Gotcha, no VAGINA.

Now, say you were trying to define the word ‘law’.
It would not serve you to flip around for Webster’s opinion, that’s easy.
What is not is thinking about what one means when saying ‘law’.

Now say you were stuck at an impasse.
Say a friend of yours decides for himself that laws are only laws if enforced within that society where the word ‘illegal’ is used to describe a breaking of them.
Drinking under the influence is illegal.
Heroin and pot found on your person too is illegal.
Yet Karl Rove leaking a CIA operative’s name to the press and federal courts demanding the source be revealed is not termed illegal but ‘unconstitutional’.
The Paladin press trial or the 2000 elections (fuck bush) also bring about this word ‘unconstitutional’.

Why the distinction?
Does using ‘unconstitutional’ in place of ‘illegal’ translate to saying that the Constitution therefore is not a legal document, a law making body, but something other?
If all federal and local laws must consult with this document and not the other way round…….is the Constitution not more of an advice column than a collection of laws?
You know, a Dear Abby.

Are the constitution of the United States, England, France, Portugal, Germany laws at all?

That, fellow readers, is the question.

You’re now stuck with trying to define what one means by law.

One person, believing any codified statement set down to adjust via limits or allowances any state of any one thing at any place in time, would write the following definition as Law.



Person A:


“

A statement written with the purpose to govern is a statement concerned with control.
To want to control or to govern something, is to want to condition it.
If you want to condition something, you must first establish a set of limits and allowances to impose on that which you seek to condition.
To establish limits is to set parameters.

And to set parameters is to construct a codified outline by which you exert that control. ”



Which is law.



The founding fathers sought to control the new union, because only via control can one establish a new order.
So the founding fathers had to condition the populace by setting down what the new government would allow and not allow, from which branch had the power to collect taxes and duites to what rights Citizen Joe was entitled to.

The founding father’s endeavors, therefore, yielded a codified outline by which to exert that control: The Constitution.

Sovereign or not, amended or not, it was intended and therefore written as law.


Now person B, believing this document to be not laws but a collective of “artificial traditions” on which all laws are based, and further NOT law because of the fluid nature of its makeup would write:


“ Laws, of the type of which we speak, cannot be autonomous abstracts.
By this, I mean that they require some context or setting for them to
have any weight or meaning. As a consequence of this, outside of that
setting, the laws thereof have no meaning. In simpler terms, without a
society, laws are pointless. Within the society, laws have the sole
purpose of, much as you said, creating limits that members of said
society must abide by.

The society, in turn, is created, generally, by social mores, which
are typically collected from the ethical and religous atunements of
the society's members. Under normal conditions, this is an almost
automatic happening. Not so with modern governments. Whereas more
basic societies are based around tradition, modern nations, the US
especially, which encompass many smaller groups (or sub societies),
must lay a ground work for the greater society to function upon. Basic
rights granted to all members of the over society regardless of which
sub-society the originate from. In addition to this, it must also
create an artificial set of traditions upon which to form the basis of
government.

These artificial traditions and basic rights may then be enforced
within this new society by laws, which are based off of this newly
created set of traditions.

However, for the society to be able to grow and function in the larger
world, and with respects to time, it must not be concrete. These
artifical traditions must be able to be changed, should the need
arise. This isn't something that should be done lightly, however.
On the other hand, these new traditions should not be so restrictive
or all encompassing as to remove or encroach upon the longer standing
traditions of the sub societies. Thus, they must be absolutes, but
only the barest minimum thereof. This allows these smaller groups to
retain individual identity.

In other words, the constitution acts as our traditions, and is
therefore the basis of our society's government (and as such it
outlines how said government should be formed and opperated) yet is
fluid enough to be changable. This government then creates laws that
govern the members of it's society, primarily laws that reinforce
these traditions. It also allows any smaller unit of society, such as
states and cities, the power to create their own laws so long as those
laws do not violate any federal laws or traditions.
laws are meaningless without the society in which they are based. The
constitution is the basis for our society, and as such, laws are made
to uphold it. If it were law in and of itself, we would not need the
laws that upheld constitutional guidlines, as they would already
exist. Also, it (the constitution) would have no meaning if our
society fell. However, if our society were to disapear tomorrow, the
document would still have meaning and could be used to recreate our society. ”



In other words, the Constitution is a guideline of broadened ‘artificial traditions’ far removed from the simple mores of the tribe, and there it is floating above one’s society as something other than law.

Sure, it’s the fountainhead of each local and federal law.
Sure, it determines which actions by either government or the people are right or wrong.
Sure, it systemized a new order called American Democracy, but should we think of them only as “artificial traditions” because of the logic up there referring to its own use of ‘artificial traditions” in place of “law”?



This is like using Mathew’s gospel to prove the claim of virgin birth is true.
Which is Matthew’s gospel.



Lastly, in the 200 years or so of its existence, this document has been amended 27 times.

Are we to think this vulnerability to change any reason to not think of the Constitution as law?
All laws are guilty of this, throw scientific law in there as well.
Alabama, for example, has a law forbidding interracial marriage.
Spain and Canada have now made it legal for homosexuals to marry.
And Deuteronomy and Leviticus, in this author’s personal opinion one of the most juvenile attempts at codified law, would have everyone on the planet fry in hell were it not for the amendments of monsieur Jesus given in the New Testament.

All laws change in response to place and time. And do we not refer to them as laws?

So.

Occams’s razor.
Person A sounds tautological, could be the claim.
Person B sounds tautological, could be the claim.

Yet which one would you side with as closer to the truth?

Who gives a fuck? Fry us all and be done with it. If you will shoot me, I will let you. I will thank you. We could do it in a way that you may not be caught. :)

Could be fun for both of us.

"Who gives a fuck?"

I do, its why I wrote it.
Know what's more irritating than knowing we breathe the same air?
Clicking on my thread to find the reply's an empty, churlish one liner.
You know, like the name they wrote on your birth certificate.


Serious posts from now own, motherfuckers.

An interesting pair of opinions.
You're interested in a simple answer?
A or B?
Is the constitution law or tradition?
Well.
I'd have to say that it's a law. But the talk of tradition is rather interesting, but it could only be an informal understanding.

The Constitution is the foundation of Law.
If a thing is unconstitutional then it is illegal.
But. Just because a thing is illegal doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Right?

For instance. Growing pot isn't unconstitutional. George Washington himself was a pot farmer.

I tend to think of the term 'unconstitutional' more along the lines of a 'meta'.
In other words, one tries to pass a law but it's deemed 'unconstitutional'. To pass that law, one would have to change the constitution.

So. Really, it depends on what criteria one wishes to judge the argument with, I suppose.

A is literal. B is figurative.


I find B interesting in that it neatly synchs with what I've been reading recently. At the risk of being called a name dropper, let me find the quote:

Underneath all the phenomena of society is the great terra firma of custom, that bedrock of time-hallowed modes of thought and action which provides a society with some measure of steadiness and order through all absence, changes, and interruptions of law. Custom gives the same stability to the group that heredity and instinct give to the species, and habit to the individual. It is the routine that keeps men sane; for if there were no grooves along which thought and action might move with unconscious ease, the mind would be perpetually hesitant, and would soon take refuge in lunacy. A law of economy works in instinct and habit, in custom and convention: the most convenient mode of response to repeated stimuli or traditional situations is automatic response. Thought and innovation are disturbances of regularity, and are tolerated only for indispensable readaptations, or promised gold.

When to this natural basis of custom a supernatural sanction is added by religion, and the ways of one's ancestors are also the will of the gods, then custom becomes stronger than law, and subtracts substantially from primitive freedom. To violate law is to win the admiration of half the populace, who secretly envy anyone who can outwit this ancient enemy; to violate custom is to incur almost universal hostility. For custom rises out of the people, whereas law is forced upon them from above; law is usually a decree of the master, but custom is the natural selection of those modes of action that have been found most convenient in the experience of the group. Law partly replaces custom when the state replaces the natural order of the family, the clan, the tribe, and the village community; it more fully replaces custom when writing appears, and laws graduate from a code carried down in the memory of elders and priests into a system of legislation proclaimed in written tables. But the replacement is never complete; in the determination and judgment of human conduct custom remains to the end the force behind the law, the power behind the throne, the last "magistrate of men's lives."
--Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. I.
I like how B's concept of the Constitution being a sort of 'artificial' set of traditions by which a nation of disparate elements can be bound together.

