i think this whole recent turn is endearing, but rather idiotic. there was no real backslapping over shared wit, that i was aware of - but i expressed that i enjoy the way
roach presents his arguments / positions, then we had a little 'hey haven't seen you in a while, nor you
mixed,' all within the context of the thread. perhaps that was posted in the wrong area, but shit happens.
as to the beating up on someone who is new to the tfp, i would have to say that the nature of
drews' replies started a confrontational mode of conversation,
dave.
roach posted some ideas (which i assure you could have been much more thorough) on the OP, and even included some references for back material. it wasn't a 'don't worry sonny, it'll all get better soon' kind of post, but it was on topic. if he is supposed to offer to share in
drew's angst, then not only is that impossible if he doesn't share the angst, but that's not really what happens in philo. or if that's what you want, perhaps an OP that is longer than two or three sentences, less combative, and which clearly states the types of desired reply would help?
it is somewhat difficult to respond in many other modes when someone posts a declaration as the OP, which is counter to the opinions / knowledge / experience of other posters. sure, the whole angst thing isn't easy...until you realize it's as easy or hard as you choose to make it. how else could that be expressed, other than in the multitude of ways that have been presented here?
what is, is. you will not find meaning in events which do not contain the kind of meaning you seek. particularly if you have already decided that meaning does not exist. there likely is no everlasting paradise, or if you believe there is one then jolly for you. these are things you accept or you don't. what justice there is to be had in this world must be made by us, and that's just the way it is.
i really don't understand the criticisms, aside from an emotional discourse that is carried over from other threads across the boards, from
dave to
roach. i don't see underdogs here; i see people with different viewpoints. is
roach supposed to express himself in an insincere fashion so that the content can be appropriately filtered? this is ridiculous. as i type this, i find it ridiculous.
and i'm still happy to see
roach and
mixed post, and i loved the fu-scnikem video. the topic of 'flow' is an interesting and unexpected point for
roach to present, in my opinion and experience.
signing off - yours truly,
