« "Sickest Buddhist" video spotlights spiritual hypocrisy | Main | Troll alert »

August 06, 2009


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

Well said. Another great post Brian. Thanks.

becoming sugar doesn't mean becoming unconcious or dead. At least not this. Let's follow an example.
A newly married couple wants to explore the infinite possibilities of love and beauty in the other half. As the love grows mature, the two halves start getting transformed into each other and the possibilities start turning into realities(or, certainties).At the peak point both become one. That's becoming sugar.
But the excitement of first date is incomparable. What if it never ends? You want to taste the sugar.
What will you choose?

Right on Brian, love this post, sometimes you explain things very well and I get it... thanks

yogendra, what you say isn't true. Two people never really become one. How would this be possible? They are still two individuals with distinctly separate subjective consciousnesses.

We never know what is like to be another person from the inside, so to speak, only from the outside. Two people never can become one. That's just a poetic way of speaking, not reality.

yogendra, your notion is utterly faulty.

Different individuals can never "become one". So your supposed "example" is not real, its an illusion. People have mutual loving relationships, but never oneness.

Brian - how the heck do you understand Satre? You really are the man!!!
Now we all can know how great you are !!

Absolute nonsense - this sort of ignorant rot should be outlawed.

A total and complete misunderstanding of Sarte, its actually laughable.

Worse misinformation than any Satguru could ever disseminate.

ImPressed, thank you! Your praise, which I choose to accept as sincere (because we existentialists relish our freedom to choose) makes me so very, very happy.

Terrified, thank your for your considered criticism of my blog post. One suggestion: you forgot to include any considered criticism. Next time, add some content to your comment. It will make more sense then.

It's always amusing to me, as a long-time blogger, when someone says "You're full of shit!" But when pressed to show some evidence of my shit-fulledness, they can't do it.

I've studied Sartre both as a youth and now, as a non-youth. He's dense, but I feel that I understand his basic existentialist stance. If you have a different understanding, please share it. I'm open to honest criticism. Otherwise, I'll take your comment for what it's worth at the moment: nothing.

(Ooh, that's so Sartre'ian...nothing!)

Humans make themselves what they will, it is human nature, except there is no human nature, but it leads to the understanding of what human life is: separateness, choice, freedom, anguish, joy. So finally we can understand the child sacrifice parents, simply being human, having freedom to choose, joy or anguish, the latter in this case I assume?

This is a particularly lackluster post, so lets liven it up a bit. Have a look at the comments for the post on November 21st, 2004, yes, this is the welcome to Church of the Churchless first post. Does it not seem strange that right at the outset, we have posts from tAo and tuscoN, taking the exact same AI stance (AI = Agressive Ignorant) in response to the first few newcomers. How very odd that tAo and tuscoN, both use capital letters unconventionally, both appear at day one, coming out of their corners in same fighting mood as we see today.
Brian, your followers may be closer than you think, like -- shh now, dont want to cause to much of a shock, -- but your demons within fighting your internal struggles for all to see on this blog.
You have my sympathies !!!

Walker, you're losing it, my man. Are you actually suggesting that tAo and tucson are my own personas, my own inventions? If so, you truly are deluded.

Authors create characters to participate and liven up their work, you are an author, right?
It would, theoretically, be very easy for you to create 'characters' and have them post to this blog. But of course, any reasonable person would ask why would you do such a thing? Well, first you always have someone who can post supporting your comments, there is strength in numbers. You can comment in as aggressive manner as you wish to other commenters, and Brian still looks good. You can make yourself look good in the eyes of genuine readers, so boosting you self acknowledged ego, and, you can put down others without damage to your own credibility. These are but a few reasons why you might do such a thing. I am sure you have really good reasons why you cannot create such characters and equally good reasons why you would not do such a thing, or will you reply with your usual enlightening replies: " I do not post comments under another name, and walker, you must be losing it!"

Come on Brian, lets hear the truth !!!


Unfortunately for Walker, he has made one very critical ERROR. And what is that error?