However. Come to think of it...

The Declaration of Independence, I believe, would fit more into that category.

Consider also that the nation wasn't really a 'melting pot' at the time of the Revolution. There wasn't really much of a need for 'artificial tradition' at the time as normal custom would have sufficed quite well.

The largest split, at the time, was between North and South. But, back then the split was not as prominent as it would become in a hundred years.

Another split would be between the various religions. But, they were all Christian and had the same basic base of custom.

So.
Nah.

A.
I'll go with A.

But B is definitely interesting and worth exploring more deeply.

Gendanken,

And. I guess I really should mention that this is the second or third time you've lured me into a thread with the promise of bare anatomy.

That's really not fair.


Cottontop,

Heh.
You a funny guy.
Shoo.

Cottontop3000:

Strike one.

Invert:
But B is definitely interesting and worth exploring more deeply.
Of course, both points are valid.

The contention simply is over whether something like The Constution is a legal document or not.
What B is saying is in so many words Durant's theme:


Custom gives the same stability to the group that heredity and instinct give to the species, and habit to the individual

For custom rises out of the people, whereas law is forced upon them from above; law is usually a decree of the master, but custom is the natural selection of those modes of action that have been found most convenient in the experience of the group. Law partly replaces custom when the state replaces the natural order of the family, the clan, the tribe, and the village community


Decrees are more like absorptions of underlying custom, and rained back down on the people as Law.

By this definition up there, isn't the Constitution the decree? And thereby, law?

The Declaration of Independence, I believe, would fit more into that category.

Good point. And, well damn.
Should have thought of it.

Speak for yourself cottontop.

Anyway...

Let me start with my impression of what law is:

Law is what an organization dubbed "a government" deems to be rejectable behavior or mandates of its people or their resources. The government may impose this on its constituents.

So the constitution is law.

Gendanken,

By this definition up there, isn't the Constitution the decree? And thereby, law?


Exactly. I was just thinking the same thing, but thought I'd let you respond first before editing it in.
If the Constitution were an attempt to push an 'artificial' custom on the people, then it would be identical to Law. Pushed down from above.


Good point. And, well damn.
Should have thought of it.

Were you B?
I would have sworn you were A.
Interesting.

Cottontop3000:

Strike one.

let's go straight to three. How soon can you get to West Texas? I'll show you my definition of law.


Good point. And, well damn.
Should have thought of it.
Nobody's perfect.

Wesmorris:
Law is what an organization dubbed "a government" deems to be rejectable behavior or mandates of its people or their resources. The government may impose this on its constituents.

So the constitution is law.
1 for A.
"Government" being any collective- small or large- of authority.
The Levites Arron and Moses were a government.

If the Constitution were an attempt to push an 'artificial' custom on the people, then it would be identical to Law. Pushed down from above.

Another for A.

That's 2 so far casting a ballot for A.

Cottontop:
Strike two.

Wesmorris:

1 for A.
"Government" being a small collective of authority.
The Levites Arron and Moses were a govenemnet.


Another for A.

That's 2 so far casting a ballot for A.

Cottontop:
Strike two.

Olay, genderbender!! But before I get cut off, I'll take A, B, and C for $100. Goodbye, cruel world!

Gendanken,

And. I guess I really should mention that this is the second or third time you've lured me into a thread with the promise of bare anatomy.

That's really not fair.


constitution and law are like a pair of TITS, cheeks of a hum**g*osu*something butt, etc.

..someone can do something against the spirit of constitution but getaway through the loopholes in the law.

..someone can do something against the spirit of constitution but getaway through the loopholes in the law.

True enough.
But. Can't someone break a law and get away with it through a loophole in other laws? Neither set of laws having anything whatsoever to do with the constitution (other than being ultimately based upon it.)

The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the citizens' rights to life, liberty and property. Its enforccement prevents the government, or agents thereof from violating those rights. A cop (government agent) who takes your property without due process is violating the Constitution. Johnny Thug who steals your wallet is breaking the law.

Perhaps one can say that laws protect people from people, the Constitution protects people from the government.

I see the second as saying something along the lines of this:
The laws based upon the constituion and the legal system that inforces them would be meaningless if not placed in the context of the society that the constitution creates. The constitution would still have meaning as it exists outside of that system. It acts as a set of instructions for setting up that society and legal system that would give those laws meaning.

As such I can see how the constitution could be viewed as not a legal document.

Chunky,

Perhaps one can say that laws protect people from people, the Constitution protects people from the government.

Interesting interpretation. And one that seems to go back to my idea of the term 'unconstitutional' being a 'meta'. In other words, it is about laws rather than being law itself. It's the law of the law.

However, while the recursive structure makes the Constitution a meta-law, it would still be closer to A than to B.


Mephura,

A valid point, yes. But could that be more than an informal understanding of the situation? It could be viewed as not a legal document. But it is a legal document nonetheless. Perhaps the only way to view it as not a legal document would be to remove it from society and look at it on its own somewhere.

Like the Magna Carta. The society in which the Magna Carta had significance is no more. So. One could build a new society based upon the Magna Carta. But, is this likely to happen? And what changes would have to take place? Both in the document itself and within the society being formed.

The US Constitution was written in a specific time, in a specific place. The likelihood of it being used by a people to create a new society is neglible. It could be used as the basis or inspiration for such an undertaking. But to do so, it would be interpreted and altered to fit the precepts of the new society. Even if that society were the people that now make up the United States themselves. If we were to form a new country today, the likelihood of us accepting the identical Constitution as its premier legal document is neglible.

This is why I brought up the Declaration of Independence as more indicative of what Gendanken was saying about artificial tradition to glue a society together. The Declaration has no literal power. It's words. And words only. But it's words that stir men's souls. An American who hears those words, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union,...." That speaks directly to you. It lifts you up and joins you with your neighbor. We the people. It's that ties. And it does so in an informal manner. It is not a law being pressed down from above. But rather words uttered by a man. By one of the People. And accepted by the others in near-unanimous consent. Even the exact words don't matter as it's not a legal document. It's the sentiment behind the thing that binds.

The Constitution is a legal document as it's wording matters. The precise nature of the words matters precisely. It is pored over by teams of legal experts every day. In any use of the constitution outside of its legal use, the exact wording would no longer be necessary. And thus, in forming a new society, the exact wording would change to suit the times. To suit the People.

See?

Yes, I see.

Everno:
someone can do something against the spirit of constitution but getaway through the loopholes in the law.
And dogdge that law with a crack in another one.
And then doge that law with a loophole in another one.

Ask yourself why this coutnry is crawling with Mexicans.

Chunkylover:
The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the citizens' rights to life, liberty and property. Its enforccement prevents the government, or agents thereof from violating those rights. A cop (government agent) who takes your property without due process is violating the Constitution. Johnny Thug who steals your wallet is breaking the law.

Good point.

But isn't property infringement by a cop or a common criminal both penalized by a code we call law?
Irregardless of one being held to federal standards and the other to local ones.

They're both checked by standards codified as Law.
That’s what this whole...affair...is about.
Does saying “unconstitutional” instead of “illegal”, for example, mean one of them is not technically law?
The term ‘unconstitutional” is also most commonly used when debating a proposal, for example, where the nation determines its legitimacy based off the Constitution. Its only after a proposal becomes a bill and then passes as law that we use the term ‘illegal’.

The label has changed, but what is hasn’t.
Someone's compared this to pickles and cucumbers. They're both the same vegetable but once processed, something else.
Yet they're the same vegetable.
Yet processed, become something else.
But still are both the same vegetable.
Or am I insane?

Or am I insane?

For the sake of the sane I certainly hope so....

As for law..
The only laws I obey are my own. By some strange twist of fate, however, they coincide for the most part with those laws enforced by the local judiciary.
With some notable exceptions, of course.

I happen to live in a place with an unwritten constitution. Can't you tell?
Just another pointless ejaculation but thats me all over.
Dee cee

The most interesting thing about this thread isn’t so much the usage of sexual imagery as bait but the accompanying usage of member aliases in the title, as if both were intended to entice participation and to ensure interest from particular people.

