Is God become the Universe?

[Mr Walker]

48 minutes ago, back to earth said:

see my response above  that responded to your ' crafty explanation'  before you even made it ! 

 

More idiocy . The point I made earlier was an image posted after a comment  is a visual representation of that comment, so If you think the image is without context, the  you can read the comment to get the context . 

BOY !   .... is this one slogging mud !

 

 

Oh no !   A picture ... I cant comprehend it !    What could it mean ?  It might be even dangerous to  put that image here  !   

 

 

The first picture has no contextual relevance for me. (maybe, as an australian, i see a  very happy farmer getting ready to do some planting?)  The second, due to my age and interest in science fiction, does ( I hear the voice/words echoing in my head when i see the picture.)  .  (but it would not, for millions of people.) And that  is the problem.  Without specific shared cultural relevance, images do NOT transfer understanding And any failure to communicate understanding IS dangerous. 

Edited April 5, 2017 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

14 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I used persona in its correct sense. ie an adopted character, which a human being constructs, either deliberately or subconsciously,  as representive of self, and how they wish others to see them.

So it's an illusion, and an adopted character can have a very different life than the REAL character and anything they say is suspect, could in part be your problem here.

Why do you feel that you must pretend to be someone else while imparting your truths, if you are not you? Do you have something to hide or is it a lack of confidence(not the pretend kind)?

Many posters here reveal bits and pieces of their lives that just float right by you. While you publish and encyclopedic biography about yourself in support of the truths of a fictional character. This is a bit of a stumbling block in taking you seriously for some,...okay me, and I am real interested in how could that be corrected, and none of the solutions should require me getting a lobotomy for it to work.

jmccr8

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, back to earth said:

Nice to see you got a new pic   ;  Sherapy as  she was ... and as she is now   ( I always knew you were putting up pics of your 'young self '     )            

The pic is of me and the lady I care for she has COPD her name is Susan and she is on Hospice in the last stage of her illness and is simply amazing. She is an honor to look after. She is always happy, this pic is her normal state. I wanted Frank to see this and why I am not on as  much as I'd like to be. I also tutor 3 cubs, a 4th grader, and 2 9th graders most evenings.

BTE, I am old almost 49; thanks for reminding me. 

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Are you really so dense? You learn the meaning of a three of hearts, and you learn the meaning of a fool. If someone teaches you, you can learn both at quite a young age.   There IS no difference in the process of understanding , only differing degrees of  complexity and difficulty.  Recognition and recall apply in both . Recognise the image; recall all of its attached values, meanings, and significances. 

 

I had to guess at the significance of the cat cards. Never a good thing to do when communicating  I checked and sure enough this is a new age thing designed for people who believe they have some form of animal totem, and thus that such a set more powerfully resonates with their connection to the cards. But guessing is dangerous.  

 

For example how do you interpret this cat image? 

Now go and look at the attached commentary at this site

https://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/best-cat-pictures?utm_term=.otnqwlMzKg#.kmjYawvjGg

My point?

Unlike the fixed values attached to cards, (and things like flags or well known symbols)  random images have only subjective values, dependent on individual perspectives  A picture does nothing to transfer one person's understanding or point of view to another person, unless it is also explained how the first person perceives the image. 

 

Walker, BTE puts a commentary with most images he posts, and we figure out the rest. How did you learn to read without first learning the story by interpreting the pictures? 

Do you watch movies? Ever see a movie where you have to interpret the end or the symbolism in the movie? 

 

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

So it's an illusion, and an adopted character can have a very different life than the REAL character and anything they say is suspect, could in part be your problem here.

Why do you feel that you must pretend to be someone else while imparting your truths, if you are not you? Do you have something to hide or is it a lack of confidence(not the pretend kind)?

Many posters here reveal bits and pieces of their lives that just float right by you. While you publish and encyclopedic biography about yourself in support of the truths of a fictional character. This is a bit of a stumbling block in taking you seriously for some,...okay me, and I am real interested in how could that be corrected, and none of the solutions should require me getting a lobotomy for it to work.

jmccr8

No I understand your confusion,  but that is not what i am talking about.

From infancy, and with the help of all the adults in my life, I thought about and decided on the sort of person I  wanted to be be. Honest,  hard working,  considerate of others, romantic, loyal patriotic  etc etc

 Many sources, including a lot of reading from a very early age, helped me firm up my thoughts about who and what sort of a person i wanted to be. eg the tales of king arthur taught me not only the values of  loyalty and obedience to authority but what happens when love/desire conflicts with duty and honour ( I understood these sorts of things even before i started school and my parents explicitly taught me a lot of humanist moralities.)

 Next i had to learn the self discipline required to BE as i wanted to be.

 My point is that, as self aware human beings, every person has the abilty to consciously decide what sort of person they will become and to shape their life into that persona. I AM and have long been the person  I planned to be as a child  Loyal loving   disciplined law abiding etc.  So i dont mean persona, as a "false front", but as consciously constructing the real person you want to become, by discipline and effort.

I dont pretend any thing on Um. What you get is a part of the real me. Not the whole me because a lot of that is not relevant to discussions on UM

 This is the trouble with using concepts. You clearly found a totally  different meaning to what i intended in my words.

 My persona is the real me but it is consciously and deliberately constructed so that  I am the person i choose and want to be, not a random product of circumstances.

  Of course we all modify our personas to fit into the company we keep as we behave differently when with children than with adults. i was brought up to behave differently when in the company of women than when in the exclusive company of men, for example, and to behave differently at the dinner table than when playing. 

 i dont understand where you get the idea that any thing i write on Um is part of a false front. You would recognise me immediately if you were talking to me in real life, as my attitudes, values, behaviours etc., are just the same off line as online.   (except that there ALL you get is my opinions on subjects of debate.

In real life my conversations is much more wide ranging.  eg i do talk a lot about dreams and beliefs, aliens, ufos, ghosts and gods,  but i also talk a lot about films, reading games  gardening etc.

There is NOTHING fictional in anything I have ever written on UM  That would defeat any purpose in being here.   

Just because something is outside your own experience does not make it untrue/fictional. 

[Mr Walker]

41 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Walker, BTE puts a commentary with most images he posts, and we figure out the rest. How did you learn to read without first learning the story by interpreting the pictures? 

Do you watch movies? Ever see a movie where you have to interpret the end or the symbolism in the movie? 

 

Actually the criticism I have of BTE is that in many posts to me he does NOT have any relevant text accompanying the picture  If he had text i would have some chance of understanding it/ his intention

 If you have to INTERPRET symbolism then there  is a chance you will misinterpret the conveyors intent.

