wenglund wrote:That was as exactly backwards, in every way, from what I have intended and am FACILITATING on this thread. So, sorry, you are now entirely at a loss--or should I say, your perceptions aren't WORKABLE. But, stay tuned, miracles can still happen. You could conceivably go from cluelessness to epiphany in a cognitive flash of enlightenment. ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Please, release me from the suspense. Tell me the (your) solution oh wise one.
I'll hold my breath...
Sorry, I think it is critical that the mutually WORKABLE solution is figured out by the Mr. B's of the world as well as the Mr. A's (at step 3). I have provided enough obvious clues, that I am confident you all will figure it out.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
No one can read your mind Wade. Quit f'ing around and tell us the solution to the game. I'm going to pass out here soon...
I am not asking you to read my mind. I am asking you to get inside your own mind. And, I am asking Runtu and others to do the same. Surely your collective intelligences is far superior to mine. If I can figure it out without having been given any clues, then surely you all can figure it out with all the HUGE clues I have given "you". Certainly, Mr. D may have been on to something. ;-)
wenglund wrote:I am not asking you to read my mind. I am asking you to get inside your own mind. And, I am asking Runtu and others to do the same. Surely your collective intelligences is far superior to mine. If I can figure it out without having been given any clues, then surely you all can figure it out with all the HUGE clues I have given "you". Certainly, Mr. D may have been on to something. ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
You're worse than my 6 year old.
We have given you answers. Just because you didn't like them, doesn't mean we haven't given them.
GIMR wrote:Why do you guys continue to feed the animals?
That's why they keep coming back for more.
Sometimes it is fun to see them fight over one piece of food...and to see who actually gets the food...to actually se who is the dominant one....I actually try and divert the strong one so I can feed the weaker ones...now that is fun to watch..
When I wake up I will be hungry....but this feels so good right now aaahhhhhh........
GIMR wrote:Why do you guys continue to feed the animals?
That's why they keep coming back for more.
Sometimes it is fun to see them fight over one piece of food...and to see who actually gets the food...to actually se who is the dominant one....I actually try and divert the strong one so I can feed the weaker ones...now that is fun to watch..
But there's only one animal in here, a parasitic little being who thinks he's superior. That's why I didn't bother replying to his answer to my question.
If you starve the beast, it'll go away...
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
True healing and cessation of a cycle of anger can only take place when all parties involved accept responsibility for their own part in the cycle, and that includes the trigger event. That is why, in my example, it is important to determine whether the TV was truly a high definition TV or not. Until that is determined, no healing and progress can be made other than a superficial pasting over of disagreements, which normally is obtained only by the parties ignoring one another as much as possible, or by pretending the event never happened. While that may appear to be appealing to individuals who believe that SILENCE equates healing, it is meaningless in terms of addressing the cycle of anger.
It is so obvious to everyone but you, Wade. In my example, Customer A has to know whether or not the TV was a standard or High Definition TV before being able to take responsibility for his/her own reaction, and the same is true for Mr. Liddy.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:True healing and cessation of a cycle of anger can only take place when all parties involved accept responsibility for their own part in the cycle, and that includes the trigger event. That is why, in my example, it is important to determine whether the TV was truly a high definition TV or not. Until that is determined, no healing and progress can be made other than a superficial pasting over of disagreements, which normally is obtained only by the parties ignoring one another as much as possible, or by pretending the event never happened. While that may appear to be appealing to individuals who believe that SILENCE equates healing, it is meaningless in terms of addressing the cycle of anger.
It is so obvious to everyone but you, Wade. In my example, Customer A has to know whether or not the TV was a standard or High Definition TV before being able to take responsibility for his/her own reaction, and the same is true for Mr. Liddy.
Yep, it's a two-way street. As long as one party refuses to take any responsibility, the cycle will continue. I take responsibility for my reaction to finding out the church is fraudulent. Will the church take responsibility for being fraudulent? I think not.
Even just taking responsibility for the fact that the LDS hierarchy has created the climate in which the cycle of anger develops would be progress. How have they set the climate? By insisting that since the LDS is the "one true church" and God will clearly reveal that information to any sincere person who asks, there must be something wrong with people who reject that claim. They're influenced by satan, want to sin, hurt by trivial slights, never believed to begin with, and now, according to some apologists, are "fundamentalists" suffering from "cognitive distortions". As long as believers are given this message, over and over, then when and if those same believers do eventually lose faith, the nugget of anger will already be present due to the fact that they know their still believing friends and family are being told this damaging nonsense over and over, and likely believing it.
To make my analogy more accurate, I would have to add that Mr. Liddy takes the proactive move by issuing statements that anyone who concludes the TV he is selling is not what he claims it to be is influenced by satan and nuts. So the first step in stopping the cycle of anger would be for Mr. Liddy to immediately retract that statement. Mr. Liddy doesn't even have to admit that his product is not what he claims. He just has to stop poisoning the well by stating that critics are Satanic and nuts.
Now, I know that some will claim that the church only makes that claim about VOCAL critics, and not simply people who don't believe, but that is the equivalent of Mr. Liddy saying people who believe his TV isn't what he claims it is are fine and dandy as long as they don't tell anyone.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:Even just taking responsibility for the fact that the LDS hierarchy has created the climate in which the cycle of anger develops would be progress. How have they set the climate? By insisting that since the LDS is the "one true church" and God will clearly reveal that information to any sincere person who asks, there must be something wrong with people who reject that claim. They're influenced by satan, want to sin, hurt by trivial slights, never believed to begin with, and now, according to some apologists, are "fundamentalists" suffering from "cognitive distortions". As long as believers are given this message, over and over, then when and if those same believers do eventually lose faith, the nugget of anger will already be present due to the fact that they know their still believing friends and family are being told this damaging nonsense over and over, and likely believing it.
To make my analogy more accurate, I would have to add that Mr. Liddy takes the proactive move by issuing statements that anyone who concludes the TV he is selling is not what he claims it to be is influenced by satan and nuts. So the first step in stopping the cycle of anger would be for Mr. Liddy to immediately retract that statement. Mr. Liddy doesn't even have to admit that his product is not what he claims. He just has to stop poisoning the well by stating that critics are Satanic and nuts.
Now, I know that some will claim that the church only makes that claim about VOCAL critics, and not simply people who don't believe, but that is the equivalent of Mr. Liddy saying people who believe his TV isn't what he claims it is are fine and dandy as long as they don't tell anyone.
Very well said, beastie. I'm really glad I've gotten to know people like you.