Perhaps the purpose wasn’t entirely to incite interest in the thread as it was to…..

But I have diverted from the topic.

Are you thinking what I think you're thinking? If so, it comes as no surprise.

Satyr, my ancient friend.

Since when have you and Arditezza drank the same toilet water? Stupid question but you know, the kind infecting all its drinkers with obsessions over forum politcs and people.
You were, you lost, you lose.
Fuck off.

Deecee:
I happen to live in a place with an unwritten constitution. Can't you tell?

Intersting. Where?

Southstar:
Are you thinking what I think you're thinking? If so, it comes as no surprise.
The only time you've ever done real thinking was in that thread of yours
questioning your Jesus.

Intersting. Where?

Here in the UK.

We prefer to make it up as we go along.
Dee Cee

your highness
Satyr, my ancient friend.I am more than ancient, I’m primordial.
It would seem that you think I have the same fear for time, as you do.
That’s where you show your arrogance.

Just because every birthday makes you fall into a depression doesn’t mean that everyone has such a relationship with mortality.
I sort of look forward to it, sometimes.

Since when have you and Arditezza drank the same toilet water?Who the hell is Arditezza?

Stupid question but you know, the kind infecting all its drinkers with obsessions over forum politcs and people.The thing about politics is that it's infinitely entertaining. Especially when those participating actually believe they are here for anything but that.

Human behaviour is fascinating. I cannot get enough.
Where else can you study the species without being accused of voyeurism and staring?

You were, you lost, you lose.I lost?!
According to whom and by what standard?

Lost?
Lost what.
I wasn’t aware we were playing for something. You certainly spend enough time pretending you don’t.

I mean if you aren’t interested in Forum politics and you don’t enjoy them sniffing your behind or you don’t see how your casual inclusion of your alias and the word Tits in the title doesn’t expose you, then how are you playing to win?

Do you know how you can tell who most fears losing?
He/she’s the one declaring victory when no final whistle has been blown.
Have you actually fallen for your entourage’s declarations of victory as proof enough?

The fault all royalty falls into is that it eventually and no matter how it resists, actually starts believing in the bullshit its footmen and ‘yes men’ caress them with.

Fuck off.Forgive my intrusion I was just passing by, it was raining so I dropped by.

I leave you now to pretend that law and order is your interest.

Who the hell is Arditezza?

Your mother.

Make up your mind, will you? Either one plays to win, does not play at all, or plays for the losing.
Which is which?

edit:
See how nice I am?
Went back to edit a "VAGINA" in the thread title just foryou, but sadly, one cannot do so.

gendanken
Your mother.Mommy? Is that you?

Make up your mind, will you?Make up my mind?
What a nice way to deflect responsibility.
My “mind’ was made up a loooong time ago.

You are still forming your resolutions.
I envy you.

Either one plays to win, does not play at all, or plays for the losing.
Which is which?Dear Queen, what are the rules, who is the referee and what are the stakes?

Shall we keep score by how many lick our boots or send us private messages?
Then your vagina offers you a distinct advantage and every stupidity you utter seems like nectar to the starving bee.

I have not been privy to the dealings in your innermost chambers, but I’ve seen the simultaneous exchanges and I can imagine the essence of events through induction and deduction.
I have the cleverness of the ‘ancient’ and the experience to have faith in my insights.

Are we playing for Sciforum Kingdom itself?!
Who shall declare the winner?
Certainly not one of your entourage and your noble footmen that follow your shadow and keep your dress from being soiled.

But you overestimate me.
I am far from capable of challenging your Excellency within her own Kingdom.
I am only here for entertainment and subject matters not.

Come on Gendanken, I know I got to strike 3, at least. What is my prize?

Is there an absolute definition of law? I've never thought there was. Is that a new idea at all?

Cottontop:
What is my prize?
A little secret.

See that little name up there, that's shown up out of nowhere attempting to stir trouble?
He embodies a certain strain of humanity that believed in the heroic, the absolute, the "noble" and right and found he swallowed his own snake oil.
Now, he spends his time following others around sniffing their mind for his name in it.

He's the Unferth to my Grendel:

"In contrast to the drunken lurching of the others, Unferth comes toward Grendel with speeches...He is a puffed up as a peacock, proud and ready to die for his king, his people, his ideal. Grendel simply states, "He was one of those." Grendel sees Unferth with a clear and unbiased mind. Unferth is ridiculous. His exaggerated heroism, his words, even his first move, to scuttle sideways like a crab from thirty feet away, is laughable. Grendel does with him what he does with no other Dane in the story, he talks. "

See that, “Satyr”?
Your mistaking the living shit out of the word 'game' tells one you don't see it.

Which means you are simply 'one of those'. Its a silly quack who plays a game playing him.
Now, you have the choice of continuing that little sideway scuttle of yours you got going there following me around like a spineless crab...or, like I said up there, fuck off.


Truthseeker:
Is there an absolute definition of law? I've never thought there was. Is that a new idea at all?
Come to think, given their fickle nature, both Persons A and B are wrong.

Laws are given as absolute, they're written as absolute, and we talk about them as definitive.
When they are not, given their fluidity. So both person A and B are, like every last Christian and Hindu and Mormon, stupid to be speak of law as an in-itself (http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sartre_theses2.html)

Point to ponder:
Mormonism is a religion based off the dictates of an angel.
Whose name was Moroni.

So here we have an entire religion based on a Moroni.

Cottontop
A little secret.

See that little name up there, that's shown up out of nowhere attempting to stir trouble?Oh shit! I think she’s referring to me. I’m so excited.
It isn’t everyday that her highness singles out someone for some of her special ridicule.

Let's read on....

He embodies a certain strain of humanity that believed in the heroic, the absolute, the "noble" and right and found he swallowed his own snake oil.I did? I mean…I did!!
She sees so much.

Now, he spends his time following others around sniffing their mind for his name in it.I think she might….oh my Gawd…mention my….I can’t take it….name…….
Wait for it…….

See that, “Satyr”?YES!!!!
Who-da-man?!
WHO-DA-MAN?!!!!!

Aaaaaaaah….I feel so, absolutely and ideally contented now.

Your mistaking the living shit out of the word 'game' tells one you don't see it.Is that the game…where I’m the joke and I don’t even know it, yet?!

Which means you are simply 'one of those'. What…homo?!
Oh, please decipher your code for me.
Tell me what I am.

I’ll die in ignorance otherwise.

Begin by telling me why the title contains the word Tits in it – that one is easy – and a reference to your self in the third person.

Tell me, please.
My tiny mind could never understand such noble gestures.

Its a silly quack who plays a game playing him.I knew it!!!
It’s one of those reverse… thingamajigies.
The con being conned, the fool being fooled, the clown being clowned?...no that doesn’t work.

And behind all of it….the one and only, drum roll please…….This is why this is, was and ever will be your Kingdom.

I bow to thee.

Now, you have the choice of continuing that little sideway scuttle of yours you got going there following me around like a spineless crab...Me and a multitude of others, my Queen.

It must be because of your…mind. Such an impressive mind.

Now watch her use subtle means to show disdain.
“” marks, an inability to speak a name, and all sorts of clever tricks.

Hush!
Is that the footman approaching, Cotton, or is that her butler, the silent shadow?

Cottontop:

A little secret.

I'm waiting with baited breath.

I should have talked about gaping holes rather than loopholes in law.

That is the absence of any law to proceed against someone who did something that is not 'illegal' (ofcourse) but against the constitution. Politicians invent & do such things often. The supreme court can take cognition of such actions and declare them unconstitutional and demand the legislature() to enact required laws to prevent recurrences. Though the supreme court ruling is sufficient to identify, in future, whether any such occurence is unconstitutional, legal proceedings against those involved need a law. Laws are evolving around the constitution(amended,if necessary).

Is there any legislature in the world where the constitution ensures equality of sexes (in spirit, it is about equal participation in 50:50 ratio, right?) but no law or act to enforce the equality that is male:female ratio to be maintained as 50:50 in legislature or in govt or anywhere? If not, why?

Come to think, given their fickle nature, both Persons A and B are wrong.
???