This doesn't matter critically when discussing a movie, but when discussing real life issues it is important for there to be mutual agreement on what an image represents. This was particularly brought home to me in psychology, sociology,  history and politics at university.   

And I learned to read by watching my mother (and father and grandmother) as she/they read to me every night for half an hour or so. . i just memorised first words and then sentences as she put her finger on them  while she read them and i watched and listened.

I dont think we ever had picture books in our house, but that might have been because we never needed them. or perhaps reading was taught differently in the ealry fifties.  I did not associate words with pictures but with words on a printed page, right from the start.   I mean really how hard is it to recognise dog in letters,  and understand its attachment to a meaning?  By age 2 i was reading  full text basic children's novels  like the far away tree or the wishing chair and by age 4 was reading the daily newspaper.

The children read the note one after another.  Their eyes began to shine.  “Shall we go?” said Fanny.  “Better not,” said Jo.  “Something silly is sure to happen to us.  It always does.”

“Oh, Jo!  Do let’s go!” said Bessie.  “You know how exciting the Enchanted Wood is at night, too, with all the fairy folk about—and the Faraway Tree lit with lanterns and things.  Come on, Jo—say we’ll go.”

“I really think we’d better not,” said Jo.  “Dick might do something silly again.”

“I would not!” said Dick in a temper.  “It’s not fair of you to say that.”

“Don’t quarrel,” said Bessie.  “Well, listen—if you don’t want to go, Jo, Fanny and I will go with Dick.  He can look after us.”

“Pooh!  Dick wants looking after himself,” said Jo.

Dick gave Jo a punch on the shoulder and Jo slapped back.

“Oh, don’t!” said Bessie.  “You’re not in the Land of Do-As-You-Please now!”

That made everyone laugh.  “Sorry, Jo,” said Dick.  “Be a sport.  Let’s all go to-night.  Or at any rate, let’s go up the tree and hear what Silky and Moon-Face can tell us about this new land.  If it sounds at all dangerous we won’t go.  See?”

 

 I know, because my parents and grandmother told me, that I  was reading myself, and alone, unassisted, the sort of text above, when I  was 3 years old and was reading it with some help, while still 2. 

I

This is not to say that i dont read and enjoy comics of many sorts  

I have two issues One already discussed about the imprecision of images compared to words The second is my inability to mentally see images in my mind.   I can't know, but i suspect this restricts my abilty to analyse and interpret in my mind, visual images.  I can do this while looking at them but can't form them in my mind for later  reflection, analysis, or review.  

Edited April 5, 2017 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

From infancy, and with the help of all the adults in my life, I thought about and decided on the sort of person I  wanted to be be. Honest,  hard working,  considerate of others, romantic, loyal patriotic  etc etc

 Many sources, including a lot of reading from a very early age, helped me firm up my thoughts about who and what sort of a person i wanted to be. eg the tales of king arthur taught me not only the values of  loyalty and obedience to authority but what happens when love/desire conflicts with duty and honour ( I understood these sorts of things even before i started school and my parents explicitly taught me a lot of humanist moralities.)

Nicely describes just about everybody on the planet

 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

My point is that, as self aware human beings, every person has the abilty to consciously decide what sort of person they will become and to shape their life into that persona. I AM and have long been the person  I planned to be as a child  Loyal loving   disciplined law abiding etc.  So i dont mean persona, as a "false front", but as consciously constructing the real person you want to become, by discipline and effort.

If you represent yourself in a manner to create a perception of a character/persona that conforms to satisfy certain criteria that do not express your true life/self/belief then it is perceived as fiction no matter how well it is intended. Your not Batman  so don't wear a mask, you just don't pull off that bad boy hero thing that well.

 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

 i dont understand where you get the idea that any thing i write on Um is part of a false front. You would recognise me immediately if you were talking to me in real life, as my attitudes, values, behaviours etc., are just the same off line as online.   (except that there ALL you get is my opinions on subjects of debate

For the most part it's in your continued self dialogue.  If you look at the treads as pieces of a puzzle all the pieces are in the posts from members. Because you cannot visualize you cannot see the pattern of the puzzle and are having difficulty following what is being developed on topic.

An opinion is fine so long as it doesn't need a biography to back it up

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

In real life my conversations is much more wide ranging.  eg i do talk a lot about dreams and beliefs, aliens, ufos, ghosts and gods,  but i also talk a lot about films, reading games  gardening etc.

There is NOTHING fictional in anything I have ever written on UM  That would defeat any purpose in being here.   

Just because something is outside your own experience does not make it untrue/fictional.

Yes I can believe that you talk a lot  and most of it would be opinions. Do not assume my experiences, and there is much that I have no experience so those areas are unproven, how they are expressed would fall into the untrue/fictional, especially when that person continuously wavers in position and distraction.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Actually the criticism I have of BTE is that in many posts to me he does NOT have any relevant text accompanying the picture  If he had text i would have some chance of understanding it/ his intention

 If you have to INTERPRET symbolism then there  is a chance you will misinterpret the conveyors intent.

This doesn't matter critically when discussing a movie, but when discussing real life issues it is important for there to be mutual agreement on what an image represents. This was particularly brought home to me in psychology, sociology,  history and politics at university.   

And I learned to read by watching my mother (and father and grandmother) as she/they read to me every night for half an hour or so. . i just memorised first words and then sentences as she put her finger on them  while she read them and i watched and listened.

I dont think we ever had picture books in our house, but that might have been because we never needed them. or perhaps reading was taught differently in the ealry fifties.  I did not associate words with pictures but with words on a printed page, right from the start.   I mean really how hard is it to recognise dog in letters,  and understand its attachment to a meaning?  By age 2 i was reading  full text basic children's novels  like the far away tree or the wishing chair and by age 4 was reading the daily newspaper.

The children read the note one after another.  Their eyes began to shine.  “Shall we go?” said Fanny.  “Better not,” said Jo.  “Something silly is sure to happen to us.  It always does.”

“Oh, Jo!  Do let’s go!” said Bessie.  “You know how exciting the Enchanted Wood is at night, too, with all the fairy folk about—and the Faraway Tree lit with lanterns and things.  Come on, Jo—say we’ll go.”

“I really think we’d better not,” said Jo.  “Dick might do something silly again.”

“I would not!” said Dick in a temper.  “It’s not fair of you to say that.”

“Don’t quarrel,” said Bessie.  “Well, listen—if you don’t want to go, Jo, Fanny and I will go with Dick.  He can look after us.”

“Pooh!  Dick wants looking after himself,” said Jo.

Dick gave Jo a punch on the shoulder and Jo slapped back.

“Oh, don’t!” said Bessie.  “You’re not in the Land of Do-As-You-Please now!”

