« Truths about religion's falseness | Main | Godlessness is a true culture of life »

July 15, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Brian said \\\"This blog is dedicated to supporting non-religious searching for meaning\\\"

Others have said; this is Brian\\\'s blog he is entitled to write about himself and do whatever he likes. Frequent posts are about Brian likes this ...., Brian believes that... and Brian is cool with something else .....

Is this post a revert to the good old days of more about meaning and less about Brian?

Silentreader, thanks for making my point. Why do you have a problem with me writing whatever the heck I feel like on my own blog, if what I write is meaningful to me?

Understand: you're free to critique what I said in this post. Instead, your thrust is a criticism of me -- for getting meaning out of what I like to do.

Like many people who post anonymously on the Internet, you seem to find meaning in being critical and negative. I don't understand the pleasure in this.

But, hey, if that's what rocks your world, feel free. I just find comments like yours meaningless, because there is no content other than "I don't like what someone else likes."

Brian
Why do you take even the most simple of questions as an attack on you or your blog.
I pointed out the difference in apparent and declared purpose of this blog and asked the perfectly reasonable question whether you intended to revert to "search for meaning" or continue the "I will write what the heck I want". It makes a difference to me, I will either read your blog more often or give it a miss.
Can you respond normally for once, without paranoia?

A famous author who was widely criticized for his ideas once suggested that one watch a person's adjectives to uncover irrational or emotive intent.

Silentreader here uses "good old days" which then implies "bad new Brian". That is a personal attack. Subtle disguised name calling.

Later, the terms "normally for once" and "paranoia" are used which are hyperbolic and inciting attacks aimed squarely at the person.

I've seen this approach used methodically over and over again on political boards. Say something that sounds reasonable but include some emotion provoking adjective.

ric, excellent points. People communicate in many subtle (and unsubtle) ways. Messages, such as blog comments, convey a lot in how words are used, the emotional tone of those words, and such. I'm sensitive to this, as are we all. Like you said, it's misleading for someone to deny their obvious intent as Silentreader tried to do.

Silentreader, I suggest that you read this blog to find out what is going to be posted on this blog. Heck, I don't even know what I'm going to write before it is written. Often I sit down at my laptop with one intention, and something else emerges from my typing.

Such is the spontaneous creativity of Tao (way-making).

Since I didn't read this particular blog in 'the good old days', I cannot comment on whether it's the same or different than it was, BUT it seems to me that what Brian is saying is that life is about evolving. If he was saying the same thing as back then, that would sound more like he was getting into a religion, trying to solidify his ideas into rules for others, than doing what he says he seeks to do which is to flow where his ideas go. More power to him is my take on that.

All blogs are about a person's take on what is going on no matter what we say. How could it be otherwise short of only using links and even then it'd be which links?

Personally I like blogs and people that grow and change, that explore new ideas, that aren't afraid to express where they are because they know it might change in a year.

"I pointed out the difference in apparent and declared purpose of this blog"

-- That is such nonsense. The "purpose" of a personal blog like this one, is whatever the author wishes and decides the purpose to be for that day or article. And what you call "apparent" purpose, is really only your own perception and assumption, and not necessarily the authors's.

"and asked the perfectly reasonable question whether you intended to revert to "search for meaning" or continue the "I will write what the heck I want"

-- I just don't see those two (the "search for meaning" versus "I will write what the heck I want") as being in any way contradictory. Nor do I think there anything different for Brian to "revert" to, or "continue".

What is your problem Silentreader? Don't you understand that this is a personal blog wherein the author has the right to express anything he likes? There is no RULE that demands some particular consistency or uniformity. This, like everything, is a work in progress.

"I will either read your blog more often or give it a miss."

-- Who cares? I don't give a damn what you do, and Brian shouldn't either.

"Can you respond normally for once, without paranoia?"

-- Your subtle personal attacks, attempts at personal undermining and ridicule, are plain to see. If you don't like this blog or its author, then go elsewhere.


I do not fully agree with the comments left by Silent reader. But somehow I do not agree either with comments offered by Brian, ric and [email protected]

If you wish to reprimand somebody, your approach and tone has to be different.

I would specifically like to say to Brian, that the tone of the contents of your posts is always excellent as you write them at your own. These are in response to your own feelings. These are vivid and thought provoking.

But your replies to other's comments are mixed and sometimes not up to the expected mark (imo). Is it that you are carried away by the other's remarks to the extent that it shakes your emotional fabric. A much greater responsibility is solicited from your end.

If a visitor to your blog is asked by somebody else to go elsewhere, that is not fair.

I always wish that the replies should come from the person, if asked specifically. Others can always participate.

By any means, I do not intend to hurt anybody’s feelings.

"I do not agree either with comments offered by Brian, ric and [email protected]"

-- Rakesh, it seems that you don't understand this blog, and especially the malicious and derogatory intent behind the comments that people like Silentreader are posting.