Laws are given as absolute, they're written as absolute, and we talk about them as definitive.
Yes, absolutely. But who decides that? Is the ones who decide the laws wise? Isn't there a problem with the laws, given that those that decide them are not perfect?

When they are not, given their fluidity.
I suppose all laws have some degree of fluidity to them...

So both person A and B are, like every last Christian and Hindu and Mormon, stupid to be speak of law as an in-itself (http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sartre_theses2.html)
Why are we talking about religion here? Is it because laws have a religious origin? Well, I'm talking about laws today, though.

Everno:

Ok.
I've read your post twice over. You are saying...what exactly?
At any rate, its been somewhat settled. This thread was a point of contention between me and Mephura, persons A and B respectively.

Person B has conceded the point.

Truthseeker:
Yes, absolutely. But who decides that? Is the ones who decide the laws wise? Isn't there a problem with the laws, given that those that decide them are not perfect?


If you agree...then why the tree question marks?

Isn't there more problem with no law at all? My relative stance on alot of things aside, I'd rather live in a world high on the smoke of illusion than one existentially sobered on the meanignlessness of the universe.

Even if living in a Goya-esque landscape would be far more interesting than this shit hole.
Why are we talking about religion here? Is it because laws have a religious origin? Well, I'm talking about laws today, though.
No, padre.

Analogies. Discussing god using the vocaburaly of god without fully understanig nor defining what god is the same as debating what law is using the word 'law'.

Cottontop:
I'm waiting with baited breath.
I'd rather you let me crush your spine and sprinkle my cheerios with the ashes, asshole.

Cottontop:

I'd rather you let me crush your spine and sprinkle my cheerios with the ashes, asshole.

Asshole? Me? Not really. Just merciless when I'm clamped on to your back-side.

I... do believe this is the first time I've ever heard a mouse squeak about being merciless. Kinda reminds me of your little friend up there with the horns.

I'm in a foul, ratty mood anyway so why not?
So.
Tell me, mucine one.
What's your problem with me?

I... do believe this is the first time I've ever heard a mouse squeak about being merciless. Kinda reminds me of your little friend up there with the horns.

I'm in a foul, ratty mood anyway so why not?
So.
Tell me, mucine one.
What's your problem with me?

Me, with a friend? Hardly. How could you possibly think so?

I just thought you were supposed to be evil. Guess not.

Libel.
I'm the most loving, sweet, obediant little Christian on the fucking planet.


Thread's dead.

-Gendanken

no baby. zed's dead.

If you agree...then why the tree question marks?
I agreed with your perception- not your remark. I agree to the fact that that is how law is perceived- as absolute. But it isn't. If you right a law saying that from now on all pigs should fly, it ain't gonna happen. Human law is not absolute- nature's law is.

Isn't there more problem with no law at all?
It depends. In a world without virtue, that is quite true. But when childlike innocence is preserved, law becomes obsolete.

My relative stance on alot of things aside, I'd rather live in a world high on the smoke of illusion than one existentially sobered on the meanignlessness of the universe.
It is the meaninglessness of the universe that makes it meaningful.

Analogies. Discussing god using the vocaburaly of god without fully understanig nor defining what god is the same as debating what law is using the word 'law'.
O...k... Then how do you propose to discuss law without using the word law?

Oh... and please tell me what the heck do your tits have to do with anything...

That's something your 'wife' is going to have to teach you about,Truthy.
Or maybe you can bat granny's floppy tits around a little.


Oh.
Gendanken,

Meph rolled over?
Coward.
I still think the concept had merit in a figurative sense. Of course, literally, the constitution is a legal document, but his notion of artificial custom is intriguing.
Pity nobody really wanted to talk about it.
Yes or no, eh?
A or B?

I guess I should have said C. Maybe that would have spurred more conversation?

That's something your 'wife' is going to have to teach you about,Truthy.
Or maybe you can bat granny's floppy tits around a little.
I asked gendaken, not you, Mr. lonely man. I pity your lack of toy, btw... :rolleyes:

If it wasn't for that little thing, between your legs, that repulse women, you would probably be less bitter... :rolleyes:

Whassamatta? Granny stop putting out?

Can you plese grow up, loser?
I mean... if you can't get girls because your penis is so small, why don't you get rich to compensate or something. I mean... wasting your time in an internet forum is not going to do anything to your life.

What a loser...!

Yup. Definitely got some granny deprivation going on. It's ok. We all understand. Don't worry. Plenty of grannies in the sea.

I mean... wasting your time in an internet forum is not going to do anything to your life.

What a loser...!
And yet here YOU are. Funny that huh?

Come to think, given their fickle nature, both Persons A and B are wrong.

Laws are given as absolute, they're written as absolute, and we talk about them as definitive.
Law is meant to be left open to interpretation. It is written in a definitive way but the way the courts and society itself perceives it is not definitive. I wouldn't even say it was fluid. We'd like to think that it is, but in reality it is not.

The constitution is meant to be fluid as it's meant to adapt to the coming generations and times, but even that is questionable. The founding father's wrote the constitution in the hope that it will be used as a guide.. a standard if you will. However today we look at the constitution of our own individual countries and ask ourselves if it still applies. I still remember one of my lecturers ranting about the hands of the past coming to guide us on our way but in reality those hands did not guide, merely haunt.

Both A and B are as wrong as they are correct. If the constitution and the laws that have stemmed from it were as absolute, then life today would be a nightmare. But in saying that, the fluidity we like to think that the constitution exists within does not really exist. It's fluid in how it is interpreted but not in how it was written. If we don't like something in the Constitution, it is ammended... thereby denying the fluidity envisioned upon its original writing. Each Government interprets the Constitution to serve their own purposes. Laws are created at the foot of the constitution for further perpetrate the desires of the Government of the day. The higher courts of the land are also open to interpreting the laws of today to the constitution of yesterday. Their interpretation depends on the Government of today. It's a vicious circle really and sadly never ending.

Yup. Definitely got some granny deprivation going on. It's ok. We all understand. Don't worry. Plenty of grannies in the sea.
Well, if you are deprived of grannies, why don't you go looking for one in an asylum?

And yet here YOU are. Funny that huh?
Yes. But I have a wife and a kid. invert has nothing. He is just a bitter lonely man. Big difference there...

Truthseeker.
Relax.
I'm just yanking your chain.
What's your problem with tea bagginn granny anyway?
Grannies need tea bags, too, you know.

For what it's worth, douche bag (my new favorite pejorative), I hope things work out for you. I hope you're not just making up this whole wife and kids thing. And I hope that she's not just using you. And I hope that you live happily ever after.

I also hope that your brain cells start functioning in a normal manner someday and you understand what a doofus you are sometimes (most of the time.) But. What you are, Truthseeker, is an innocent.

The Fool of the Tarot deck is the beginning of the journey. The blank page. Tabla Rasa.

The Fool is portrayed as a fair-haired boy skipping gaily along. Tote-sack at his shoulder. Eyes on the sky. Stepping over a cliff. With vicious animals nipping at his heels.

The Fool is not a bad thing to be. The fool is embarking on a great journey through the Tarot which will eventually culminate in The World (if I remember right. Been a long time since I've broken out my tarot deck.)

But. The Fool is just the first step, Truthseeker.

Remember that.

What people find endlessly annoying is not your foolishness or your crazy miscomprehended ideas. It's your arrogance.

The Fool is not arrogant, Truthseeker. Yet you refuse to consider your own fallibility even when your nose is rubbed in it so hard that you look like a skull face with a gaping nasal cavity.

You'll probably take offense to what I'm saying. But I assure you that I'm not being mean or bitter in this. I'm tapped into all the positive life force that does flow through me (despite you thinking I'm so bitter) and I'm offering you advice from the heart.

Listen or don't.
It most likely will never be repeated.


Now.

....
Wait.
Who the fuck?
Some crazy ass long-haired wild-eyed jungle man lookin' fucker was just in here typing at my keyboard. I chased him off with a pickaxe.

Wonder what he was saying?
Hmm.

Probably something about Truthseeker getting his kicks from tea bagging grandpa. (Better? See. I changed it. Just for you. Or maybe you'd like Grandpa to tea bag you?)

Hey! You actually have a brain!
Let's see...

Truthseeker.
Relax.
I'm just yanking your chain.
Which chain?

