviour either. And IMO that is what happens way too much here.
I just wanted to point that out.

You engage with Chris more than anyone else here.

Not anymore. I finally (much too late, in retrospect) came to the conclusion that it is useless to try to communicate with him. I keep him on ignore now, because if I read his posts I might be tempted to respond again ...