09-20-2011, 12:03 AM
Thanks Tom!
As far as I can see, there is only one way to properly resolve this situation and that is for me to do my best to make ONE POINT per post rather than 17 points in a much too long post. In such a long post the points tend to get lost in the rhetoric.
Dear Jeremy,
I'll do my best to make this as simple as I can for you:
MY VIEW:
My view is that SUPPOSEDLY non-fiction books are, at best, based on true stories. They ALL contain some fiction whether we want to believe it or not so there is no reason to blow oneself up over the matter for it is fact, as far as I can see.. Until I can verify all that is being stated is "Gospel Truth" I will treat ALL BOOKS as fiction no matter what anyone says. If I eventually find out the world is indeed flat I will say something like, "If figures". Then I'll casually readjust my beliefs and go on with my life no less for the wear.
Can you respect my view because my view automatically resolves the Castaneda Debate. It also resolves the religious debate, and the political debate, and any other SUPPOSEDLY true debate put forth by the lying human race.
YOUR VIEW:
YOUR view is you expect people to blindly believe that YOU know better than the anthropology experts at UCLA and YOU KNOW FOR A FACT that Carlos Castaneda did not deserve the Ph. D given to him. YOU have no official qualifications WHATSOEVER to make yourself the superior of the experts at UCLA, but you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN Carlos Castaneda was a liar, made the whole thing up and tricked the experts at UCLA. This is what you have been pushing for years in a 'nut shell' and it is indeed a very 'nut' shell.
I am willing to openly respect your view although I say it is the view of a narcissistic-ally deranged whacko who desperately needs some sort of psychiatric counseling, along with your blind followers.
CONCLUSION:
I don't expect ANYONE here to believe anything I may write and I don't believe anything of what you write except for what I can personally verify as true, period. I don't care how many Bibles you are willing to swear upon. Unless I personally verify it I treat it as fiction. That does not mean what you may share is not useful. It just means that I'm always ready to find I've been tricked again...by my senses.
So, Jeremy, I can respect YOUR view even though I feel it is ridiculous. Can you respect mine? If so then this matter is resolved between us and what remains is for you to comment on Guy Gardner saying that don Juan "stalking" was a perversion of Taoist beliefs. What do you think of Guy's view? I think it's ridiculous, but I could be wrong. How about you, Jeremy? Could YOU be wrong? If you agree with Guy be ready to back up your belief with quotes from the Tao.
Thanks
As far as I can see, there is only one way to properly resolve this situation and that is for me to do my best to make ONE POINT per post rather than 17 points in a much too long post. In such a long post the points tend to get lost in the rhetoric.
Dear Jeremy,
I'll do my best to make this as simple as I can for you:
MY VIEW:
My view is that SUPPOSEDLY non-fiction books are, at best, based on true stories. They ALL contain some fiction whether we want to believe it or not so there is no reason to blow oneself up over the matter for it is fact, as far as I can see.. Until I can verify all that is being stated is "Gospel Truth" I will treat ALL BOOKS as fiction no matter what anyone says. If I eventually find out the world is indeed flat I will say something like, "If figures". Then I'll casually readjust my beliefs and go on with my life no less for the wear.
Can you respect my view because my view automatically resolves the Castaneda Debate. It also resolves the religious debate, and the political debate, and any other SUPPOSEDLY true debate put forth by the lying human race.
YOUR VIEW:
YOUR view is you expect people to blindly believe that YOU know better than the anthropology experts at UCLA and YOU KNOW FOR A FACT that Carlos Castaneda did not deserve the Ph. D given to him. YOU have no official qualifications WHATSOEVER to make yourself the superior of the experts at UCLA, but you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN Carlos Castaneda was a liar, made the whole thing up and tricked the experts at UCLA. This is what you have been pushing for years in a 'nut shell' and it is indeed a very 'nut' shell.
I am willing to openly respect your view although I say it is the view of a narcissistic-ally deranged whacko who desperately needs some sort of psychiatric counseling, along with your blind followers.
CONCLUSION:
I don't expect ANYONE here to believe anything I may write and I don't believe anything of what you write except for what I can personally verify as true, period. I don't care how many Bibles you are willing to swear upon. Unless I personally verify it I treat it as fiction. That does not mean what you may share is not useful. It just means that I'm always ready to find I've been tricked again...by my senses.
So, Jeremy, I can respect YOUR view even though I feel it is ridiculous. Can you respect mine? If so then this matter is resolved between us and what remains is for you to comment on Guy Gardner saying that don Juan "stalking" was a perversion of Taoist beliefs. What do you think of Guy's view? I think it's ridiculous, but I could be wrong. How about you, Jeremy? Could YOU be wrong? If you agree with Guy be ready to back up your belief with quotes from the Tao.
Thanks