What's your problem with tea bagginn granny anyway?
Grannies need tea bags, too, you know.
It sounds retarded.

For what it's worth, douche bag (my new favorite pejorative), I hope things work out for you. I hope you're not just making up this whole wife and kids thing. And I hope that she's not just using you. And I hope that you live happily ever after.
Well. Thank you. I guess.
What about you. Do you have anybody? Or you will just ignore my comments?

I also hope that your brain cells start functioning in a normal manner someday and you understand what a doofus you are sometimes (most of the time.)
I know I'm a doofus. I'm always relaxed and enjoy life, without giving a shit what other people think about me. I'm free to be whoever I am.

But. What you are, Truthseeker, is an innocent.
Oh really? And what makes you think that way? My analysis of the government and the world order? Or the way I think about religion and spirituality?

The Fool of the Tarot deck is the beginning of the journey. The blank page. Tabla Rasa.
You don't even know what is my card. But ok. I like the fool- it's a good card.

The Fool is portrayed as a fair-haired boy skipping gaily along. Tote-sack at his shoulder. Eyes on the sky. Stepping over a cliff. With vicious animals nipping at his heels.
Well, that's in a more negative perspective. The Fool is also open to new ideas. It also initiates new things. Yes, it is prone to mistakes, but that is because the Fool is always trying new things. The Fool is also a leader, a pioneer. It can be compared to the astrologic sign of Aries.

The Fool is not a bad thing to be. The fool is embarking on a great journey through the Tarot which will eventually culminate in The World (if I remember right. Been a long time since I've broken out my tarot deck.)
Yes, that is right. But once again, I ask you- do you even know which card represents me? Why don't you do the calculations and find out?

What do you need to do that? My birth date, if I remember correctly....: 04/04/1984

But. The Fool is just the first step, Truthseeker.
The last step of a journey is often the first step of the next.

Remember that.
You remember what I just said.

What people find endlessly annoying is not your foolishness or your crazy miscomprehended ideas. It's your arrogance.
"My" "arrogance" is a reflexion of yours. I'm as transparent as water.

The Fool is not arrogant, Truthseeker. Yet you refuse to consider your own fallibility even when your nose is rubbed in it so hard that you look like a skull face with a gaping nasal cavity.
I am fallible. Thank God. Otherwise, I would be perfect, and that means I would not have space to improve, which would be very boring.

You'll probably take offense to what I'm saying. But I assure you that I'm not being mean or bitter in this. I'm tapped into all the positive life force that does flow through me (despite you thinking I'm so bitter) and I'm offering you advice from the heart.
What are you now, some kind of monk? :D

Listen or don't.
It most likely will never be repeated.
Well, I prefer your serious self. The rest seem a waste of time.

Now.

....
Wait.
Who the fuck?
Some crazy ass long-haired wild-eyed jungle man lookin' fucker was just in here typing at my keyboard. I chased him off with a pickaxe.

Wonder what he was saying?
Hmm.

Probably something about Truthseeker getting his kicks from tea bagging grandpa. (Better? See. I changed it. Just for you. Or maybe you'd like Grandpa to tea bag you?)
You are too silly...

Yes. But I have a wife and a kid. invert has nothing. He is just a bitter lonely man. Big difference there...
What? Your wife has already given birth? What is she, a mosquito or something? You have a wife and a child on the way. Now you claim with glee that you have a wife... so again, why are you on here? Lording it over everyone with 'look at me.. look at me I is all married now'? You remind me of some brainless bimbo who finally gets engaged and walks around with her left hand out in front of her so that everyone can ooohh and aaahh over her ring and know that she's 'made it' cos she's snagged herself a man.

And how do you know invert is a bitter lonely man? I personally think he's quite charming actually. You on the other hand I find annoying as a gnat.

What about you. Do you have anybody? Or you will just ignore my comments?
What business is it of yours whether he does or not? Just because he does not publish his utmost personal and intimate details on an internet forum like you, do you assume he does not? You even went so far as to give details about your sex life and you expect others to do the same so that you can figure out if they have a life?

I'm always relaxed and enjoy life, without giving a shit what other people think about me. I'm free to be whoever I am.
You don't give a shit about what people think of you but you use your wife and the fact that you're married as a shield and a benchmark by which you expect people to like you and see you as being better.

Oh really? And what makes you think that way? My analysis of the government and the world order? Or the way I think about religion and spirituality?
I think he means that you still think like a child. As someone who has not matured to the age of reasoning as yet.

Well, that's in a more negative perspective. The Fool is also open to new ideas. It also initiates new things. Yes, it is prone to mistakes, but that is because the Fool is always trying new things. The Fool is also a leader, a pioneer. It can be compared to the astrologic sign of Aries.
Good Lord! :rolleyes:

"My" "arrogance" is a reflexion of yours. I'm as transparent as water.
Where does one even begin... Your arrogance stems from what invert has politely referred to as your innocence. And your transparency is as distorted and warped as looking at something through water. You may think you are projecting yourself a certain way, but you actually appear as something else entirely.

What are you now, some kind of monk?
You should actually start paying attention.

Bells,

i take it there is a long history between you, invert, truthseeker, gendanken, water (aka Rosa, etc.), Satyr, Kotoko, Wanderer, etc., etc., and I will not even presume to know that history, but why do you guys pick on truthseeker so much? Is there something I don't know. Is he as young as he appears to be? If so, why the attitude you guys appear to take with him? Are you that young as well? Curious mind wants to know. :)

i take it there is a long history between you, invert, truthseeker, gendanken, water (aka Rosa, etc.), Satyr, Kotoko, Wanderer, etc., etc., and I will not even presume to know that history,
Long history? I wouldn't say so. We all simply post on the same forum and tend to know each other's limits I guess. To say that there was a history would imply a relationship and I personally don't think there is one.

but why do you guys pick on truthseeker so much?
Pick on him? Do we? Hmmm...

Is there something I don't know. Is he as young as he appears to be?
I wouldn't know if there was something you didn't know. And is he as young as he appears to be? He claims to be so but he acts as someone much younger.

If so, why the attitude you guys appear to take with him?
What attitude would that be? We tease him but everyone here is guilty of teasing and making fun of everyone else so that's a moot point in a way. We abuse him sometimes but again, everyone is guilty of doing that to others as well sometimes. We offer him help if he genuinely asks for it as everyone does with everyone else when they ask. In short, I at least treat him as I treat everyone else on here.

Are you that young as well?
No I'm not that young as well. I'm merely socially and morally immature. ;)

In all honesty, I don't hate TS. However I am honest with him when I need to be.

Long history? I wouldn't say so. We all simply post on the same forum and tend to know each other's limits I guess. To say that there was a history would imply a relationship and I personally don't think there is one. Fair enough.


Pick on him? Do we? Hmmm... I would say that some do.

I wouldn't know if there was something you didn't know. :) Yeah, guess you wouldn't. I was just thinking that he might be older and playing a role of some sort as a youngster. With all his posts, it just made me wonder.

And is he as young as he appears to be? He claims to be so but he acts as someone much younger.
Hmmmm. Fair nuff.

What attitude would that be? We tease him but everyone here is guilty of teasing and making fun of everyone else so that's a moot point in a way. We abuse him sometimes but again, everyone is guilty of doing that to others as well sometimes. We offer him help if he genuinely asks for it as everyone does with everyone else when they ask. In short, I at least treat him as I treat everyone else on here. Yep, I would agree with that.


No I'm not that young as well. I'm merely socially and morally immature. ;)
LOL!
In all honesty, I don't hate TS. However I am honest with him when I need to be. Best way to be, imo.

Bells,

i take it there is a long history between you, invert, truthseeker, gendanken, water (aka Rosa, etc.), Satyr, Kotoko, Wanderer, etc., etc., and I will not even presume to know that history, but why do you guys pick on truthseeker so much? Is there something I don't know. Is he as young as he appears to be? If so, why the attitude you guys appear to take with him? Are you that young as well? Curious mind wants to know. :)

Because he begs for it.

He's a bona-fide nitwit.

Holy crap you should dig through some old threads to see just how bad it gets. It's bad. Very, very bad.

