Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

eye2i2hear · 10-16-2011, 08:36 AM

Alice (in Ozland): We're not ~~in Kansas~~ home anymore, Toto...
Toto: [I just want out of this stinkin' basket and off this bicycle...]

zonsb · (This post was last modified: 10-16-2011 09:30 AM by zonsb.)

(10-16-2011 08:36 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:

Alice (in Ozland): We're not ~~in Kansas~~ home anymore, Toto...
Toto: [I just want out of this stinkin' basket and off this bicycle...]

Survivor can be a real "bitch". Some people luv stirring up trouble, getting others to argue as they sit back and pretend to be all innocent.

[Image: witch_5.gif]

Back on topic. The goal post is still there for anyone to make lots of money and gain power and glory selling solutions to government bureaucrats. Actions speak volumes; words drift away like a fart in the wind.

RealSkinny · 10-16-2011, 02:32 PM

(10-16-2011 09:16 AM)zonsb Wrote: Back on topic. The goal post is still there for anyone to make lots of money and gain power and glory selling solutions to government bureaucrats. Actions speak volumes; words drift away like a fart in the wind.

Been there, done that.

Speaking of moving the goal posts, why do you only have the first 3 definitions of honest in your sig?

Oh wait... I know! Because definition 4 says:

4. sincere; frank

You move the goal posts and you're a hypocrite. Nicely done.

zonsb · (This post was last modified: 10-16-2011 03:26 PM by zonsb.)

(10-16-2011 02:32 PM)RealSkinny Wrote:
(10-16-2011 09:16 AM)zonsb Wrote: Back on topic. The goal post is still there for anyone to make lots of money and gain power and glory selling solutions to government bureaucrats. Actions speak volumes; words drift away like a fart in the wind.

Been there, done that.

Yeah right -- NOT! It worked out so well for you that it took you all this time and how many posts before you even make mention of it. Obviously, if you had, "Been three done that." long ago you'd have been crowing/boasting about the great success you had. Or, nobody in justice -- prosecutors and judges -- thought your opinions worthy. Was that it? Come on RealSkinny, elaborate on having "been there done that."

RealSkinny · 10-16-2011, 05:02 PM

(10-16-2011 03:13 PM)zonsb Wrote: elaborate on having "been there done that."

I gave you responses and you have yet to defend your goal posts in any fashion. So I have been there, and done that. You already stated you wanted to back out, and I have no intention of forcing you to defend your own words.

However, I will ask one more time about your omission of words. Seriously, why don't you include poor #4 in your definition of honest? Let's be frank here. It would be great to get a sincere answer.

zonsb · (This post was last modified: 10-16-2011 07:32 PM by zonsb.)

(10-16-2011 05:02 PM)RealSkinny Wrote:
(10-16-2011 03:13 PM)zonsb Wrote: Yeah right -- NOT! It worked out so well for you that it took you all this time and how many posts before you even make mention of it. Obviously, if you had, "Been three done that." long ago you'd have been crowing/boasting about the great success you had. Or, nobody in justice -- prosecutors and judges -- thought your opinions worthy. Was that it? Come on RealSkinny, elaborate on having "been there done that."

I gave you responses and you have yet to defend your goal posts in any fashion.

To score on the goal post is to "grab" the money by selling your opinions to prosecutors and judges and thus you'd be worthy of statist power and glory.

Quote:However, I will ask one more time about your omission of words. Seriously, why don't you include poor #4 in your definition of honest? Let's be frank here. It would be great to get a sincere answer.

It wont fit in the signature line (too many characters) thus it wasn't an omission. That's besides THE POINT: non-contradictory logic is that the consistent measure is a measure of dishonest. That said, I omitted "honest dealings" so I could fit in "4. sincere; frank". Which does nothing to alter the consistency of non-contradictory logic.

I'll be changing my sig. in the next day or two so for the record this is it on 10/16/2011 @ 10:27pm PST

Quote:"A common criminal is honest." - NonEntity
Honest:
1. honorable in principles, intentions, and actions; upright and fair
2. showing uprightness and fairness
3. gained or obtained fairly
4. sincere; frank

zonsb · (This post was last modified: 10-17-2011 10:04 AM by zonsb.)

(10-13-2011 04:22 PM)NonEntity Wrote: I will reiterate.

A common criminal is honest. He sticks out his gun and says "give me your money/car/whatever." This is honest. I did not say it was honorable, I said it was honest. What's so difficult about that for you, zonsb?

Sigh.

- NonE

You'd like it to be just about that rather than about you ridiculing me in the earlier discussion on his same issue when in fact it was you that ridiculed me. Thus you "lied" in your above response to RealSkinny when you said I did nothing but make fun of you and made no attempt to refute the logic.

The reason I put "lied" in quotes is because you may have truly believed your mind-spun mysticism (a vestige of the bicameral mind) and thus you are unaware that factually it was you that ridiculed me and that I was nothing but helpful in my explanations/comments. Thus, it wouldn't be a lie, for you had no conscious intent to deceive. It was a less-conscious, auto-response -- Ie., mysticism.

Mysticism is defined as believing in the unreal as though it were real. Acting on the unreal as though it were real. Thus, hopefully it's mind-spun mysticism and less conscious mechanical auto-response rather than conscious intent to lie or deceive. In other words, it was self-deception -- you deceived yourself, not others. Only you know which it is. Neither one is a good state of mind to be in as one of is merely the lesser of two "evils".

Another case in point. Despite me clearly articulating in prior discussions with you that I stand firm on the non-aggression principle and that devoid of initiatory force, threat of force and fraud, a government in name only, is not a statist government. Nor am I a statist. But that didn't stop you from asserting that I'm a statist. You offered no argument to support your assertion. So again, is it that you lied or is it a mechanical auto-response based on mind-spun mysticism? Only you know which it is.

Either way, whether intent to deceive or mysticism, the fact remains that empirical evidence refutes your claim in the first case and refutes your assertion in the second case. You may believe, even think your intents were honest, yet your scrutiny of cut-throat tactics by players on Survivor could cause a person to think your intent was less than honest rather than auto-response mysticism.

The indoctrination/brainwashing program-- the enemy outpost in people's minds -- is reliant on manipulating people's internal mysticism. The programming is for the person to perform external evaluation of other people's non-violent actions as having relevant meaning to onlookers lives. When the real value is with, are you a like-minded person I can co-create values with? Do I detect intent to deceive either consciously or via unconscious mysticism? (Can I manipulate their mysticism so that we both gain maximum value?) Albeit, maximum value can only be achieved when both people are honest in all regards. Often times the toughest hurdle to over come is self-deceptive mysticism.