I consider the entire matter closed because by Creative's own admission the suggestion for a new rule was an attempt to reduce the personal attacks which he said 'continue to go on.'

I told him there was already such a rule. (Therefore his suggestion for a new rule is illogical.)

Here are his words (page 14)



By these words, it seems apparent that he was not really that concerned HOW philosophy is discussed. He was concerned about what he perceive were 'groundless claims' about his character. It had nothing to do with philosophy or how it is to be discussed.

I understand that he simply wants to discuss the message itself without mention of the messenger.

I think this might be quite a challenge especially when people make remarks about how other posters like "you don't know what you are talking about" or like: "It takes quite an ego to state what will never happen."

Don't get me wrong, I think we should be all allowed to make these personal remarks, but if one person can make them, then they should not complain if someone else makes them.

I think people should just attempt to decode the meaning and feeling behind a given statement without taking it personal. A person whose defenses are always up sometimes perceives things as an insult or attack. I think if the person has confidence in his or her position, this would not bother them at all.

I for one, like to make assertions that invite challenge just to keep things lively.

I think addressing the subject and not the messenger will be a challenge, but I am not going to stop expressing my opinions, grounded or not.

I'm up for the challenge.

When shall we begin?

When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it – this is knowledge.

groundless thoughts may be groundless to some, yet valuable to others.

It is a matter of opinion wouldn't you say, unless it is totally off topic, which I am usually accused of occassionally like saying - pass the mashed potatoes please.

yet never the less what might sound logical to someone may be interpreted as a groundless thought for another.

Everyone has a different idealogy what makes sense to them and perhaps the reason for such hot debates on some of the threads. What is good is that we can learn different idealogies in the end. Some tolerate them, others refute them, some wholeheartingly agree, and some stay neutral undecided.

So there is my "groundless thought" for the day and please finally pass the mash potatoes.

WHAT A WONDERFUL IDEA!!!

YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE HOW MUCH THESE THREADS RELIEVE MY SYMPTOMS OF PMS!!!

It looks like maybe JaneStar has 'seconded' Bushido's motion that conversations like this be moved to PM.

I also agree with Bushido.

What is PM??

Philosophy Magazine.







j/k.

Personal Message?

Pregnant Masochist?

Pyschic Maniac?

Pass the Mashed Potatoes?

All of the above?

Funny how even here the all-important necessity to verify one's assumption of others' words comes up!

See, I had just assumed Bushido meant Private Mail, as thats how I've seen PM used in similar contexts. I also assumed the JaneStar had interpreted it the same way.

I'm still confident of that assumption, I'd wager good odds on it; but I know I could be wrong.

Private Mail, Personal Message, its all the same to me.

Here ya go Smiless... Could you pass me the salt?

I thought it meant in the evening as in P.M. and A.M.

Oh, IPYP, I thought Bushido was talking about the PMS:
"...take it to PM's" -- I guess, I overlooked the apostrophe...
. . . . .

Groundless thought...

Thought an astronaut has while in orbit.

Good one.

Groudless thought -- often experienced after smoking a "grass"!
:smokes:

Well, at least I am consistent... I gave no premise!

By the way, Creative, was the following message directed at me?

I do not believe in intuition.



Nope.

Thanx, dear, you just saved yourself about 10+ pages of aggravation!

Nah... I'm over it, and have been.

I was just attempting to clarify some things...

You could try though!