What? Your wife has already given birth?
Oh God...
My kid is IN HER BELLY! Jeeeesus... :rolleyes:

You have a wife and a child on the way.
DUUUUUHHH! That's what I said!

Now you claim with glee that you have a wife... so again, why are you on here? Lording it over everyone with 'look at me.. look at me I is all married now'? You remind me of some brainless bimbo who finally gets engaged and walks around with her left hand out in front of her so that everyone can ooohh and aaahh over her ring and know that she's 'made it' cos she's snagged herself a man.
That's because a lot of people here doubted me, and guess what? They were wrong. And I've made that quite clear.

And how do you know invert is a bitter lonely man?
Because he makes it a little bit way too obvious...? :rolleyes:

I personally think he's quite charming actually.
You have a straaaange taste.

You on the other hand I find annoying as a gnat.
Yeah, whatever. It is not like I care.

What business is it of yours whether he does or not? Just because he does not publish his utmost personal and intimate details on an internet forum like you,
Ah... let's stop here. I don't post intimate details. I'm sure many people here tell others that they are married or having kids. Everyone talks about those things. And I don't care about his history, but he does seem lonely after all...

do you assume he does not? You even went so far as to give details about your sex life
I didn't. You are inventing things.

and you expect others to do the same so that you can figure out if they have a life?
No, I don't. I don't care about his life. But he acts very strangely and I wonder about it.

You don't give a shit about what people think of you but you use your wife and the fact that you're married as a shield and a benchmark by which you expect people to like you and see you as being better.
Not at all. People here used to say that I would never have a girlfriend. Now that I have a wife and she is pregnant, I made that quite clear and disproved all of you. That ends here. I don't need to tell you any details- why would I want?

I think he means that you still think like a child. As someone who has not matured to the age of reasoning as yet.
Oh! I'm sure he acts and speaks like one... :rolleyes:

Good Lord!
And you don't know anything about Tarot, do you?

Where does one even begin... Your arrogance stems from what invert has politely referred to as your innocence. And your transparency is as distorted and warped as looking at something through water. You may think you are projecting yourself a certain way, but you actually appear as something else entirely.
Think whatever you want to- it want change what is true.

I guess I have the right to have my voice....
i take it there is a long history between you, invert, truthseeker, gendanken, water (aka Rosa, etc.), Satyr, Kotoko, Wanderer, etc., etc.,
Not so much with Bellls, Satyr, Kotoko and Wanderer...

and I will not even presume to know that history, but why do you guys pick on truthseeker so much?
I would guess they pick on me because I make their imperfections clear, exposing them as if they were naked...

Is there something I don't know.
About our history? A lot.

Is he as young as he appears to be?
It depends on whose perspective. Some people have thought I was way older then I actually am. It appears to depend more on the person than on myself.

Are you that young as well?
I would guess most of them are much younger then they say they are... :rolleyes:

Because he begs for it.

He's a bona-fide nitwit.

Holy crap you should dig through some old threads to see just how bad it gets. It's bad. Very, very bad.
Like blatantly disproving your hypothesis...? :rolleyes:

That's because a lot of people here doubted me, and guess what? They were wrong. And I've made that quite clear.

I thought you said you didn't care what people on here said or thought about you?

Because he makes it a little bit way too obvious...?
Does he? How so? Because I've seen invert posting here for a long long time now and that is the last impression I've ever had of him.

Yeah, whatever. It is not like I care.
Oh but you do. You care about what everyone on here thinks about you. You seek everyone's approval and you constantly try to prove to everyone how you are not what they say you are.

Ah... let's stop here. I don't post intimate details. I'm sure many people here tell others that they are married or having kids. Everyone talks about those things. And I don't care about his history, but he does seem lonely after all...
Really? You don't post intimate details? Shall I remind you of your Guess who's getting married (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46707&page=2&pp=20) thread for starters? TS you have gone far beyond merely stating that you are married and have kids. You've given enough details that people were figuring out your wife's menstrual cycle.

As for his history, again, why is it your business? If you feel happy about plasting your history on this forum, does not mean that everyone should be the same. You think he seems lonely yet here you are also on this forum. You appear to spend more time in here than he does. You don't care about his history but you just want to know so that you can compare.

I didn't. You are inventing things.
Am I? Refer to above fool. Hell, you even told everyone on the forum how many tries it took for your wife to get pregnant. You don't think that's personal?

Not at all. People here used to say that I would never have a girlfriend. Now that I have a wife and she is pregnant, I made that quite clear and disproved all of you. That ends here. I don't need to tell you any details- why would I want?
You don't care what we think or say about you, yet you feel compelled to prove how wrong they all were about you? If you didn't care, you wouldn't feel the need to disprove. You don't need to tell us any details and I believe I've told you several times in some of your posts and threads that you really should spare the details.. but you do give details and you do want to do so because you think that it disproves what is said about you.

Oh! I'm sure he acts and speaks like one...
I was talking about you TS...

Think whatever you want to- it want change what is true.
I do think whatever I want to and you are quite correct, it will not change what is true... Much as you may deny it, it doesn't change a single thing.

I would guess they pick on me because I make their imperfections clear, exposing them as if they were naked...
HAHAHAHAAAA HAHAAAAAA A AAAAAAA...

breath..

HAHAAAAHAHAHAAA AAAAAAHHAAAAAAAAAAA..

GENADNKEN WILL YOu BE MY ONLINE GIRLFRIEND????

I thought you said you didn't care what people on here said or thought about you?
I don't. But I don't see any reason not to disclose the fact that I'm married and my wife is pregnant. What is wrong with that? It is not like I'm making an effort to prove or disprove anything... :rolleyes:

Does he? How so? Because I've seen invert posting here for a long long time now and that is the last impression I've ever had of him.
Well, he post the same insults over and over again. It doesn't seem like he has anything better to do. And then, when I call him a lonely man he just ignores it. It makes it look true.

Oh but you do. You care about what everyone on here thinks about you. You seek everyone's approval and you constantly try to prove to everyone how you are not what they say you are.
No, I don't. So whatever.

Really? You don't post intimate details? Shall I remind you of your Guess who's getting married (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46707&page=2&pp=20) thread for starters?
Which intimate details are you talking about?

TS you have gone far beyond merely stating that you are married and have kids. You've given enough details that people were figuring out your wife's menstrual cycle.
Wrong- they were trying to figure that out with the information taht I had given them. And, of course, they came to me and said that the kid wasn't mine, because they didn't have enough information. And nothing matters really, because that is the only thing that they wanted to "prove". So who cares? I always wanted to have a kid. And I most likely will. The first trimester is almost gone. After that, there's almost no chance of miscarriage.

The amount of information I provided was the normal amount that people do when they talk to each other.

As for his history, again, why is it your business? If you feel happy about plasting your history on this forum, does not mean that everyone should be the same. You think he seems lonely yet here you are also on this forum.
That's irrelevant. His attitude is relevant- not the amount of time that he spends here.

You appear to spend more time in here than he does. You don't care about his history but you just want to know so that you can compare.
What the fuck are you talking about? I never thought about comparing histories. That is a waste of time.
Am I? Refer to above fool. Hell, you even told everyone on the forum how many tries it took for your wife to get pregnant. You don't think that's personal?

You don't care what we think or say about you, yet you feel compelled to prove how wrong they all were about you?
No- I do that naturally.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't feel the need to disprove.
I don't feel the need to disprove.

You don't need to tell us any details and I believe I've told you several times in some of your posts and threads that you really should spare the details.. but you do give details and you do want to do so because you think that it disproves what is said about you.
I don't recall giving details- specially in the past months. And if I ever give details is most likely because I'm just plain happy. Do you think I would be saying "Oh, I'm getting married" if I wasn't happy? Why do you think I talk? Because I don't like my life? People do that all the time, cause they are just happy, so they have to tell everyone.

HAHAHAHAAAA HAHAAAAAA A AAAAAAA...

breath..

HAHAAAAHAHAHAAA AAAAAAHHAAAAAAAAAAA..
Yeah, well. The truth makes me laugh too...

It's a good thing that Gendanken labelled this thread dead. A pity though. I still think some things could have been squeezed out, but Truthseeker had to throw his usual fit...


Truthseeker,

I already said that I gave you that advice from the heart and that it wasn't going to be repeated. I figured that it was a waste of time and it was.

