• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.
Reaction score

Profile Posts Latest Activity Postings About

  • I haven't worded my post in the ways I had hoped and I didn't present my ideas the way I had meant.

    You seem fairly uninterested in it, which is fair. Maybe I'll try again with it some day in a more organized manner.
    After reading about the ENTP, it doesn't sound too far-fetched from me. Maybe I'm just an INTP in hiding.
    I'm confident that I am an Introvert. The internet is just my safe place, allows me to express any ideas/thoughts that I have.

    I'm fairly stuck in my ways, unless another way/reason appears to be better than mine, which is rare. I have and X in for the S/N and P/J is because I tend to use them both equally, if needed.

    I put up a post just for you, please check it out.
    I'll have a new thread ready under the Politics and History subforum. I'm excited to see what this sparks up.
    Well. What are some topics that you're passionate about and what's your stance on them?

    I hope don't get along too well. I'll argue something I don't believe in just for practice, if necessary.
    she isn't having a good time. it's hard to look into her experience. it's progressed alzheimer, no language, no concepts left, almost no body control either. at worst i imagine it might be like a really bad LSD trip that lasts for several years. but i don't know.
    i'm reading 2 or 10 pages in carl jungs book about typology, whenever i watch over my mother who is barely hanging in there. every other day. i'm not enthusiastic about reading books. today i read something in a book called meeting the shadow. i don't find this book helpful at all.
    Hmm yes I think he may have eaten me. Thankfully I took control of his mind so it's really just a body upgrade in the end.
    Still not sure what the issue is. You might want to try and have a non-mod test posting as well.
    Now you are the one discriminating. That is not to say that my statement should be treated literally.

    By saying x died z, I meant that x was heavily devaluated due to z, not that x has dissappeared completely.

    I would ask you to treat my responses as statements based on fuzzy and many valued logic, which sometimes can convey even contradictory information when interpreted from the binary standpoint.

    I find many valued logic superior and more flexible in communication, however it sometimes requires explanations to the people that are new to my methods or to the idea.
    ACK! I wander over to you page to chat you up and am faced with that guy. I was not expecting to be faced with your actual face!

    Is that you? *cowers*
    seems like some of the people you'd have thought would be able to see the child are too busy gawking at the the corpses under the bus to notice that the child is still running about in the middle of the road.
    You might want to tone down your questioning and persistence, or you might be branded in a similar way that BAP played out.

    Maybe seeking answers and conclusions for yourself from the posts alone would make you satisfied, maybe it is something else.
    Hmmm. Looks like the final straw was here.

    You gotta admit, for an intelligent guy, so much of his stuff involved shaming people and shouting at people who didn't share his views. He really knows nothing about the personal lives of the people involved here, not really, but he's not even open to their own words about their own lives... and then accused them of being heavily damaged, psychologically screwed up, etc., while it's very clear that emotionally his own life has been in shambles. This could have been a sharing of information, not a sociopolitical shouting match.

    When I know my own vision is screwed up, I'm very hesitant to tell others I know more about their lives than they do.
    To me, though, so many of his posts would be laden in some way with emotional danger -- he could even be fine for half a post, then suddenly he'd be bristling and/or lashing out, sometimes meanly. I don't like emotional violence, especially when it comes out of nowhere. I can deal with it when it happens and keep my head, but I don't like to live in it now... I did that growing up. I guess you had trouble perceiving it and/or it rolled off your back somehow.

    If he'd been family or friend, or if he had been gentler / less demanding in terms of energy drain, it might have been worth investing; but to me there's no reason to take such a large risk or headache for an Internet stranger with no practical future in my life. My energy and "centeredness" is precious to me.
    Yes, I'm different from him in that if I'm upset, I will originally bring it up and if the other person blows it off or attacks me, I'll go process it by myself and work through it alone. I just feel like it's my job to look after my emotional needs and not dump my mess on someone else or create a large scene.

    I have no doubt that came in part from dealing with my alcoholic bully dad (I couldn't reason with him, he was always right, and he could hold long grudges)... but some of it's just good ol' fashioned "roll up my sleeves and work through my own issues" without messing someone else up / dragging them into it with me.
    I saw your note in thread but I was gonna post here to you anyway...

    I'm sorry if I sounded blunt or harsh in the thread, I know you mean well and feel bad about their departure. I wish things were more ideal.

