>Keynes wrote:

>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:01:22 -0700, Hollywood Lee gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>

>>> Keynes wrote:

>>>> 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?

>>>
>>> So now you are 0-3. If you can't win on the merits of the discussion,

>>> just make stuff up, eh? But no, the example of the speeding trucks does
>>> not equate to a "true reality apart from human mentality."

>I've snipped

>>> the rest of your misunderstandings so as to highlight the moment you go
>>> off the rails.

>>
>> I accept your resignation.

>
>Ah. The reverse/give-away checkers gambit where your
>mischaracterizations and failures become your wins. Well played, maestro.