"If you wish to reprimand somebody, your approach and tone has to be different."

-- No, it doesn't. And Brian wasn't reprimanding either. You post however you want to, and others will also. Like I said, I don't think you get what the issue is about in this case.

"But your replies to other's comments are mixed and sometimes not up to the expected mark (imo). [...] A much greater responsibility is solicited from your end."

-- To hell with your "mark". People should be free to speak their minds. And that includes Brian. So loosen up and don't try to make others conform to your expectations. That kind of stuffiness and naievete is lame.

"If a visitor to your blog is asked by somebody else to go elsewhere, that is not fair."

-- No Rakesh, you're absolutely inoorrect. I did not "ask somebody else to go elsewhere". I said this: "If you don't like this blog or its author, then go elsewhere." In other words, meanimg if you are not happy with this blog and its author, then simply go somewhere else that you like better. You are trying to put the wrong spin on this Rakesh. You don't understand what the point was.

"I always wish that the replies should come from the person, if asked specifically. Others can always participate."

-- Huh? What exactly are you trying to say here?

Dear [email protected],

Your point wise negation to my response is insipid and uncalled for. It appears that either you are a spokesman or more than 51% shareholder of Brian’s blog. Yet, neither of it entitles you to reply to my comments, particularly when I had specified. It is ill manner.
It will be ill manner now on my part if I write more than this.

Sir, I also hold a little heart within my rib cage, so what if you can not see it. It reverberates, so what if you can not feel it.

Sir, you are your own master. You may opt to reply in your characteristic manner. Frankly I enjoy it; you are the rarest person who can send his signals hundreds and thousands of miles away with a flick on the type pad without realizing its repercussions.

With regards,

Rakesh, you said:

"Your point wise negation to my response is insipid"

-- You are entitled to your opinion, but like your previous comment, it doesn't hold much significance.

"It appears that either you are a spokesman"

-- I am a spokesman of my own views and opinions, not Brian's Your

"Yet, neither of it entitles you to reply to my comments, particularly when I had specified."

-- You're wrong Rakesh, because apparently you are not even aware of what you said. You specifically mentioned me. You said: "I do not agree either with comments offered by Brian, ric and [email protected]" That entitles me to respond to you. But then I can comment anyway, even if you hadn't mentioned me. You seem to think that there are certian rules in place here. You seem to think that things should go according to your expectations. But you don't call the shots here Rakesh.

"It is ill manner."

-- Thats incorrect. There was nothing in my previous comment to you that was ill-mannered. If you think there was, then what/where exactly is it?

"I also hold a little heart within my rib cage, so what if you can not see it. It reverberates, so what if you can not feel it."

-- What are you talking about, or referring to here? Again, you seem to be somewhat confused. I am not sure what it is that you are trying to say, or why. But one thing for sure is that you do not know what I am able to see and/or feel.

"you are the rarest person who can send his signals hundreds and thousands of miles away with a flick on the type pad without realizing its repercussions."

-- Wrong again Rakesh. I say whatever I say for my own reasons and intentions and effects. But your saying "repurcussions" here, sounds slightly like a veiled threat (a bit reminiscent of your buddy Manish). So then it is really you who is the one who does not "realize" what you saying or implying.

The issue or problem here seems to be that you have some various particularrigid expectations of how other people should be and think, and what they should and shouldn't say. But its about time that you wake-up and come out of your naive bubble, and realize that the world simply does not work that way Rakesh. If you can criticise me and disagree with me (which you clearly have done), then I can do the same.

Dear [email protected],

Thanks.

with regards,

hey brian, found your site after looking up "loving my mac" btw i do love my mac it's great. anyway, i agree a person's "religious" preference is their own personal business, understanding why they believe instead having a person come up to me and say "you must believe" makes a difference. it's something i can relate to right now because i made a choice in leaving my "religion" and it's my choice not anyone else,

Rakesh,

Thanks and my regards to you as well.

transcendant experiences of scientist

http://www.issc-taste.org/main/introduction.shtml

Transcendent experiences of scientists – this is a quote from the site: “Sometimes I’ve been able to give scientific information about these experiences that relieves the reporter, producing a reaction something like: “Oh, it happens to other sane people? There’s an established name for it? I’m not alone, it doesn’t mean I’m crazy?!”

Wow, isn’t that great, must be okay if a scientist says so, obviously reliance on scientific information is the cure for everything (as long as you can give the condition an established name of course), scientists don’t sound closed minded or arrogant at all…I can sleep easy now… not

After my last post and feeling a little annoyed with myself at my knee jerk reaction towards the attitudes of scientists I decided to read more about “Scientists Transcendent Experiences” and found under “Current Addition” a rather aptly named article called “Synchronicity?” which starts off with… “I had read Carlos Castaneda’s books (several times)…

I’d just been discussing Carlos on another thread, so thanks to xxxxx for posting the link :)


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.