I feel I must respond to TESs accusations. They appear to put me in a bad light and therefore I must defend myself. Thereafter I would be quite content never again to correspond with him, as he prefers. Also, I might have preferred to write a PM to him, but as I have been asked to ‘leave him out of it’ I didn’t think he’d respond well.
I had barely contributed to the thread when I posted the post (#138) about Eric’s life review. Which later I went on to explain (#155) what I meant. My intent here, was incorrectly interpreted on at least two separate occasions by different individuals, including TES.
The reason is because I was engaging with you, and not a half-hour video veneer. After you decided to yet again, step in unprovoked, and start categorizing and demeaning people you have targeted, for no good reason.
Exactly who might you
think I was
targeting?
More importantly,
were you a target? If so, show me where I categorised or demeaned you anywhere in the thread where it wasn’t in response to having been accused first? If you can’t do so, what gives you the right to single me out? Are you a moderator?
Please point to where I was ‘categorising and demeaning’ those
targets? If by demeaning you mean pushing against, then yes, I was.
- the video was insincerely posed and therefore, was moot. Just as the 'I can't go for that' video was also insulting and darkly purposed. This does not make Hall and Oates a bad musical group, nor does it mean that I must watch and evaluate that music video.
The video was most certainly was not
insincerely posed!
It was a perfectly valid response to the assertion by Jim Smith in particular that enlightened people aren’t necessarily ‘nice’ people.
Spira’s informed opinion directly contradicts that.
In the video, he says: “Every person that I have ever met, or heard of, or read about, that had recognised their true nature is a kind, loving, compassionate person.”
Now you might think his opinion is no more value than anyone else’s and might disagree with it, but please show me the slightest evidence that indicates that I was insincere to post (or pose) it?
The first video was nothing more than a phrase that came into my mind reminding me of this song with that exact title, ‘I can’t go for that’, one that I had recently been listening to and enjoying. There was nothing more to it than that.
When I was saying, “I can’t go for that” I was surely supporting your post #143, where you wrote :
They are the most wonderful, sincere and genuine people I know. I cannot get either of them to lie, even as a spoof to trick my spouse for humor's sake. They simply will not lie. They don't even know how to lie.
I will copy the post here for you. Can you not see that?
Yet we hear from others that there are those who have reached a state of ‘enlightenment’, whose personalities appear to be very different from that of these two children.
In the words of Hall & Oates - “I can’t go for that”.
That you somehow are able to interpret that as being
insulting and darkly purposed, is really rather disturbing, even bizarre, to me.
The issue was that the two videos reflected negatively upon you... They were costume ornaments.
If you say so.
You the messenger are not consistent with the message of the enlightenment video. The enlightenment video was simply another Hall and Oates song.
I don’t understand this.
You missed that the comment, 'academic, untested, the costume' was not about the video. You may fool yourself, but you are not fooling me. This entirely unnecessary and pointless-other-than-for-ill-intent conversation is now done.
The facts are that you started the accusations! Starting to go downhill in post #152, and again in post #153 in which you posted:
No, you CLEARLY made the direct accusation in a post that Eric's life review will be bad. It was a low-character thing to do. Not impressed in the least.
‘It was a low character thing to do.’ That’s an accusation isn’t it?
From that point on, you were fair game. If you had apologised instead of writing what I saw as a patronising “Good response
“ as I thought someone who plays the Ethics card might, I may have softened somewhat.
Your basic first instinct is to attack, insult, demean, categorize, ... based upon someone you hated in your past.
This is unfair. I have been a member here for many years, if that were true, I’d surely have been banned long ago. I’ve never hated anyone in my life. What I will do, is stand up and oppose people when I think they’re wrong.
I really detest unfairness. It is particularly distasteful when one party portrays itself as a victim, as I think you have done.
So that’s my side of the story. I leave it for others to judge.