That made everyone laugh.  “Sorry, Jo,” said Dick.  “Be a sport.  Let’s all go to-night.  Or at any rate, let’s go up the tree and hear what Silky and Moon-Face can tell us about this new land.  If it sounds at all dangerous we won’t go.  See?”

 

 I know, because my parents and grandmother told me, that I  was reading myself, and alone, unassisted, the sort of text above, when I  was 3 years old and was reading it with some help, while still 2. 

I

This is not to say that i dont read and enjoy comics of many sorts  

I have two issues One already discussed about the imprecision of images compared to words The second is my inability to mentally see images in my mind.   I can't know, but i suspect this restricts my abilty to analyse and interpret in my mind, visual images.  I can do this while looking at them but can't form them in my mind for later  reflection, analysis, or review.  

Back to Earth's memes and pics are punctuation marks for the comment preceding, no real strain on the brain.

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

 

jmccr8

Quote

Nicely describes just about everybody on the planet

Actually no. I've taught thousands of young peole and known hundreds of adults. Very few sit down  from an early age  and work out the sort of adult they want to be. Few deliberately and consciously create value lines and basic conscious ethical moralities based on outcomes. etc.   Few think about how to achieve a persona they desire. Even fewer have the discipline, and can maintain the effort over time, required to achieve this end. Most simply live in the moment, responding to environmental stimuli and crises.

Quote

If you represent yourself in a manner to create a perception of a character/persona that conforms to satisfy certain criteria that do not express your true life/self/belief then it is perceived as fiction no matter how well it is intended. Your not Batman  so don't wear a mask, you just don't pull off that bad boy hero thing that well.

 Now where do you get that  idea from.  We CRETE the only true  life belief self  we have We can do this dleibertely or let life shape us  without our permisiion. 

 I AM the person you see. but more than that I am totally comfortable and content in who I am, because i created myself and how could i be unhappy  given that.? ( no one is going to make themselves into a person they don't like or are uncomfortable with)  i never have to lie or be hypocritical or pretend to be anything i am not. Hence no stress, no strain, no inner conflict.  

I am not batman but i CAN be bruce wayne. I am not the phantom but i CAN be kit walker. I can be romantic idealistic courageous selfless generous etc   Anyone can be. They just have to chose to be .  We can't be super heroes, but we can all be heroes.  There is not an adult human on earth who is not the person the y have chosen to be, but some people make the choice unconsciously. 

Quote

For the most part it's in your continued self dialogue.  If you look at the treads as pieces of a puzzle all the pieces are in the posts from members. Because you cannot visualize you cannot see the pattern of the puzzle and are having difficulty following what is being developed on topic.

I have no trouble with oral and written language forms, although I am a bit traditional compared with some young people     I know and understand exactly why some posters respond as they do (once i have a bit of an understanding of their backgrounds and world views)  Sometimes i suspect i have a clearer undertsanding of their drivers and psychological needs than they do.

  A lot of what i write simply confronts the world views, beliefs, values and experiences of many people.

I am used to this. I first faced it when i gave up drinking alcohol aged 22, and had to restructure my relationship with many people who simply had no comprehension of how or why someone could live without needing any form of drugs. I get lots of likes from many more posters, than  there are posters who criticise me. There are actually less than a half a dozen posters here, who are in constant conflict with anything I write.  So it is not just me, but the nature of those posters,  combined with my own nature, which causes conflicts.

Quote

An opinion is fine so long as it doesn't need a biography to back it up

Any opinion is only worth anything if it can be explained and validated My opinions tie into a lifetime of experiences. I use outcome based assessment to judge the value of anything.eg what will be the outcomes if i drink and drive or if i cheat on my wife or if i lie or steal? 

 And so, giving background supports the validity of an opinion and why it is the correct opinion. 

Quote

Yes I can believe that you talk a lot  and most of it would be opinions. Do not assume my experiences, and there is much that I have no experience so those areas are unproven, how they are expressed would fall into the untrue/fictional, especially when that person continuously wavers in position and distraction.

lol many people see me as pedantic and  boringly consistent  I am always consistent but all complex issues have inner complexities. My responses to those complexities might appear inconsistent to you but form part of a totally consistent larger picture. I also see real links and patterns  which other people don't seem to get. I think this is the result of a lot of reading and also a life time interest in many academic disciplines. 

My point was that we all tend to only accept things which we either have some experience with or know are a common experience  

 I repeat. Nothing i write on Um is ever just fictional or untrue   This means that where you don't or cant accept something  you ARE mistaken.  ( I accept  that differences in opinion and perception will occur )

i was mistaken for the first 22 years of my life, where i laughed at the idea of a real and powerful "god" existing; caring for individuals, and working to empower and protect those who accept its presence.  Yet that opinion was valid and reasonable, given  that i had no experience with such an entity,  and saw  no need of one in my life. 

.  

Edited April 5, 2017 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Back to Earth's memes and pics are punctuation marks for the comment preceding, no real strain on the brain.

jmccr8

And what about all the times there is no comment OR there seems to be no connection between a picture and a comment (other than one which exists in his own mind )  eg a segway mobility vehicle and   his perception that i change topics a lot in an argument

The word for this is segue not segway, so of course, for weeks, i had no idea why he was responding to my posts with pictures of a segway device.  A segue is a cunning /subtle way  of transitioning from one topic to another, while maintaining relevance to the overarching topic.  An image of a segway machine has no relevance to this at all.

When i saw his recent picture of a man walking in a muddy field, i never once thought of the idea, " stuck in the mud' or "bogged down"  (This was because, in my opinion, he was NOT stuck or bogged ) I thought, instead, of a farmer really happy that it had rained, and he would be able to plant his crops.

. That is why images are not safe or reliable means of conveying thoughts, ideas, or complex  messages, UNLESS both parties already have a common understanding of what the images mean to each other. .  Otherwise it is like using a foreign language to try to communicate to a person who only speaks english.     

Edited April 5, 2017 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

8 hours ago, back to earth said:

Another mere Walker assertion  with no proof whatsoever ... cant even quote one thing that I said and show it was wrong as proof

I have pulled apart your claims and show them to be wrong and you ignire them all and come back with 'no, you are wrong' with no backup whatsoever .  Childish.

Where did I display my ignorance ? The Fool is attributed elementally to air , not  Leo.

In fact, the first attributions of tarot to astrology was done fairly recently in tarot history  and it started off with the major cards. An early adjustment to the whole system was first done  with Leo and noting the lion on the Strength  trump card .... the rest followed in order, except where the card order seemed to be out from the  astrological sign progression so a switcheroo was made.  

So, as usual, you made the best blunder ypu could by picking that sign to show a trump attribution to

And it is 'quite clear' that I now little about it  ?        

Playing the fool again are you ?

Walker, using the shape size  and wear on a persons hand and ignoring the bits you did   is not palmistry  ... that was my point.

When you were trying to argue with me previously and you took a stance AGAINST palmistry , and I agreed,  but pointed out fingerprints and whorls  can indicated health and dentistry problems ... well, that aint palmistry either . 

BTE looks at guys hands ... big chunky, scarred .... " You must be a bricklayer ! "  .... thats 'palmistry' for ya !    

So, you admit now that what you wrote about yourself is meaningless .   I see you cant even explain what 'born under a sign ' means  so you try to duck the question .... again .

You dont even know what 'all astrology' is !  If you did you would not have said what you did .

All you seem to know is a little pop astrology and something you picked up from a quick squizz at a tarot site ... and even got that wrong . 

No , you are known here as one of the  most  ducking changing moving the goalposts segwaying posters ... by a host of people 

 so your silly accusations  hold no water at all. 

You have yet to demonstrate you know anything about tarot !  Just some wrong rubbish you posted ... abut yourself , of course and how your family played cards, then went off onto some irrelevant segway about yourself  - again ! 

And the whole  range of subjects you are trying to pass off here as Walker expertise is a total segway itself . I suppose the hermetics got to hot for you so you had to try and change subjects ? 

 

The point you got wrong was that the size and shape of fingers and hands is not a part of palmistry. if that was NOT what you meant, then you need to tidy up your english language expression 

 

I never suggested, or even considered, that i saw  leo and the fool as complementary.

I have explained that i was saying both tarot and astrology have this in common They both have absolutely NO basis in  a scientific method of predicting a person's character or future  (except where self fulfilling prophecy plays a part, and people become what they are expected to become.) Whereas, up to a point, one CAN read a bit about a person's future, by looking carefully at their hands and fingers,  because these physically influence the career choices and recreational pursuits a person can most successfully pursue.  eg while i could, and did, strip down and rebuild a car engine in my own time and with e right tools,  my hands were always too small and not powerful enough to do this as a paid professional .  They were also too small and my fingers too short, to play the piano or be very good on a guitar.  

It is like looking at a bloke who is 5 foot tall and being able to predict they are unlikely to ever be a professional basketballer.  If i see a 6 foot 6 young man,with large strong hands, who is already playing competitive basketball, then there is a fair chance he will go on to play professional basketball     If i know instead that he likes to fix up car engines in his spare time, then it is likely he will pursue a career in this area.  Physical attributes, unlike when you were born, (star sign) , or what cards you turn over, DO influence your future life.  

This is NOT a change of topic or even a segue.  It goes back to what things have some scientific validity, and which things do not. Palmistry has some scientific validity.

Astrology and tarot have none.

Hermetics is a bit like palmistry (and herbalism)  it has SOME scientific validity, but i wouldn't bet my life on either one, where as i would comfortably, (and have) bet my life on modern science and medicine.   

Edited April 5, 2017 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Actually no. I've taught thousands of young peole and known hundreds of adults. Very few sit down  from an early age  and work out the sort of adult they want to be. Few deliberately and consciously create value lines and basic conscious ethical moralities based on outcomes. etc.   Few think about how to achieve a persona they desire. Even fewer have the discipline, and can maintain the effort over time, required to achieve this end. Most simply live in the moment, responding to environmental stimuli and crises

To suggest that others do not have as much learning and personal development processing going on it quite the stretch in rational thinking terms, unless there is some impairment. Every child grows up in an environment and adapts, what they learn is every bit as significant within it's context. I think for a guy who found a kid placing a bomb at the town hall, showing him how to build a proper bomb and sent him on his merry little way with a warning not to bring one to school, would understand such simple reasoning.It's unfortunate that you had to build a persona for yourself from an early age, to me that says something. I have always been me,my skill sets adapt and grow and I use them as the person that I am, they do not define me, I define them an make them an extension of myself. 

 

27 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Now where do you get that  idea from.  We CRETE the only true  life belief self  we have We can do this dleibertely or let life shape us  without our permisiion. 

 I AM the person you see. but more than that I am totally comfortable and content in who I am, because i created myself and how could i be unhappy  given that.? ( no one is going to make themselves into a person they don't like or are uncomfortable with)  i never have to lie or be hypocritical or pretend to be anything i am not. Hence no stress, no strain, no inner conflict.  

I am not batman but i CAN be bruce wayne. I am not the phantom but i CAN be kit walker. I can be romantic idealistic courageous selfless generous etc   Anyone can be. They just have to chose to be .  We can't be super heroes, but we can all be heroes.  There is not an adult human on earth who is not the person the y have chosen to be, but some people make the choice unconsciously. 

None of that matters falls into the "IT'S TO LATE TO CLOSE THE BARN DOORS" catagory

 

31 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Any opinion is only worth anything if it can be explained and validated My opinions tie into a lifetime of experiences. I use outcome based assessment to judge the value of anything.eg what will be the outcomes if i drink and drive or if i cheat on my wife or if i lie or steal? 

 And so, giving background supports the validity of an opinion and why it is the correct opinion

The only real validation for an opinion needed is that there is a brain and a mouth/fingers to express it, a 30 year personal development history as a validation offers no support and many times works against you.

 

43 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I repeat. Nothing i write on Um is ever just fictional or untrue   This means that where you don't or cant accept something  you ARE mistaken.  ( I accept  that differences in opinion and perception will occur )

Hmmm, so now I am mistaken because I question the validity of what someone says by what that person said. As previously noted on earlier episodes of "The Walker Files Xrated" that personal fictional or not experience only proves to you what you are saying. To others myself included it proves nothing without documentation and you don't do that so there is no support or validation.

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

To suggest that others do not have as much learning and personal development processing going on it quite the stretch in rational thinking terms, unless there is some impairment. Every child grows up in an environment and adapts, what they learn is every bit as significant within it's context. I think for a guy who found a kid placing a bomb at the town hall, showing him how to build a proper bomb and sent him on his merry little way with a warning not to bring one to school, would understand such simple reasoning.It's unfortunate that you had to build a persona for yourself from an early age, to me that says something. I have always been me,my skill sets adapt and grow and I use them as the person that I am, they do not define me, I define them an make them an extension of myself. 

I ts not  a suggestion it is an observable fact. You might be an exception i dont know you well enough to say. 

it is Not UNFORTUNATE  The difference is this.I decided who and what i wanted to be and shaped myself into that person. Most people just evolve and let the forces around them shape them into something.

This is ok, but not optimal or the way to achieve your full potential   The fact you judge this to be unfortunate shows you have fallen into a common trap in human thinking; that somehow we are only responsive not adaptive and predictive in how we  interact with our environment.  If you want to BE like the knights of the roundtable first you have to understand their characters motivations etc then you have to adapt yourself to be like them and to behave as they y do withthe values the y hold. .  I AM me but i am the person I chose to be, because this man  has the qualities and values i hold to be important and right .  Of course we learn, adapt, mature and evolve but again this should be done consciously and wit full slef awareness so we become a eron e like and feel comfortable with . On the other hand my basic moralities have not changed because they are based on outcomes with maximum benefit for me and my community.   What is right is measurably right and until outcomes change right will always remain right. 

None of that matters falls into the "IT'S TO LATE TO CLOSE THE BARN DOORS" catagory

Well a self aware person will never be caught in that position. They know damn well what happens if you leave the door open so the y close it. 

The only real validation for an opinion needed is that there is a brain and a mouth/fingers to express it, a 30 year personal development history as a validation offers no support and many times works against you.

No. Opinions are only as valuable as what happens when one acts upon that opinion By extrapolation and logic we can know in advance the outcomes of any action, and thus can know the comparative value of any opinion. 

Hmmm, so now I am mistaken because I question the validity of what someone says by what that person said. As previously noted on earlier episodes of "The Walker Files Xrated" that personal fictional or not experience only proves to you what you are saying. To others myself included it proves nothing without documentation and you don't do that so there is no support or validation.

it is not about proof or evidence. I am simply saying that if you think i am writing fiction you are in error. Take it or leave it, but the consequences are/will be, real. 

jmccr8

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

13 hours ago, back to earth said:

23 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

As a Leo myself,  (and there's more to that in a sense.  ) does that mean I was born under a lion?

It may as well. 

Roar?!?  

13 hours ago, back to earth said:

Quote

 

I really don't know 98% of astrology, (though I did buy couple of books on it from time to time. And I use to read the horoscopes in the paper daily too.) I just though it meant being born during the month that was the time of the astrology stars,    categories   or something.

Yep ,  thats pop astrology for ya .  I admire your honesty   " of the astrology  stars "  ... "  categories "   or    " something "       

To most it means   " or something "  and people cant explain or have a clue what they mean when they say it 

Well, yeah, I do wanted to let it be known, that even know I have 'ahem' *have dabbled or experimented* I know, I am not an expert. But what I have learned from my dabblings, certain things said from others wouldn't make sense to me. There is certain things that have 'connections' to such things. Can't be explained right off the bat. *shrugs*

13 hours ago, back to earth said:

What is  'born under a sign ' ?   What does that mean ?       No need to answer, I am just' bouncing off you' again  . My point is people go around saying this and most have not a clue what it means or is supposed to mean . 

I was wondering about your confusion of how this is said. I'm assuming this happened to be a type of common phrase now said when discussing your sign. I think it's came from the fact that the Astrology signs are connected to star groupings in our sky, and so 'we were born under them' at the time. *shrugs again*.

13 hours ago, back to earth said:

Quote

But to me, is it really that simple? I feel even that boils down to different individual charteristics. Plus, I had often would read the horoscopes to see how silly and one particular path was 'predicted'. There would be the 'you will meet your true love today' and I'm like, I'm already married. 

 

Indeed .... and did you meet your true love / husband   later that day  ?       

Or meet him 'again' that day.  

I'm assuming you get my cute little 'snarkiness' there.

I guess it took me awhile to just stop reading the horoscopes, to even buying one particular year of my sign, in a book. *shrugs for a third time* So, I was still reading them, (as a form of entertainment.  ) even years after I married. 

13 hours ago, back to earth said:

Quote

As I have have thought, the Tarot and astrology were based off two separate things.

'Based off '   ?     I think they had two  different origins .  It was probably  'Ettellia'  that first made a connection , Levi adjusted it, then the Golden Dawn then  Crowley with his Thoth tarot.  There are variant systems .

But take what I say about tarot with a grain of salt ... although I had been studying it  and doing readings for  over 30 years .... Mr walker has declared I dont know about it      

Then you definitely know more than me. For that, I  you.  

And that is in the neighborhood of what I meant. ( Hey, I have an English degree, doesn't mean I'm using it wisely!!!)  Like you and I said, two different origins. Apples and oranges my friend.  

13 hours ago, back to earth said:

Quote

 

The Tarot could be used by the 'power' of the elements, like the cards, the environment around you. And it's more in depth in predicting, than astrology.

What is  using something 'by the power of the elements ' ?     Astrology has a strong elemental component .   More in depth ?

Maybe more indepth than reading a  tiny newspaper paragraph  but not otherwise .  Do you realise what is involved in casting a good chart ?   I can do an in depth reading of tarot in 40 mins ... an in depth natal chart would take me days of constant work ! 

Unless I just did an auto crappy computer generated one not tailored to a specific individual .

I always felt there was a lot involved, in which I have not dabbled long enough, and am fascinated of your knowledge and experience of it. I'm just agreeing with you, right? You know that, right?

From my memory and knowledge of learning and practicing the Tarot, it seemed that 'I' channel the 'energy' around me and from the elements, (the energy and essences of objects around me, trees, curtains, etc.) and have that 'boost' me. *shrugs* It may not be something actually happening, but I practiced that anyways. 

13 hours ago, back to earth said:

Quote

I agree with you, BTE, it's two separate things. 

Two things connected by some principles ; of course the 3 : 4    /    12  principle   from astrology  has entered tarot , but the kabbalah that entered it did not enter into astrology. 

The thing from my understanding and memory, it really hasn't shown me that they're connected. I have had a friend tell me that used magic in tarot card readings, (which they shuddered at the memory), even then I thought you couldn't do such a thing. 

13 hours ago, back to earth said:

Quote

(And besides, I was born with two signs, Leo and Virgo, and sometimes on whether I read the horoscopes in the newspaper or the magazines, to consider when my birthday hit under Leo or Virgo. I was so confused!

Hence the uselessness  of that system .   

Well, wasn't that my point?!?  