    Anyway, you can respond or not to whatever you want. It's not a big deal, and I guess I was clearing the air with my own thoughts and feelings I've had bottled up on all this for some time now.
    Hope the whole conversation in the No Friends thread isn't getting you down. it's clear you do care about people and wonder if it's possible to connect better and are frustrated because you're not sure how. I know what you mean with the "being okay with being alone, but tired of being in your own head all the time" thing.
    Well the op is pretty clear-cut. I've recently gathered this idea that you might be Te-dominant. What do you think about that?
    Hahaha! That's hilarious: "Oh, Grammar Oberseer, forgive me! I was driven sane by my repressed orthographic opinions!" Only on INTPf.

    And you're welcome. :)

    "Do you generally handle people with self esteem issues with mockery."

    I think you meant a question mark. :)

    Your last post in the Pictures vs Words threads seems to correlate well with what I know of Si. Contrast Se types which tend to only find meaning in sensual stimuli while those stimuli exist. Perhaps this is why Se types are (said to be) more liberal in their indulgence of physical stimuli.
    Not a lot of culture around here but I am looking into going to seattle to find something to peruse.
    Not lately, but I visited the Louvre in Paris during the summer and got to see some great Leonardo da Vinci's. He seems to have more subtleties than your average painter. You? We don't discuss that much here I guess because it is visual.
    Yes, there were some who believed, but only by God's grace.

    And NO, you DON'T trust God. You flatly DENY him.

    Unless Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, your claim to trust God is null and void.
    See, that's what I'm talking about.

    Man, in his VANITY, expects God to meet with him face to face before he'll believe the truth.

    And yet, when God came in the flesh and told them face to face, they STILL did not believe what he said.

    Even when he gave sight to the blind and raised the dead, they still did not believe he was God.
    Well, belief in God (not just that he exists, but belief in what he says, what he has done, and will yet do) is beyond MERE HUMAN LOGIC, in tne sense that HUMAN LOGIC requires EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

    But again, there's nothing UNREASONABLE about it.

    Men just assume that they deserve to be convinced by their own reason, rather than being TOLD what the truth is.

    It's just NOT PALATABLE to the human ego.

    For example, the doctrine that God only saves SOME and not ALL of mankind -- that's not hard to UNDERSTAND, it's just hard to ACCEPT.
    That's not entirely accurate.

    I'm saying that one will bow to it and receive as truth ONLY IF God CAUSES them to do so by grace.

    NOT because it can't be explained, but because people DON'T WANT to hear it.

    They want to JUSTIFY THEMSELVES and their SIN, and the TRUTH is INCONVENIENT to them.

    And I'm not saying that the Word of God is irrational or inconsistent with logic.



    Everything it says makes perfect sense. People just don't see it because they don't WANT to see it.
    Look, you're really missing the point.

    I just meant that I personally believe the Bible to be the inerrrant, infallible revelation of God. I believe it can be trusted with certainty.

    And so I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement, "certainty is absurd."

    It's really that simple. Surely, you understand now, don't you?
    The Bible claims to be the authoritative, infallible, divine revelation of all truth.

    Voltaire's statement, "certainty is absurd," surely is opposed to putting one's faith in the Bible as the authoritative, infallible, divine revelation of all truth, isn't it?

    Or am I misunderstanding Voltaire's meaning?
    Well, between Voltaire and God, I think I'll listen to God.

    Voltaire is in hell right now, by the way.
    Well, I'm an Ni-dom, so I see lots of possibilities, but the first thing I thought (somewhat defensively) was that you were accusing me of being somehow "Machiavellian." lol.

    Then I thought, NO, that's probably not what he meant.

    Then I thought you meant that GOD is Machiavellian.

    Then I realized I was confusing Machiavelli's "The Prince" with "Candide"! lol.

    Then, when I read your response, I thought you meant something along the lines of: "Hey Wonka, if you'd try to understand your enemy, you might find that you actually respect him."

    At the moment, I think the last one is what you were getting at. But I think it's silly, and a misread of the whole situation.

    And in the end, I'm just not sure what you were getting at.

    And I really don't want to assume anything.
    You do realize, don't you, that I wasn't BORN a believer?

    It's not hard to remember how I thought before I believed.

    And I have read some Voltaire, and have a vague idea what you're implying. But it's still not very clear. But that's OK.

    Perhaps you're just having a little fun. So, carry on.
    "Thank you Wonka. You seem to provided real good example of what Voltaire was describing.

    I have an idea of what you're implying, but not totally sure.

    Care to elaborate?
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom