> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:04:24 -0700, Hollywood Lee gmail.com>
> wrote:
>

>> Keynes wrote:

>>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:08:03 -0700, Hollywood Lee gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>>> Keynes wrote:

>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:37:10 -0700, Hollywood Lee gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> Keynes wrote:

>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:11:56 -0700, Hollywood Lee gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Keynes wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:46:12 -0700, Hollywood Lee gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Keynes wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:12:41 -0700, Hollywood Lee gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Keynes wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:30:20 -0700, Hollywood Lee

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, you must be the guy who knows *De Troof* !

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. That strange, promised land is inhabited by those non-mundane
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spiritual types.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm getting tired of your dishonest snipping.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow. Are you really upset that I trimmed the following bit of your post?
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> This is your pattern of behavior, Lee.
>>>>>>>>>>> You do it every time. It's amusing.
>>>>>>>>>>> You make yourself a hero in your own
>>>>>>>>>>> estimation by careful topiary action.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Brevity may be the soul of wit.
>>>>>>>>>>> But your method ain't really it.

>>>>>>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> "There is no god but Ford. With balls on." (Sounds vaguely familiar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like everybody says it.)

>>>>>>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think it makes you look like a cool winner you have to believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody has read the material you delete.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the material snipped made no sense to me, I had no real response
>>>>>>>>>>>> to it, so it was snipped. I do find it fascinating that you imagine all
>>>>>>>>>>>> sorts of nefarious intent, though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Does this make sense to you?
>>>>>>>>>>> "Your point of view (as posted) is entirely conventional
>>>>>>>>>>> and not astonishing. It is called 'delusion' by the Buddha."

>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it makes sense in that it is a properly formed sentence that
>>>>>>>>>> conveys meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> So now you plead dislexia?

>>>>>>>> I assume you mean dyslexia. If so, no. If I had dyslexia, then I would
>>>>>>>> think I would have said that the sensible statement above doesn't make
>>>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Why not plead insanity?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (Aren't you some sort of law-iar?)

>>>>>>>>>>> Now you'll say you don't mean what you say
>>>>>>>>>>> and don't think what you think.

>>>>>>>>>> Why would I say that??

>>>>>>>>> You've said it before many times.

>>>>>>>> Really? Please show me the quote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> But it's really no use to say so.
>>>>>>>>> Who could believe you?
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Really, you are off on some weird tangent.

>>>>>>>>> You are always telling me that.
>>>>>>>>> You keep trying to explain trucks to me.
>>>>>>>>> Apparently the world is made for (and all about)
>>>>>>>>> speeding trucks, inevitable doom, and the shadows
>>>>>>>>> of despair. So you say.

>>>>>>>> Perhaps that is what you have heard, not what I have said. But I could
>>>>>>>> be wrong. Please show me where I have said that the world is all about
>>>>>>>> "inevitable doom, and the shadows of despair." I don't believe I have,
>>>>>>>> so it becomes and interesting question of communication and
>>>>>>>> interpretation. Subject to correction, of course, I think you hear me
>>>>>>>> say all sorts of doom and despair things because of the heavy filters
>>>>>>>> you impose on what others say. I filter many things as well. But let's
>>>>>>>> see where the problem is in this case, eh?
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> No problems. You have followed my posts for years
>>>>>>> with disclaimers that I only speak for myself and can
>>>>>>> say nothing about the human condition or any variations
>>>>>>> of experience. And your recurring proof of that premise
>>>>>>> is that there are speeding trucks.

>>>>>> As I thought - this stuff about doom and shadows of despair is of your
>>>>>> own making. And here, being unable to provide the asked for quote, you

>>>>> I searched for Lee's "I am an ass" post. But couldn't find it.
>>>>> Maybe Lee is right. No signed confession exists.
>>>>> Now or ever. No witnesses either. He denies everything.
>>>>> He must be technically innocent or something.

>>>> I was beginning to worry that Robert was pulling ahead in the number of
>>>> insults you could hurl our way. Thanks. I think I have the lead again.
>>>>

>>> Are you insulted?

>>
>> No. If you don't know the difference between the giving and receiving
>> of insults, I would be happy to provide you with a sutta on the same.
>>
>>

>>> What a pity.
>>> Fortunately your sweet and kindly words given
>>> freely for the benefit of all sentient beings stink not.
>>> How could they?
>>>

>>>>>> sidestep with another assertion that I have not made (that I have said
>>>>>> you "can say nothing about the human condition or any variations of
>>>>>> experience", though I have suggested you drop the royal "we" you tend to
>>>>>> use simply as a matter of humility and perspective),

>>>>> I shall learn humility from Lee. And also learn trucks.

>>>> No need to learn trucks from me or nayone, as it appears to be a
>>>> hard-wired survival mechanism that erupts without training.

>>> Unfortunately deer and squirrels don't have it.
>>> Lots of geese here at the lake, resident and visitors.
>>> They don't know about trucks either.
>>>

>>>> And I would
>>>> bet, as a psychological fact, that no amount of idealistic musings on
>>>> your part will override the jump-aside response. Now, I suppose you
>>>> could argue that the preceding is, once again, evidence of my
>>>> physicalist approach,

>>> I wouldn't call 'hard wiring' physical.
>>> That wouldn't make any sense, would it?
>>>

>>>> but it is you who would be jumping aside, eh? So,
>>>> if you want to slap labels around, aren't you the physicalist?
>>>>

>>> Only if you label one thing physical and another thing mental.
>>> Your insistence on a true reality apart from human mentality
>>> is ridiculous.

>> You are 0-2 in making claims about what I've said then backing up the
>> claim. Try swinging again and show me where I have ever claimed a "true
>> reality apart from human mentality."
>>

>
> Isn't that the point of your speeding trucks?
> Speeding trucks trump everything don't they?