13 hours ago, back to earth said:

Quote

As someone who has owned and used Tarot cards, I see no way an infant could be owning and using a deck of Tarot cards!  Hell, after sometime of owning my first deck, (that I got from my mom as a Christmas gift as a teenager, I wondered about getting them at a young age. ((Well, I think my mom had no clue about them, and when she couldn't find an 8 ball, that I originally asked for, she asked a retail clerk and the clerk suggested the deck.)), but yet a whole new path was born!) Anyways, even I have various attitudes towards the Tarot. I would never give my kids such a deck. Plus, one needs to read up on it, and the book that usually comes with it. ( I have yet to see a kid's version of the 'Tarot for dummies' or some book about them like it. ) Even giving a infant a regular deck of cards is not a good idea. At the least, that deck is going to land on the floor ripped and kind of gummy wet. 

kids, much less infants, are not going to have the understanding that one needs for the Tarot deck. My kids never had them. (Though, I think one of them did have an 8 ball as an older child at one point. )

I have played the original D&D in two separate groups, a more feminine fairy version in another group, and a Star Trek version with my husband in a group with his tech class buddies. ( Ooooh, the nostalgia!!! ) How does using the Tarot and D&D coincide with each other?

 

Its just walker senselessly raving and  trying to prove some obscure point that he himself probably lost track of .

"tarot is merely a more complex form of playing cards , which I played with since infancy "

 

          yes, I can  read you tarot for you ... I will have you know , I played with playing cards as a baby . 

Displays of public idiocy dont seem to bother some perpetrators of that at all   !  

There are things, that one *  * can take so far.  

Like I said before, I was introduced to them, (by accident) as a teenager, and it was later I had wondered if I was too young to really understand them. Again, as a bookseller, I don't see them marketed at all to minors. 

Now, as a parent, (like you), I cannot see how an infant could fathom them and use them, when I usually see infants see them as teething toys. *shrugs for a final time*

13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

To clarify. I never suggested tarot and astrology were the same thing. Just tha t both have no science behind them, or any way the y can be used logically to predict a future.

PAlmistry on the other hand does have at least SOME physical basis  and can be used  (Along with observation of a person's physique and personality,  during a reading) to predict at least people's  probability of taking on certain types of work, and thus of their success in life, and even a likely life path.. 

Second, the sentence

 

Despite that I still feel that going into explaining anything to you is a waste of time for my computer still has issues, Palmistry has physical points that show that you have a certain length of veins and what not, but it's really guess work to say that you'll live that long. 

Quote

The tarot is merely a more complex form of cards which i played from infancy in many forms.

is constructed grammatically  to say  that I played with cards from infancy thus learning their values and signs.

 The sentence does not say  that I played with tarot cards from infancy, but tha t tarot are a more complex form of cards, and i had played with cards from infancy.

Uh, yes it does say that. And it shows it in two of your sentences. You're just playing around and attempting to taking my attention of that it was said, to say how complicated the cards are. You are still saying that you played with them from infancy. How can you expect me to believe you, when it's been written still and twice?

Not one infant that I have observed (and the ones I raised along with that) have understood the complications of anything to 'play them from infancy'. 

I do not believe you. And that is alright for me to do so. No, compelling proof is offered to show me. 

End of conversation.

 

[Mr Walker]

24 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Roar?!?  

Well, yeah, I do wanted to let it be known, that even know I have 'ahem' *have dabbled or experimented* I know, I am not an expert. But what I have learned from my dabblings, certain things said from others wouldn't make sense to me. There is certain things that have 'connections' to such things. Can't be explained right off the bat. *shrugs*

I was wondering about your confusion of how this is said. I'm assuming this happened to be a type of common phrase now said when discussing your sign. I think it's came from the fact that the Astrology signs are connected to star groupings in our sky, and so 'we were born under them' at the time. *shrugs again*.

Or meet him 'again' that day.  

I'm assuming you get my cute little 'snarkiness' there.

I guess it took me awhile to just stop reading the horoscopes, to even buying one particular year of my sign, in a book. *shrugs for a third time* So, I was still reading them, (as a form of entertainment.  ) even years after I married. 

Then you definitely know more than me. For that, I  you.  

And that is in the neighborhood of what I meant. ( Hey, I have an English degree, doesn't mean I'm using it wisely!!!)  Like you and I said, two different origins. Apples and oranges my friend.  

I always felt there was a lot involved, in which I have not dabbled long enough, and am fascinated of your knowledge and experience of it. I'm just agreeing with you, right? You know that, right?

From my memory and knowledge of learning and practicing the Tarot, it seemed that 'I' channel the 'energy' around me and from the elements, (the energy and essences of objects around me, trees, curtains, etc.) and have that 'boost' me. *shrugs* It may not be something actually happening, but I practiced that anyways. 

The thing from my understanding and memory, it really hasn't shown me that they're connected. I have had a friend tell me that used magic in tarot card readings, (which they shuddered at the memory), even then I thought you couldn't do such a thing. 

Well, wasn't that my point?!?  

There are things, that one *  * can take so far.  

Like I said before, I was introduced to them, (by accident) as a teenager, and it was later I had wondered if I was too young to really understand them. Again, as a bookseller, I don't see them marketed at all to minors. 

Now, as a parent, (like you), I cannot see how an infant could fathom them and use them, when I usually see infants see them as teething toys. *shrugs for a final time*

Despite that I still feel that going into explaining anything to you is a waste of time for my computer still has issues, Palmistry has physical points that show that you have a certain length of veins and what not, but it's really guess work to say that you'll live that long. 

Uh, yes it does say that. And it shows it in two of your sentences. You're just playing around and attempting to taking my attention of that it was said, to say how complicated the cards are. You are still saying that you played with them from infancy. How can you expect me to believe you, when it's been written still and twice?

Not one infant that I have observed (and the ones I raised along with that) have understood the complications of anything to 'play them from infancy'. 

I do not believe you. And that is alright for me to do so. No, compelling proof is offered to show me. 

End of conversation.

 

Sorry but you are misunderstanding what i said.  Maybe i should have put an extra comma in.   All I can say is tha t i wrote waht i meant and tha t is NOT how you intepreted it    

"tarot is merely a more complex form of playing cards , which I played with since infancy "

 the subject is playing cards, which i played with from infancy.  Tarot cards are merely a more complex form of cards 

The sentence above does not say i played with tarot cards from infancy,   but that i played with cards, and tarot cards are just another form of cards. HENCE  i learned the value and role of playing cards very young and thus could easily pick up the meanings and attributes of tarot cards  .This was ALL to explain why I have no problem knowing the symbology and value of tarot  cards, while i cant know what some random image is supposed to represent in BTEs mind

 BTE made his usual sarcastic comment about how could i know/understand tarot's symbolic imagery, if i couldn't work out the symbolic significance of images he posted to me?.   The answer was that i was TAUGHT it,  like i was taught the values and symbolic significance of  ordinary playing cards

 Yesterday  i watched a video on facebook  of two very young girls (barely able to stand up ) imitating a lengthy scene from  frozen.  They knew it so well they had it perfectly choreographed and did the moves some times BEFORe the y appeared on the television screen  I would not have believed THAT was possible either  I was the oldest child in a time before television   l was spoken to as an adult always talked, to read to, and able to read myself  by the time i was  2. No tooc or reading was ever censored form me and as i said my grandmother spent a lot of time teaching me how to tell fortunes in many forms  i was also taught how to make and present a cup of teas using tea leaves and a teapot and to be a host for the many womens groups my mother was a part of. Young children can be taught a lot if their parents make the effort. 