Meh.
A few things.

Yes, that is right. But once again, I ask you- do you even know which card represents me? Why don't you do the calculations and find out?

Uhm.
Truthseeker?
The Tarot deck is only useful as a metaphor or analogy. There are no 'calculations' or whatever.
And you say you're not religious?
By the way, I know why you're 'not religious' now. Because your 'wife' isn't. I guess that change in your personality pretty much proves that she exists because you've dropped God for her. What if you're wrong, Truthseeker? What if there is a God? He's not going to be happy about being dumped for a skank.

The last step of a journey is often the first step of the next.

I suppose you're going to try claiming Death to be 'your card'? Transformation? Well, Truthseeker, you surely do 'transform' yourself enough. But none are true transformations. More like the donning and doffing of masks.

Well, I prefer your serious self. The rest seem a waste of time.

No. You prefer the self that doesn't hold you in contempt. And you're mistaken. That self that offered you that advice yesterday? He felt exactly the same about you as I do. Why shouldn't he? He is me. I hold you in contempt and so does he. But. Sometimes he thinks he can help people to see. He's a stupid, stupid man. And. Ironically enough. He's the bitter one. Because he's the one that's found that his desire is constantly thwarted. He's never changed anyone for the better. That's why he rarely appears anymore. He's been submerged and now the coyote is in charge. The coyote gets better results... but is often indifferent to the needs of others. It's up to them to help themselves. He can only trick them into the proper frame with which to see. It's up to them to take that test.

The coyote is not bitter. The coyote laughs and laughs and laughs.

You have no idea what I'm talking about.
I'm not talking about multiple personality disorder despite that 'witty' comeback itching on your lips right now.

My kid is IN HER BELLY! Jeeeesus...

Yes. But not born yet. You're so eager that you're jumping ahead into the transformation of father a bit ahead of schedule. Each mask in its own time, guy.

By the way, are you really married? Or is that ahead of schedule too?

That's because a lot of people here doubted me, and guess what? They were wrong. And I've made that quite clear.

People here poked at you. Because you're as soft as the pillsbury doughboy and your exclamations are so funny.

Because he makes it a little bit way too obvious...?

What I make obvious is that I don't have any respect for you. And because of that you grab onto any little thing that's bouncing around in your head at the time as a weapon against me.

At the moment, it's lonely and bitter. Why? Because, according to you, you're not. So. You think that makes you superior to me.

Used to be because you were busy writing political documents for whats-his-nutz and had more important things to do than prove how you weren't being an idiot. And how your nose hadn't been rubbed raw.

Another way that the Death card might superficially suit you. You skull-face you.

Yeah, whatever. It is not like I care.

As Bells has said. You do.

No, I don't. I don't care about his life. But he acts very strangely and I wonder about it.

And you don't even see the self-contradiction...?

Anyway. Ever consider that I act 'strangely' merely because I am strange?
Nah. That's too strange a thought. And. We all know that Truthseeker is anything but strange. Genius. Husband. Father. But not strange.

And you don't know anything about Tarot, do you?

And you know allll about it?
You seem to be mixing the Tarot with astrology or something. There are no 'calculations' involved in the Tarot without bastardizing it with another system.

I would guess they pick on me because I make their imperfections clear, exposing them as if they were naked...

This is exactly what I'm talking about, you arrogant fucker. The funny thing is that you are absolutely blind to the fact that you come off as nothing but a fool. NOBODY here thinks you're smart. NOBODY here thinks you're witty. NOBODY here thinks you've ever exposed anything other than your own ridiculousness.

Cut some eyeholes in those masks you wear sometimes. They might help.

Well, he post the same insults over and over again. It doesn't seem like he has anything better to do. And then, when I call him a lonely man he just ignores it. It makes it look true.

What insults? All I was doing was saying that you really get some sick pleasure off of tea baggin' granny. What's wrong with that?


Meh.
Devoted far too much time to a lost cause. The coyote should know better, but that other fucker still tries from time to time. Idiot.





Bells,

And how do you know invert is a bitter lonely man? I personally think he's quite charming actually.


Awww. Shucks, ma'am. Ever been tea bagged. I'd be honored to dangle my testicles on you.

Because he begs for it.

He's a bona-fide nitwit.

Holy crap you should dig through some old threads to see just how bad it gets. It's bad. Very, very bad.

Okay, just curious. That's kind of what I thought, but also thought there could have been one pivotal thing that shifted the balance. :D

What I do find somewhat intriguing about him though is that he has stayed around so long with few, if any, allies and taken so much abuse. Hmmmm?

Okay, just curious. That's kind of what I thought, but also thought there could have been one pivotal thing that shifted the balance. :D

What I do find somewhat intriguing about him though is that he has stayed around so long with few, if any, allies and taken so much abuse. Hmmmm?

Agreed. I can't figure out for the life of me why. Well actually that's not true. Just ask him. He has something to teach us all about love and god and why the US is evil and you're evil if you see through his utterly shallow horsepucky.

It's a good thing that Gendanken labelled this thread dead. A pity though. I still think some things could have been squeezed out, but Truthseeker had to throw his usual fit...
Why are we talking about me anyways? All that I did was to ask what the heck her tits have to do with anything... :rolleyes:

The Tarot deck is only useful as a metaphor or analogy. There are no 'calculations' or whatever.
If you do Tarot- sometimes there are.

And you say you're not religious?
I'm not. religion and Tarot has nothing to do with anything.

By the way, I know why you're 'not religious' now. Because your 'wife' isn't. I guess that change in your personality pretty much proves that she exists because you've dropped God for her.
Wtf are you talking about? We both believe in God. And I didn't change at all- I've never been religious. I've always been spiritual- but not religious.

I suppose you're going to try claiming Death to be 'your card'? Transformation? Well, Truthseeker, you surely do 'transform' yourself enough. But none are true transformations. More like the donning and doffing of masks.
No. If you actually make the calculations as my astrologer did, you will find out that my card is The World.

No. You prefer the self that doesn't hold you in contempt. And you're mistaken. That self that offered you that advice yesterday? He felt exactly the same about you as I do. Why shouldn't he? He is me. I hold you in contempt and so does he. But. Sometimes he thinks he can help people to see. He's a stupid, stupid man. And. Ironically enough. He's the bitter one. Because he's the one that's found that his desire is constantly thwarted. He's never changed anyone for the better. That's why he rarely appears anymore. He's been submerged and now the coyote is in charge. The coyote gets better results... but is often indifferent to the needs of others. It's up to them to help themselves. He can only trick them into the proper frame with which to see. It's up to them to take that test.
How can you help others if you need help in the first place?

The coyote is not bitter. The coyote laughs and laughs and laughs.

You have no idea what I'm talking about.
I'm not talking about multiple personality disorder despite that 'witty' comeback itching on your lips right now.
Wtf are you talking about?
I think your ego is just confused or something... :bugeye:

Yes. But not born yet. You're so eager that you're jumping ahead into the transformation of father a bit ahead of schedule. Each mask in its own time, guy.
No- I just implied that I'm going to be a father. In a way, I'm already a father. I already have to take care of my wife and be careful just as a father is. And also of course reading books about fatherhood.

Yeah, sure I'm becoming a father very young. A few people can handle that...

By the way, are you really married? Or is that ahead of schedule too?
Yes, I am.

People here poked at you. Because you're as soft as the pillsbury doughboy and your exclamations are so funny.
So you deny that you were wrong? :rolleyes:

What I make obvious is that I don't have any respect for you. And because of that you grab onto any little thing that's bouncing around in your head at the time as a weapon against me.
I don't even fight with you, wtf? Altough sometimes I have fun doing the same as you do...

At the moment, it's lonely and bitter. Why? Because, according to you, you're not. So. You think that makes you superior to me.
No- it just seemed to be that way because of your reactions.

Used to be because you were busy writing political documents for whats-his-nutz and had more important things to do than prove how you weren't being an idiot. And how your nose hadn't been rubbed raw.
I still deal with that.

Another way that the Death card might superficially suit you. You skull-face you.
Oh, wow. You are so mature...

And you don't even see the self-contradiction...?
Which contradiction? I can perfectly not care about what you think and still care about you, or wonder about you. That doesn't have anything to do with whether I care about what you think about me or not.

