X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5fca:0:b0:2f3:66ae:b781 with SMTP id k10-20020ac85fca000000b002f366aeb781mr13633531qta.575.1651126253352;
        Wed, 27 Apr 2022 23:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:aa8f:0:b0:645:7d91:ba2b with SMTP id
 t15-20020a25aa8f000000b006457d91ba2bmr30149362ybi.332.1651126253185; Wed, 27
 Apr 2022 23:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
Path: ...!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.religion.eckankar
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 23:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7ed554dc-3471-4a19-b255-8cd0389d37b2n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2001:8003:c913:cb00:a48d:9983:d29e:e6c;
 posting-account=FOpazAkAAAASZtepqE72ANcDFOSpfRUR
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:8003:c913:cb00:a48d:9983:d29e:e6c
References: <7157f623-b597-4b0d-9630-0996fcea42b1n@googlegroups.com>
 <7f77fadc-9285-4504-af6f-9daf4aa8dbf9n@googlegroups.com> <07891736-f914-4607-b2a0-fef1b6a072d9n@googlegroups.com>
 <3f3de13d-0eaf-4ced-9640-255258b8179dn@googlegroups.com> <af44aa41-b70b-4517-b857-ddbd859b097bn@googlegroups.com>
 <068b94b6-fc0a-46e1-bcf8-d8671a0e780dn@googlegroups.com> <c1e36a70-8cf0-4935-b5ea-5c564c7f1828n@googlegroups.com>
 <7ed554dc-3471-4a19-b255-8cd0389d37b2n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f1d027e8-33e2-4052-9cc5-4dfde1ade652n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Fife pushing his presumptous ideas and judgemental opinions
From: Henosis Sage <pee.tee.aitch.ei@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:10:53 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bytes: 5034
Lines: 63

On Wednesday, 27 April 2022 at 23:26:42 UTC+10, fife wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:57:59 AM UTC-4, Henosis Sage wrote:=20
> > On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 14:11:07 UTC+10, Henosis Sage wrote:=20
> > > On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 02:42:28 UTC+10, fife wrote:=20
> > > > I suggested Etznab use ontology and epistemology to question Eckank=
ar. But it turns out he doesn't want to question Eckankar. He loves it. He =
simply wants it reformatted to conform with his ideals.=20
> > > >=20
> > > > It's your idea, not mine, that I give examples and provide personal=
 experiences because that's what you would do. Well, thank God I'm not you.=
=20
> > > >=20
> > > > Pugnacious hostility seems to be your method and obdurate stupidity=
 his. By all means stick with what you know. You won't do any better.=20
> > > I never asked for personal experiences.=20
> > >=20
> > > There=E2=80=99s a lesson in this for anyone interested in seeing it, =
which is that if you try to make the world fit neatly into an ideological b=
ox, you=E2=80=99ll have to distort or ignore reality to do it =E2=80=94 usu=
ally with terrible consequences.=20
> > >=20
> > > I think that=E2=80=99s true for all "philosophies of life". It=E2=80=
=99s very easy to fall into this trap of believing that if only everybody f=
ollowed this or that principle, then society would become this perfect syst=
em.=20
> > Paul Graham came up with a =E2=80=9CDebate Pyramid=E2=80=9D for classif=
ying the =E2=80=9Clevel=E2=80=9D of people=E2=80=99s ability or lack thereo=
f to genuinely =E2=80=9Cdebate=E2=80=9D and/or "discuss/present" useful inf=
ormation/perspectives on an issue.=20
> >=20
> > Thinking about the context of "I (fife) suggested Etznab use ontology a=
nd epistemology to question Eckankar."" and then being asked to explain/sug=
gest how that could be done and help "anyone" ......=20
> >=20
> > Those levels are :=20
> >=20
> > 1) Refuting the Central Point : Explicitly refutes the central point=20
> >=20
> > 2) Refutation : Finds the mistake and explains why it=E2=80=99s mistake=
n using quotes=20
> >=20
> > 3) Counterargument : Contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning an=
d/or supporting evidence=20
> >=20
> > 4) Contradiction : States the opposing case with little or no supportin=
g evidence=20
> >=20
> > 5) Responding to Tone : Criticises the tone of the writing without addr=
essing the substance of the argument=20
> >=20
> > 6) Ad Hominem : Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer =
(etznab & myself) without addressing the substance of the argument=20
> >=20
> > 7) Name Calling [ and/or Abuse ] : Sounds something like =E2=80=9CYou a=
re an ass hat=E2=80=9D or "pissing everyone off on the eckankar forum"
> Quick temper, slow mind. Do you think the world wants to be like you, sho=
uld be like you, wants to debate with you, should debate with you, wants to=
 live in turmoil like you do? No. You just don't want to be alone.=20
>=20
> Try to understand that Sean. Everyone's just trying not to be alone.

oh do shove your obnoxious self-serving anti-social bs where it belongs. yo=
u are as dumb as dirt fife.  and a inveterate liar. it's easy to understand=
.. you make it so obvious all the time you judgemental creep.