Infancy for me begins at birth and ends about the time a child starts school. They then become a child and later an adolescent.    Not only was i reading newspapers and books before i went to school (as an infant)  i was playing crib and canasta and telling fortunes.(  No tv to waste time on back then. before we went to school  we learned to cook, do chores, knit and mend,   wash and dry  and help with washing and gardening)   

What you believe is actually irrelevant.  But if you  dont believe me, then  you will never comprehend me.  I  can live with that.  

 

Edited April 5, 2017 by Mr Walker

[Stubbly_Dooright]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Sorry but you are misunderstanding what i said.  Maybe i should have put an extra comma in.   All I can say is tha t i wrote waht i meant and tha t is NOT how you intepreted it    

"tarot is merely a more complex form of playing cards , which I played with since infancy "

 the subject is playing cards, which i played with from infancy.  Tarot cards are merely a more complex form of cards 

The sentence above does not say i played with tarot cards from infancy,   but that i played with cards, and tarot cards are just another form of cards. HENCE  i learned the value and role of playing cards very young and thus could easily pick up the meanings and attributes of tarot cards  .This was ALL to explain why I have no problem knowing the symbology and value of tarot  cards, while i cant know what some random image is supposed to represent in BTEs mind

No!

No!

No!

And No!  

No matter how you spin it, Walker, I still you say in that sentence, you played with Tarot Cards from infancy, and you cannot learn the attributes of the Tarot from playing with regular decks of playing cards!! How can one take "Go fish!" and learn about the meaning of the 'death' card, which is actually explaining change?! And you cannot know and learn from playing cards in infancy!! You again are trying to push my attention to the elements of the Tarot, (which you cannot learn about from a regular deck of cards) and trying to get me to avoid that you did say from infancy. If you think I'm misunderstanding you, than I think you're doing it purposely. 

Look, Walker, I know about how one uses words and how in sentences to show that I still mean what I'm trying to say. So, you cannot convince me. 

So, I think very positively, (remember, I said, I think (my opinion), ), that you are wrong and I caught it from how you said it the first time. 

Oh, yeah, END OF CONVERSATION!!

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

On 4/4/2017 at 0:26 PM, Sherapy said:

Indeed, unless a person needs to keep with the make believe story that they contained all knowledge within and just had to tap into it. Fast forward to reality, just like we go to school to learn not because we already know everything. I agree no one gave MW as an infant a deck of tarot cards and would honestly believe that he was delineating them, let alone remembering this ( an infant doesn't even have mental scripts yet!).

Well, now he is saying he played with regular cards, and that he learned from them about the Tarot. And that he played with the regular deck from infancy.  Which, is a miracle that he as an infant hadn't gummed them to death. (and card cuts on the gums as well) 

Quote

The tarot is merely a more complex form of cards which i played from infancy in many forms. 

So, his line here, which pretty much tells me he played with the Tarot, a merely more complex of cards, which he played from infancy. How can it be viewed that he played with regular cards, when he said he played with a complex form of cards, which he then describes is the Tarot. And you cannot compare the Tarot with a regular deck of cards.  And it's pretty much unsaid you don't give any decks of cards to an infant, unless you want gummy cards and cut up gums. There's just no way of pulling it inside and out, to show what I saw. 

17 hours ago, back to earth said:

yeah well, Mr genius .....

 if you cant understand this  , even with your 'disability re pictures'   you would be an absolute morin or catatonic 

 

Oh look ... a heart  ... and there is    one .... two .... three of them !

That must be the  3 of hearts .... well done little Walker ! 

 

But he can also read a tarot card symbolism 

 

but not understand a picture of a cat 

Exactly!!!!!

Thank you, BTE.   

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

No!

No!

No!

And No!  

No matter how you spin it, Walker, I still you say in that sentence, you played with Tarot Cards from infancy, and you cannot learn the attributes of the Tarot from playing with regular decks of playing cards!! How can one take "Go fish!" and learn about the meaning of the 'death' card, which is actually explaining change?! And you cannot know and learn from playing cards in infancy!! You again are trying to push my attention to the elements of the Tarot, (which you cannot learn about from a regular deck of cards) and trying to get me to avoid that you did say from infancy. If you think I'm misunderstanding you, than I think you're doing it purposely. 

Look, Walker, I know about how one uses words and how in sentences to show that I still mean what I'm trying to say. So, you cannot convince me. 

So, I think very positively, (remember, I said, I think (my opinion), ), that you are wrong and I caught it from how you said it the first time. 

Oh, yeah, END OF CONVERSATION!!

 

Based on MW's posts I conclude something is "not right in Denmark."

 

[back to earth]

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The fact that you and a scientist share a personal opinion (and i suspect some personal characteristics) does not make it any less "just an opinion"

Its a very informed and studious opinion .  If you want to demean it by adding 'just an opinion'  , well then , so is every thing else .

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 

   I actually read up on the bloke, and some of his blogs. He is certainly knowledgeable in his field  (albeit still a bit young to be certain of anything in life )  He is also a bit different from most physicists and uses blogs and social media almost as his professional form of expression.

Have you ever thought, thats what a blog might be  for many people ? 

I am surprised if you think that is unusual as you use this forum as constant ego expression. I doubt I will get through this post without some story from your own past of how you .... blah  blah ....

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 He offers many points of view and commentaries including some provocative ones    A lot of them are much more positive and encouraging than the one you quoted. He doesn't sound like a bloke who thinks that physics is heading for the shitter (to extend your analogy) . 

Do I have to quote him again ?  Of course he does !  Anyone esle would see that in the quote i made ... except you of course.

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

yea I got his point I am not expert enough on physics to know if he is correct, but what i read makes sense.

What we extrapolate or learn from that depends on our own views about physics.  I think he was suggesting that physics needs to take a different approach which excludes past long held beliefs about the nature of reality

Suggesting ? !        he virtually slaps you in the face with it ! 

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 

One can't argue with that.  What is, is  no matter what some theory says . It doesnt mean physics is in the poo, however.

He may be right. He might also be a young, clever, idealist who is disappointed and disillusioned by the path of traditional physics and by the attitudes of the "old men" of physics  (This mindset is mirrored (can be seen/ reflected) in his own personal and professional path in the last 20 years or so) 

Ah yes ....  those non old school types must be a real annoyance to us more mature worldy and intelligent elders  hmmmm ?

