03-18-2011, 12:01 AM
Nu Lang wrote:
Nu Lang wrote:
"NL, credit is given where credit is due, I am just reminding you that until you make your case it has no merit."
No merit for whom Sedna?I repost this from the previous page because I noticed you never answered it. The reason I think you never answered it is because it stumped you and exposed the hive mentality of your thinking.
Before you were pretty much telling me, that unless I give an example that proves what I'm saying, it cannot be considered credible to, and its rather funny that the same 'logic' applies to you, but you uphold this idea your thoughts and perceptions are somehow 'different' and immune to your very assertions of merit. Such as, explain to me why I must make a case? Who am I making my case to? Who decides? Where is the merit in your claims of such criteria?
I know rationality is controlled insanity, do you? Controlled folly is the only thing to buffer this once its realized.
I believe that I have set out my case that what you are mis-labeling "stalking" others is indeed no more than your ego and indulgence in your internal dialog. I gave numerous examples and also asked numerous questions, most of which you haven't, for whatever reason, been able to answer. It was you, who stated where no other toltec teacher has stated, including Castaneda, that stalking others in the way that you do is in fact a true toltec technique...in other words, you are trying to introduce an agreement into the world that doesn't yet exist...I have merely asked, is that so? And, indeed, if it is so, then lay it out. If you can make your case suffciently, then you will have succeeded in introducing an agreement into the world that wasn't there before. Fail to make your case and you fail to acquire agreement...which is where you are now. Pardon me for noticing, but while you may have the agreement of one or two other people in this group you do not yet have the agreement of the rest of the group or seemingly any other toltect group out there.
Also, and pardon me for asserting a standard into this inquirery, but it seems to me that if a thing is credible that when described, or set out, that it would be instantly recognizable to all here as credible. At the moment, and again pardon me for the reality check, your technique of stalking others is not being recognized by everyone here as a credible technique. That you cannot convince your peers suggests that you may not have all the pieces or that you still lack a fair amount of clairity about what you are doing. Your inablity to respond to my request for more clarity likewise suggests that you are lacking clarity.
While you have treated this as a debate, claiming that I am trying to discredit you, all I have done is to ask for more clarity. You are free to disagree with me that it is unwise to blindly believe internet yahoos claiming to be naguals...it is, nonetheless, the way it is. I will believe you when you give me something that is reasonably believable. Again, you don't have to like that...although, I am sure I am not the only one to look at it this way.
Another such standard, and again pardon me for introducing it here, is to determine whether the results you claim to be getting are reproducable or if they are just a fluke.
Now, whether or not you want your claim that stalking others is a valid technique to be accepted is up to you. And either you do, or you don't...your response (the nature and quality of it) will answer that question.
Nu Lang wrote:
"NL, credit is given where credit is due, I am just reminding you that until you make your case it has no merit."
No merit for whom Sedna?I repost this from the previous page because I noticed you never answered it. The reason I think you never answered it is because it stumped you and exposed the hive mentality of your thinking.
Before you were pretty much telling me, that unless I give an example that proves what I'm saying, it cannot be considered credible to, and its rather funny that the same 'logic' applies to you, but you uphold this idea your thoughts and perceptions are somehow 'different' and immune to your very assertions of merit. Such as, explain to me why I must make a case? Who am I making my case to? Who decides? Where is the merit in your claims of such criteria?
I know rationality is controlled insanity, do you? Controlled folly is the only thing to buffer this once its realized.
I believe that I have set out my case that what you are mis-labeling "stalking" others is indeed no more than your ego and indulgence in your internal dialog. I gave numerous examples and also asked numerous questions, most of which you haven't, for whatever reason, been able to answer. It was you, who stated where no other toltec teacher has stated, including Castaneda, that stalking others in the way that you do is in fact a true toltec technique...in other words, you are trying to introduce an agreement into the world that doesn't yet exist...I have merely asked, is that so? And, indeed, if it is so, then lay it out. If you can make your case suffciently, then you will have succeeded in introducing an agreement into the world that wasn't there before. Fail to make your case and you fail to acquire agreement...which is where you are now. Pardon me for noticing, but while you may have the agreement of one or two other people in this group you do not yet have the agreement of the rest of the group or seemingly any other toltect group out there.
Also, and pardon me for asserting a standard into this inquirery, but it seems to me that if a thing is credible that when described, or set out, that it would be instantly recognizable to all here as credible. At the moment, and again pardon me for the reality check, your technique of stalking others is not being recognized by everyone here as a credible technique. That you cannot convince your peers suggests that you may not have all the pieces or that you still lack a fair amount of clairity about what you are doing. Your inablity to respond to my request for more clarity likewise suggests that you are lacking clarity.
While you have treated this as a debate, claiming that I am trying to discredit you, all I have done is to ask for more clarity. You are free to disagree with me that it is unwise to blindly believe internet yahoos claiming to be naguals...it is, nonetheless, the way it is. I will believe you when you give me something that is reasonably believable. Again, you don't have to like that...although, I am sure I am not the only one to look at it this way.
Another such standard, and again pardon me for introducing it here, is to determine whether the results you claim to be getting are reproducable or if they are just a fluke.
Now, whether or not you want your claim that stalking others is a valid technique to be accepted is up to you. And either you do, or you don't...your response (the nature and quality of it) will answer that question.