Well first, right here above Walker has stated:

"Have a look at the comments for the post on November 21st, 2004, yes, this is the welcome to Church of the Churchless first post. Does it not seem strange that right at the outset, we have posts from tAo and tuscoN, taking the exact same AI stance (AI = Agressive Ignorant) in response to the first few newcomers. How very odd that tAo and tuscoN [...] both appear at day one, coming out of their corners in same fighting mood as we see today." -- Posted by: Walker | August 07, 2009 at 11:02 PM

Now if you will notice more specifically, Walker has both assumed and stated the following:

"the comments for the post on November 21st, 2004"

"this is the [...] Church of the Churchless first post."

"right at the outset, we have posts from tAo and tuscoN"

"How very odd that tAo and tuscoN [...] both appear at day one"

But unfortunately Walker's assumption is totally incorrect and erroneous.

Tucson and tAo (myself) did NOT post any comments at all on "day one", which was November 21st, 2004.

My (tAo's) first posted comment under the "Welcome" topic was on April 09, 2008... and tucsoN's first post under that topic was on April 29, 2008 !!! And then the last posts by tucsoN and I under that topic were shorlty after on April 30, 2008.

So clearly, Walker has failed to notice the very significant and crucial fact that both Tucson's and my own comments were posted more than 3 years AFTER November 21st, 2004... and so they were NOT posted on "day one" as Walker has so mistakenly assumed and stated.

To prove it here are assembled all the post dates for Tucson and myself (tAo) that were posted under that topic which Brian had titled as "Welcome to the Church of the Churchless", and which Brian posted on November 21, 2004.

The Comment Dates:

Posted by: tAo | April 09, 2008 at 03:00 PM

Posted by: tucson | April 29, 2008 at 07:11 AM

Posted by: tucson | April 29, 2008 at 08:35 AM

Posted by: tAo | April 29, 2008 at 02:19 PM

Posted by: tAo | April 29, 2008 at 02:57 PM

Posted by: tAo | April 29, 2008 at 03:53 PM

Posted by: tAo | April 29, 2008 at 05:18 PM

Posted by: tucson | April 30, 2008 at 01:20 PM

Posted by: tAo | April 30, 2008 at 03:22 PM

Posted by: tAo | April 30, 2008 at 06:06 PM

So... so much for the astuteness and credibility (or rather the lack of) of this joke named Walker.

Walker, here's the smoking gun that destroys your credibility: I guess you didn't realize that IP addresses are associated with every comment made on my blogs. So I could tell that the person who left a comment as "walker" and the person who left a comment as "Brian" used the same Internet connection.

You've been leaving posts as "Brian" that I've been deleting, because I don't appreciate someone masquerading as me. That's cowardly and, yes, wrong -- a word that you have difficulty understanding the meaning of. But until today I hadn't checked to see if that lying commenter was you.

So after I deleted your last comment from "Brian" where you pretended that I'd banned you because I can do whatever I like on my blog, I'll make your fantasy reality. You're banned from my blog.

Not because you're an idiot troll. But mainly because you left comments under my name, hoping to lead people to believe that I was saying stuff that I never said.

This shows how hypocritical true believers can be, since you accused me as doing just what you have been doing. I've never left a comment on my blogs, or any blogs, under a different username. Never. Ever.

Truth can be simple, walker. I hope one day you realize that.

Walker, I do think you are full of shit. Again, the smoking gun:

At 11.58 pm "walker" posted a comment using IP address

At 1:21 am "Brian" posted a comment using IP address 212.227.103,74

You're a liar. End of story.

Because I believe in open commenting, I don't approve comments before they're posted as many bloggers do. So you may be able to have comments up for a while before I delete them.

From now on, readers of this blog know that you are a lying troll who won't even admit to being caught in a lie when he is caught in a lie by TypePad's commenting system. Your lies are recorded in my account files, walker/Brian.

Give it up. Take your trolling elsewhere, because you have zero credibility on this blog. I advise others to ignore you, because lying trolls feed on attention, lacking the capacity to get enjoyment from normal human activities, I guess.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. 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.


Post a comment

Your Information

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


  • 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.