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Its been 20 years since i went to a dentist

Ahhh ... here is the story ... I was wondering what happened to it ...

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 

( to have a broken tooth repaired)  As ive said many times, I am blessed or lucky and do not experience pain beyond a mild discomfort. I havent even taken a pain killer of any sort in the last decade.   But i take the point that medical science is important and should be used by everyone who  can.  I understand that  you also value it  Where you are wrong  (and it is a common mindset is to think that other forms of complementary herbal medicine etc are superior or can replace modern medicine

and where YOU ARE WRONG   is to pretend that I said  that ... so you could say I was wrong about it . 

But it just makes you wrong   DEAD WRONG   Walker !

Again, a mess of stuff with no quoting of what I did say , makes stuff up  about what I said and then criticises his own ideas that he attributes to me 

Constantly .

Automatically .

Convulsively   ,    even .

 

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 There is a small amount of truth in this, but also huge dangers Eg it may well be that medical cannabis can relieve some forms of suffering. But it is also true that homeopathy is NOT, generally, a good way to treat cancers. Try it , for certain, but not at the exclusion of modern medicine.  

Ridiculous and stupid comment and comparison - you have not a clue what you are on about ;

It can be scientifically and medically proven tha cannabis contains compounds that can treat medical issues

This DOES NOT apply to homeopathy    and where did I ever mention homeopathy or say it had any value 

You are still building false windmills in the clouds to charge them Walker ... you cant stop doing it , like I said , its become compulsive behavior for you now .

 

 

 

 

 

[back to earth]

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 

Unlike the fixed values attached to cards, (and things like flags or well known symbols)  random images have only subjective values, dependent on individual perspectives  A picture does nothing to transfer one person's understanding or point of view to another person, unless it is also explained how the first person perceives the image. 

 

THing is , dumb nut ,   you never read nor responded to my previous clarity on this , did you . 

Playing dumb again ?

Its like a kid with his fingers in his ears who wont listen to any explanation and keeps parroting the same thing over and over again as he hasnt heard the answer becasue he has his fingers in his ears and keeps parroting the same thing over and ...

[back to earth]

20 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The first picture has no contextual relevance for me. (maybe, as an australian, i see a  very happy farmer getting ready to do some planting?)  

 

Oh .... then maybe I should explain your blithering ignorance  to you ;

 

3 times before i put that picture up, in various posts I commented that you refuse to intrepret of comprehend a picture 

even when I have put up a text - wrotten words -  saying something  and then following with an image to illustarte what the pic  is saying in relation to that text . 

I even said if I do that, you  still calim the picture could mean anything . 

Then as a demonstartion, I say, you are so thick and slow at getting this , you are slogging through mud 

then I put a picture up of a guy slogging through mud

 and what do you do ?  Respond with ;

The first picture has no contextual relevance for me. (maybe, as an australian, i see a  very happy farmer getting ready to do some planting?)  

 

And  you get offended and upset when people call you an idiot  ?  

" 

20 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 

The second, due to my age and interest in science fiction, does ( I hear the voice/words echoing in my head when i see the picture.)  .  (but it would not, for millions of people.) And that  is the problem.  

Thats right Walker .... you finally get a meme  

HOORAY !    

but it is a problem for you as others might not get it      

20 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Without specific shared cultural relevance, images do NOT transfer understanding And any failure to communicate understanding IS dangerous. 

 

Not only did I know you would get that one I even said  'it might be dangerous '  before it  ....

You know Walker , I have bad news for you 

Your inability to understand and comprehend simple text is as bad as your inability to  discern what a picture means that follows the text that described that picture ! 

WOW !    

 

 

[back to earth]

20 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

So it's an illusion, and an adopted character can have a very different life than the REAL character and anything they say is suspect, could in part be your problem here.

Why do you feel that you must pretend to be someone else while imparting your truths, if you are not you? Do you have something to hide or is it a lack of confidence(not the pretend kind)?

Many posters here reveal bits and pieces of their lives that just float right by you.

Indeed !  Then he comes back all confused that they never said such stuff . 

20 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

 

While you publish and encyclopedic biography about yourself in support of the truths of a fictional character. This is a bit of a stumbling block in taking you seriously for some,...okay me, and I am real interested in how could that be corrected, and none of the solutions should require me getting a lobotomy for it to work.

jmccr8

 

Yes, a common opinion here with many posters ... most just fade away or ignore him ... to him this is more self assertion.

I believe so far I have blown about 15 of his ships out of the water ... each time he tries to segway to another position and sprout some professed knowledge - kablowie ! 

Many people have done this and retired ... I guess I just like shootin fish in barrel   ?           

[back to earth]

18 hours ago, Sherapy said:

The pic is of me and the lady I care for she has COPD her name is Susan and she is on Hospice in the last stage of her illness and is simply amazing

yeah .... I guessed that      

18 hours ago, Sherapy said:

 

. She is an honor to look after. She is always happy, this pic is her normal state. I wanted Frank to see this and why I am not on as  much as I'd like to be. I also tutor 3 cubs,

?  

 

18 hours ago, Sherapy said:

a 4th grader, and 2 9th graders most evenings.

BTE, I am old almost 49; thanks for reminding me. 

 

My pleasure Ma'am   ( Ma' am s   love being reminded of that     )

[back to earth]

17 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 

I have two issues One already discussed about the imprecision of images compared to words The second is my inability to mentally see images in my mind.   I can't know, but i suspect this restricts my abilty to analyse and interpret in my mind, visual images.  I can do this while looking at them but can't form them in my mind for later  reflection, analysis, or review.  

Your mind is also restricted in interpreting text ... this is VERY obvious to  nearly every poster that has responded to you . 

You HAVE to interpret it according to your own reinterpretation of it - which  is often wrong ... especially when you get into your specific psychological dynamic of desperately and embarrassingly trying to prove yourself right all the time . 

Its VERY obvious to  others and s actually a  social  disability  that you have .

[back to earth]

16 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Back to Earth's memes and pics are punctuation marks for the comment preceding, no real strain on the brain.

jmccr8

I have explained that to him 4 times now  ! 

Its like the guy is walking through mud ... he is sooo slow to get to any other location, other than the one he is stuck in now 

 

Ooooohhhhhh  !  There goes BTE again 

Putting up images that have no relation to anything  .....   " I cant understand that its an image " ......  "its not my fault, I have image comprehension deficiency order ! "  ....  "that image could mean anything !   "

 

.....   "  it might even be dangerous   !    "