Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01721)

You are still throwing terms out there. Again, when you have a
philosophical discussion you cannot just assume you are correct and
post an egotistical response, which you are continuing to do. You must
provide evidence or a counter-argument. And when you post a source,
you should provide some kind of emphasis on what kind of point you're
trying to make rather than just pasting one of your search results to
the list--anyone here, I'm sure, has the mental capacity to go and use
google.

And if you studied psychology in high school you should be well aware
that you can't diagnose someone through e-mail. So don't go throwing
out terms like "delusional" and "schizophrenic" so freely.

-Mark H.

On 4/26/05, thalprin <thalprin@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> ps: No, you're not asking a question, you're attempting a baseless
> statement -
> 
> Basically, you read my post and felt an emotional reaction which you
> then typed up for us all to read.
> 
> Really, it's just more confirmation of the true reality of the
> situation we're dealing with.
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamilton Jr."
> <waking.adept@g...> wrote:
> > Serious question here, not meant in sarcasm,
> >
> > How is it that you consider your spirituality more valid than
> anyone else's?
> >
> > And a few facts to consider:
> > 1. About your comment on Schizophrenia. When people hear
> voices/sounds
> > that are from this illness, they will think that they are actual,
> real
> > sounds, and will literally believe they came from their environment
> > rather than their own minds. They will also say incoherent things
> that
> > only they, themselves, think has meaning, (for instance, usually
> > people with psychosis will try and make up their own language on
> the
> > spot).
> >
> > When you throw around this term so loosely, you are basically
> stating
> > that you do not know what the illness is. Please do not do this,
> it is
> > an extraordinary of ignorance.
> >
> > 2. Dellusions are lies that people will begin to believe in after a
> > period of time, and they will gather evidence to support it in any
> > means necessary. Quite the contrary in my case, as I have gathered
> > evidence both for and against my case, and I am not blindly
> following
> > my beliefs. And I have plainly stated this in my introductory
> message.
> >
> > What you are implicating by using these terms so liberally, is that
> > practically anyone who had any contact with the masters is not
> only a
> > fraud, but mentally incompetant.
> >
> > I can honestly say you have no advanced knowlege of the conditions
> > that you appear to be diagnosing other people on the list with.
> >
> > -Mark H.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Mark Hamilton Jr.
waking.adept@gmail.com