|
Post by tanath on Apr 12, 2007 20:22:56 GMT -5
i have a deep conviction that anything is possible and that fiction may yet be reality somewhere else. i do, however, see a problem with people who believe that everything they read is real. those people are inable to tell truth from reality and it can get them in trouble later. people nowadays are too ready to attack those who are different. someone like that makes a perfect target. that bothers me.
i tried to explain to that guy that harry potter is a series of books and that you can't always believe online quizes, but he was unable or unwilling to listen and understand. i even tried to point him the direction of some groups that could give him more reliable information, he didn't accept that help either.
i never name-called or flame anyone unless they seem to be purposefully hurtful to others just for the sake of being mean. those are the people that i will lay into until they learn that not everyone is willingto lie down and take thier buse.
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Apr 14, 2007 0:20:30 GMT -5
"An Irishman is the only man in the world who will step over the bodies of a dozen naked women to get to a bottle of stout" LMAO Sorry--I just now noticed this at the bottome of your comments. How funny--but I'm not sure how true. OK--back to the thread---"reality" is whatever is real to the person feeling it. This person may truly believe he is a wizard--and who knows--could be. Who are we, any of us, to judge what is real to someone. It may not be what we consider in our own "reality"--but then again--what is "moral" to some, is not to others. I have formed friendships online that to me are as real as those who I see in person every day---but others say these "friendships" are not real, because I haven't met the person face to face. Again--who's call is it? LoL, well tonight I probably wouldn't be doing much stepping over....Just depends on what day you lay a bottle stout out and block my path with a dozen naked women
|
|
|
Post by tanath on Apr 15, 2007 2:31:59 GMT -5
i'll take the naked women you leave behind. you can have the stout.
|
|
|
Post by wvdonovan on Apr 15, 2007 16:15:33 GMT -5
LMAO--not even gonna chime in on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Apr 16, 2007 15:17:44 GMT -5
i'll take the naked women you leave behind. you can have the stout. You're taking my dozen women? Whay am I gonna look at while I drink?
|
|
|
Post by tanath on Apr 16, 2007 16:29:35 GMT -5
i'll take the naked women you leave behind. you can have the stout. You're taking my dozen women? Whay am I gonna look at while I drink? you can still look, i'll just do the touching
|
|
|
Post by wvdonovan on Apr 16, 2007 22:33:01 GMT -5
You're taking my dozen women? Whay am I gonna look at while I drink? Pick me! Pick me!
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Apr 17, 2007 20:10:13 GMT -5
You're taking my dozen women? Whay am I gonna look at while I drink? Pick me! Pick me! LoL *gets drunk n stares at Donna*
|
|
|
Post by wvdonovan on Apr 18, 2007 9:21:06 GMT -5
Yummmm
|
|
Finn
Philosopher
Posts: 153
|
Post by Finn on May 16, 2007 20:00:26 GMT -5
what constitutes a fluff? is it ever ok to call someone a fluff? It seems to me that what constututes a 'fluff" is different by everyone's standards, so what is your view on it? I apologize for this bit of thread necromancy, but this is a subject I often debate. As others have noted, someone who doesn't know anything yet cannot be considered a "Fluffy," or whatever kitch term is being used. There are no stupid questions, and all Seekers begin their journey in ignorance. True Seekers discover that no matter how much they learn, they are still largely ignorant. However, there is a distinct difference between ignorance and WILLFUL IGNORANCE. A Seeker always strives to learn more, to research, to experience, and to discover the truth, whether it be painful or not. A "Fluffy" isn't interested in what is or isn't "true" but rather what is convenient, what is palatable, and what brings the most pleasure. A "Fluffy" is born of someone who simply refuses to advance in knowledge because to do so wouldn't be fun. They have cobbled together a system of beliefs which accomidates their lifestyles.
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on May 16, 2007 20:20:01 GMT -5
what constitutes a fluff? is it ever ok to call someone a fluff? It seems to me that what constututes a 'fluff" is different by everyone's standards, so what is your view on it? I apologize for this bit of thread necromancy, but this is a subject I often debate. As others have noted, someone who doesn't know anything yet cannot be considered a "Fluffy," or whatever kitch term is being used. There are no stupid questions, and all Seekers begin their journey in ignorance. True Seekers discover that no matter how much they learn, they are still largely ignorant. I agree. I certainly have the utmost respect for those who practice an eclectic path. To me any magical path is valid as long as it ever seeks to expand knowledge and personal truth for the individual spirit. Sometimes a Reconstructionist path isn't for everyone. Wicca certainly isn't a Reconstruct right?. Often times I think it becomes more a seeking of personal truths that those which are more widely respected or accepted by the many.
|
|