Anyway. Ever consider that I act 'strangely' merely because I am strange?
Nah. That's too strange a thought. And. We all know that Truthseeker is anything but strange. Genius. Husband. Father. But not strange.
Really? Maybe I am...
How many people you have met ever learnt to fight with a sword as a method for meditation (Shiao Ling-that is)?

And you know allll about it?
Not really. I know some of it.

You seem to be mixing the Tarot with astrology or something. There are no 'calculations' involved in the Tarot without bastardizing it with another system.
It can be mixed. They are two different systems with the same base. It is like learning different languages. They are two different languages, but the simbologic is quite similar.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, you arrogant fucker.
Sounds like I'm exposing one of your imperfections right now.

The funny thing is that you are absolutely blind to the fact that you come off as nothing but a fool. NOBODY here thinks you're smart. NOBODY here thinks you're witty. NOBODY here thinks you've ever exposed anything other than your own ridiculousness.
Not what I heard.

Cut some eyeholes in those masks you wear sometimes. They might help.
Maybe you should remove that log from your eye before anything else.

Devoted far too much time to a lost cause. The coyote should know better, but that other fucker still tries from time to time. Idiot.
You sound very hopeful...

Awww. Shucks, ma'am. Ever been tea bagged. I'd be honored to dangle my testicles on you.
OI!!

Better watch yourself sonny, if you're referring to me as a Granny I'll tear your testicles off and ram them up your nose... ;)

You feral beast you... :p

I don't. But I don't see any reason not to disclose the fact that I'm married and my wife is pregnant. What is wrong with that? It is not like I'm making an effort to prove or disprove anything...
Read your previous posts TS, you were trying to prove to everyone that you were sooooo much better than we thought you were. Sadly for you, your desperation has made you look like a bigger fool.

Well, he post the same insults over and over again. It doesn't seem like he has anything better to do. And then, when I call him a lonely man he just ignores it. It makes it look true.
And yet from where I'm sitting, it is you who appears to be the lonely little boy. Why is that I wonder? And he probably ignores it because you're a dick.

No, I don't. So whatever.
Tell me TS, do you flick your hair back and roll your eyes when you say 'whateveeerrrr' like some little highschool bimbo?

Which intimate details are you talking about?
If you fail to see then there really is no hope for you.

The amount of information I provided was the normal amount that people do when they talk to each other.
Really? I've known people for years and years who never once mentioned how many goes it took for them to fall pregnant for example. You provide information that you think will raise you above the masses and will have everyone bowing to you because you're just so good. And then you get shitty when it ultimatey backfires on you.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never thought about comparing histories. That is a waste of time.
Because you feel you have oh so much to prove TS.

Am I? Refer to above fool. Hell, you even told everyone on the forum how many tries it took for your wife to get pregnant. You don't think that's personal?
Why are you posting what I said to you right back at me?

I don't feel the need to disprove.
Yes you do. You can't help yourself. The need to be liked and accepted consumes you to the point where you lose your senses and end up sounding and looking foolish. But please don't stop, it's amusing for us to watch.

Yeah, well. The truth makes me laugh too...
I was laughing at you actually.

Anywho... the truth seems to hurt you more than you let on. TS, everyone here has given you enough hints so that you make a lesser target of yourself but you simply do not listen because your need to show how good you are, how much better you are to everyone else and your silly notions that you think everyone here is jealous of you overshadows all your common sense.

Better watch yourself sonny, if you're referring to me as a Granny I'll tear your testicles off and ram them up your nose...

No. No. I'm not the one with the granny dangling fetish. That's Truthseeker's venue. Me. I'm all about the hot, sexy, brainy chicks. Such as yourself.

Now. Let me get this straight. You only objected to the thought that I was calling you granny... right?


Anyway. As to Truthseeker.
Why bother?
I feel bad about how this thread has degenerated. Despite Gendanken's declaration of 'dead thread' I still feel this is an ignoble end. I shall try to think of some way to tie this whole... 'thing' into the topic... on the morrow. I don't know if I'll be able to though. But I shall surely try.

No. No. I'm not the one with the granny dangling fetish. That's Truthseeker's venue. Me. I'm all about the hot, sexy, brainy chicks. Such as yourself.

How do you know bells is a hot, sexy chick?
her avatar too is hilariously insulting. but i can say from her posts she could be brainy.

Really? I've known people for years and years who never once mentioned how many goes it took for them to fall pregnant for example. You provide information that you think will raise you above the masses and will have everyone bowing to you because you're just so good. And then you get shitty when it ultimatey backfires on you.
Well, I was just surprised with the fact that it was so easy considering that the majority of people take a whole lot of trying! LOL...! :D

Anywho... the truth seems to hurt you more than you let on. TS, everyone here has given you enough hints so that you make a lesser target of yourself but you simply do not listen because your need to show how good you are, how much better you are to everyone else and your silly notions that you think everyone here is jealous of you overshadows all your common sense.
Yeah, well, I don't care. As I said, I came here to share my joy and I've done it. Your misconceptions are a waste of time, so there's no point in dealing with them.

Truthseeker


How can you help others if you need help in the first place?


I know what you are getting at here, but this is not a black and white issue. Nothing is, imo. It is entirely possible for someone who needs help to also give help. Know why? Because we all need help. Noone is perfect, imo. There is no such thing as perfection, imo, therefore all are perfect.

I applaud your courage; just make sure you keep trying to see things from other perspectives. :)

Truthseeker

I know what you are getting at here, but this is not a black and white issue. Nothing is, imo. It is entirely possible for someone who needs help to also give help. Know why? Because we all need help. Noone is perfect, imo. There is no such thing as perfection, imo, therefore all are perfect.
Yes. But if you have a certain problem and you try to help someone that has the same problem, that is pretty much a waste of time. See, for example, an chronic alcoholic trying to help another chronic alcoholic. Do you think he is going to accomplish anything?

I applaud your courage; just make sure you keep trying to see things from other perspectives. :)
Oh yeah sure. :)
And I applaud your wisdom.

Yes. But if you have a certain problem and you try to help someone that has the same problem, that is pretty much a waste of time. See, for example, an chronic alcoholic trying to help another chronic alcoholic. Do you think he is going to accomplish anything?
Yes, to be perfectly honest. Maybe not in every situation, all the time, but in every situation it is possible. You may know that I am a chronic alcoholic, or maybe not. However, I have gotten my best advice for improvement from other chronic alcoholics. Especially from the older ones that have been sober for a long time. You see, they know better what I am going through than a non-alcoholic ever will. Because they have experienced life in a similar fashion to what I have, whereas my dad, for instance, will probably never understand this aspect of me because he has never touched a drop of alcohol in his life, that I know of. The same can be said of drug-addicts, food-addicts, shop-a-holics, sex-a-holics, etc.

Don't get me wrong though. I am not saying that a current alcoholic may be the best choice for another current alcoholic. In fact, I would say the opposite. Everything is relative.

Oh yeah sure. :)
And I applaud your wisdom.Are you shitting me?! :D

Yes, to be perfectly honest. Maybe not in every situation, all the time, but in every situation it is possible. You may know that I am a chronic alcoholic, or maybe not. However, I have gotten my best advice for improvement from other chronic alcoholics. Especially from the older ones that have been sober for a long time.
Exactly- they are sober. They were chronic alcoholics. But if you are still struggling to get over that and you try to help someone that it is also going through that, it is kinda hard, isn't it? It's like a blind person guiding another blind person!!!!

You see, they know better what I am going through than a non-alcoholic ever will. Because they have experienced life in a similar fashion to what I have, whereas my dad, for instance, will probably never understand this aspect of me because he has never touched a drop of alcohol in his life, that I know of. The same can be said of drug-addicts, food-addicts, shop-a-holics, sex-a-holics, etc.
Yes, that is quite true. But they got over it before they could help you.

Don't get me wrong though. I am not saying that a current alcoholic may be the best choice for another current alcoholic. In fact, I would say the opposite. Everything is relative.
The opposite would be: "a current alcoholic may be the worst choice for another current alcoholic".

Are you shitting me?!
No! When I find wisdom in someone I know it quite clearly. I can see it in your attitude. ;)