Let's all get paranoid

Yeah? Well who asked you?!?!

 

Well now you are just going to take the fun out of it altogether

 

Again, perhaps you should reread what I wrote, more carefully this time, as you are obviously misquoting me.

Hmmm, paranoid and apparently delusional as well?

 

Do you two feel your brains turning to oatmeal?

 

That's not so bad then.

 

I agree that the amount of negativity in some threads here is sad. But then I think of what it would take to get rid of the outward and visible negativity, and that is active moderation or some form of tight control by the moderators. And what else would we lose? At least here all sides can be aired freely. There are forums that are have less negativity than this one, yet they also have less freedom. On one that I know of, that's otherwise a very good forum, blatant misinformation is sometimes given out as fact by the moderators and it is forbidden to argue with them even on medical matters. I'm not sure I'd want to see something like that here.

No, I am sure: I would not like to see that here.

 

You make an important point.

 

Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by negativity. Is negativity a contra-opinion to one posted? I think of negativity as something that comes from believing that the negative is true, such as, "I will never get well, woe is me." But I also believe that those are exactly the kinds of posts that come from people who need support. But by your answer, you seem to be referring to discussions in which folks have differing opinions, which I don't really see much of a way around. That is just going to happen. I am told that my posts are too long, notwithstanding what my posts say. Others respond to the same post with a point by point presentation of their own. So that point by point post expressing a differing opinion, is that what you are talking about? One opinion negating another opinion?

I believe much of the spiritual angst that may arise from discussions such as those, derives from the manner in which we, individually, perceive another differing opinion to be motivated. If we feel that someone's motives are not pure, then that yields a perception that the person is being insincere. That does occur. And, personally, insincerity is what gets my goat. If someone is going to express a contra-opinion, that's fine. But just make sure that such an opinion truly comes from the heart, and is not motivated by one-upsmanship. Then again, I get accused of one-upmanship myself, which if I do, it is not a conscious act. It is just my opinion.

There are times that my mind cannot help but question someone's motives. Those are times that someone's opionion is just so off the wall that in my mind it cannot be true. And then others come in and second their opinions. Go figure. So I am learning here that these off-the-wall opinions can indeed be founded in sincerity. But I swear, there have to be one or two folks who post over there, whom I can well imagine must get paid by the post. Their posts are just so off the wall, devoid of meaningful, useful and supportable content that it seems like they post this stuff because they are on a quota or something, or they have to keep up with the posts of a particular perceived adversary, no matter what their post says or means. Now that I have everyone paranoid, believing that I am talking about them, then I have made this post germane to the issue at hand here.

But personally, I miss your posts in the religious room. And that is why I bring this up. Right now I have three positive, supportive posts over there on thie first page. In one of them I have received a contra-attitude, or at least what I perceive as a contra-attitude. And out of that attitude came a post that was demonstrably incorrect. So I posted what was correct and can stand behind. But by and large those three posts are all positive and are received without negativity. So it can be done.

The higher the percentage of positive, supportive posts that show on the first page over there, the more that the personality of the spiritual support room changes to what I expect you want to see. But if the folks who are prone to do that refrain from doing so, then it becomes a debate room, which fulfills the prophecy that that room has become negative, if I now understand what you mean by the term. So the only way I see around that is to lead by example, fill the first page with positive messages of support for folks who might use it that way. To do otherwise, is to become negative ourselves, which is what we decry, and that was the point I tried to make.

 

The only germs or viruses I think about are the ones I pick up on public transport. There was a period of 3 years when I rode a mountain bike to and from work and never got on a bus or train. I didn't have one cold in that time. Then I moved, started taking buses and trains again and I'm back to the usual 2 colds/year. These days I try to remember to wash my hands before touching my face after a bus/ train trip but usually forget.

Other than that, I don't care about the other stuff. You gotta give your immune system soemthing to do.

 

Are the "they" who author the "studies have shown" the same people who establish "well known scientific fact"?

Scott, you definitely need to ride buses and trains more to really challenge your immune system. Crowded ones are best and if you get stuck next to a crying, snotty, bronchial baby well, bingo! Also consider taking up smoking to give your lungs something solid to get at grip on.

 

So true Scott, my husband says: "you have to eat a hot dog once in while to keep healthy!" I say yuck, but, he does not get migraines, nor does he have Menineres....and BTW, he drinks really good beer...hummmm....

 

Those phrases are a substitute for going to the trouble of making a footnote. We pretty much all do it. Sometimes I am grateful because a post a page long is something I am not likely to read. Fortunately in today's world of google, we can all check the source of such claims pretty easily if we really are interested in finding out what went into them. I grant you that much of the time there is nothing of substance behind them and many people will accept the mere repetition of a claim as verification. What you going to do. A lot of people don't like detail.

 

YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Could you speak up?

 

June...my yawn! post was not directed at your last posting. It is a general statement for everyone as it seems this thread is going nowhere.

 

I think that is a blessing at this point.

 

I must be paranoid. I think Nassman is reading this RIGHT NOW.

 

But, how can that be, Henry? Nassman is banned from .org. He can't even read the posts. He told us so himself when he found that one computer in all of Toronto he could use to make his farewell post.

You're not paranoid, you're crazy!

 

If you had any clue about how computers work you would understand what I originally said. Since I am in an educating mood today, I'll explain.

After Hank's neverending tirade of misquoting me and blatantly saying lies about me, I finally replied to him and called him out for the hypocrite and two-faced liar that he is. For a supposed "good boy" Christian he sure did behave in a non-Christian manner. I'll leave that between Hank and his pastor, priest, nun, God, whatever...

Admittedly, in defending myself, I did use some language in my replies to him that crossed the line. That, as a result, got me (nassman) banned.

Now, my dear Cheryl, what you must understand is that there are two types of bans:

1) A user-name ban. This is simply one where a unsername is blocked and the user must create a new name to participate again.

2) An IP ban and a user-name ban. This is much more serious as the person's actual IP address is banned. When I (nassman) was banned due Holier-than-thou Hank, Ray banned my IP address at work and at home. That means I COULD NOT EVEN LOG IN AS A GUEST IN ORDER TO READ POSTS. Comprende? It was only when I found a lap top at work that I was able to join as a guest and register under my new name (Perses) because the wireless IP address was not recognized in the "banned" list of IP addresses set by Ray.

Now...fast forward. If you recall, that ban set off some kind of mess-up and many people from this part of the world were also adversely affected. Suddenly, people who had done nothing found themselves unable to visit mm.org due to their IP addresses being locked out. Once Ray fixed the problem, their IP addresses were ok again (as well as mine) and I was able to participate from home or at work since the IP address was not blocked anymore. I simply chose to continue with the Perses name.

Hope you understand now and more importantly, I hope you have a wonderful day!

 

What Perses is saying about the ip address situation is correct. Perses.. thanks for the explaination, it clears up things for me.

When he got banned I also got virtually banned because of my close proximity to him. Thanks Nass and Hank!! : :'(

I was not able to access the site for close to 4 months even when I tried to use other peoples computers. The only time I got a look at the site was in Best Buy one day when I was checking out an Ipad.

It was a long 4 months and I was glad to be back to my dysfunctional second family... LOL