James S Saint wrote:If you weren't already, you are becoming embarrassing (comic book characters??? Seriously??).
James S Saint wrote:Best to just let it go.
99.9% of everything "outside the box" is called "insanity" .. for a reason (
incoherency).
The first time we interacted, I defended you against trolls. You weren't as sure of yourself as you are now and struggled. I stopped defending you against trolls when you continued fighting and egging them on and further instigating the arguments. When you first argued against a theory of mine; finally worked up the nerve; I didn't come down on you as I did other trolls because you wouldn't have been able to handle it, so I said what I said and saw that you weren't content, that you would eventually come at me again. I saw that before you first argued against a theory of mine based on how you took criticism of your own theories. No matter how constructively measured, you took it as a personal offense. So, it didn't come as a surprise to me when you did argue against me, and when I did dispense with your arguments to show the soundness of my theory, could tell that you weren't done, that you would come at me again. Each of these interactions, I knew would only be a matter of time.
That is how transparent you have been since I came to these boards. This current interaction was seen before you ever even truly considered it, though I would warrant you held it in the back of your mind until you felt ready to do so.
You have learned a lot about attack tactics with words, but have yet to learn how to be accurate. You go with what has worked for you without truly understanding how it works. Furthermore, you drop your philosophies and whatever else you're arguing to focus on your attacks, which is a mistake. You look more for the fight than for knowledge; you look more to win than to further your understanding or to have a reason for winning other than pushing forth your own ego. You know nothing of defense tactics or of having a stance you stick to, though you've learned enough of verbal combating to know something of defense, but only insofar as it turns into another attack against who you're arguing with.
You say that I'm embarrassing myself by talking about comic book characters, but there is deep philosophy there that is pertinent to the conversation and I have thus employed it. I wonder, would you call Tesla's groundbreaking inventions as insanity? Leonardo Da Vinci's? When the apple hit Newton on the head, did he think about it hitting his head or did he think outside the box to consider the dynamics of gravity and how it effects the Earth and all that live on it? What manner of incoherency have you seen from Nietzsche, Plato, Aristotle; from any of the great inventors or great leaders? They all thought outside the box of the established norm of society to be great men and to have their legacies last, whether that was their intent or not.
We're done, here, James. You kept moving with your learning, but you didn't truly account for others doing the same. You weren't on par with your philosophies when we first met and you still aren't, because you focused on so many other things that weren't important, so many aspects that weren't important and stinted yourself. You slacked off on your thinking and understanding and instead wanted to win arguments whether your philosophies were true or not, whether you had something worth arguing or not. If you had not done that and instead worked on understanding, worked on fleshing out your philosophies, you still would have remained behind me because I never stopped doing those things myself. At best, you would have paced me, but still would have been behind because I was ahead already. Since I kept going with it and you only kept going in certain aspects of it; aspects that I kept fleshing out at the same time as every other aspect of my philosophies and understanding, which you let up on and stopped learning at a certain point; I have far out-distanced you and out-paced you and now have to show you the extent to which you fall short.
Something I was reticent to do before because you wouldn't have been able to handle such a bruising to your ego in any of our previous encounters and interactions. If you think at all that I didn't see this coming, that when I let up, I didn't note the hunger in your response and what it meant, then you fail to understand what I have come to know of others.
It's like when I was still in WA and my friends son wanted to water-wrestle with me in his community pool and the first time I said yes. We wrestled, and every time I played pure defense, he got me eventually, though I made him work at it. When I played offense and went to win, I won every time. Most of the time, I didn't feel like water-wrestling, simply because I saw all that he had the first time and he kept using the same tactics over and over again simply because they worked. He would wrap his legs around my waist, work his way to my back and eventually get the choke hold in. He was teaching me nothing new, while I taught him defense tactics that he never used and wasn't good at. During one of our bouts, I switched stances on him like how fighters do in Suikoden or any other fighting game.
I bring this up because one time I had him in a choke hold, dead to rights and instead of ending the fight there, I let him go; I let up. I pushed him away from me in the water and he turned back to me with light in his eyes, a hunger that said, 'you shouldn't have done that.' And, he came at me twice as determined as before. It is reminiscent to what you have done in words, over the extended period of time that we've been here. The same hunger to win, the same light in your eyes (behind your words) and the same lack of understanding of anything other than a quick victory; and if you can not get that, your attacks become weaker for lack of the platform, for lack of actually working your philosophies and I ask you the same question I've asked others: What are you doing here? You're not a philosopher. You don't care enough about what we talk about, nor do you wish to learn.