18 Mar 08
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySometimes criticising the strong can be a way of constructively dealing with worthwhile issues.
Your well intentioned construct seems somewhat superficial and quite
simplistic. Let's be clear... the WEAK always find frontal and/or subtle
ways to criticize the strong, while the STRONG always constructively deal
with worthwhile issues. Bottom line, it's all about character not IQ.
-gb
🙂
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by rbmorrisAnswer to both questions, RB, is a resounding YES. Of course there are exceptions, on any day of the week, when good folks rise to the
Strong people don't have moments of weakness?
Weak people don't have moments of strength?
occasion and/or fall from grace. Maybe helpful to view behavior as usual and customary versus (three sigma type) fallback postures.
-gb
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by NordlysNot only that, Nordlys, but doing so in a timely and honest way also succeeds in delivering the crucial benefit
Sometimes criticising the strong can be a way of constructively dealing with worthwhile issues.
of enforced and/or genuine humility, which all of us need to stay on the high road and on our game.
-gb
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by uzless"Don't Steal My Great Ideas©" is a registered trademark of Phlabibit
What category do most of your conversations fall into?
Simple minds discuss people.
Average minds discuss events.
Superior minds discuss ideas.
Thread 64883
P-
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by uzlessYour own original post was about people, you muppet. The post I'm quoting is about people.
Some of the comments were about me (discussing people)
Some were making fun of the thread (discussing events)
Some challenged the nature of the question (discussing ideas)
I think my point has been made. Thanks go to everyone that played.
If you believe your own crap, then you're as simple as they come.
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by uzlessHow is making fun of the thread "discussing events"? One of the problems with your categorising and labelling is that the categories are far from clear in many cases. For example, in my first post I made a point about exactly that problem (discussing ideas according to you), while at the same time making a comment about you (discussing people) and making fun of the thread (discussing events according to you). So I have a simple average superior mind, I guess.
Some of the comments were about me (discussing people)
Some were making fun of the thread (discussing events)
Some challenged the nature of the question (discussing ideas)
I think my point has been made. Thanks go to everyone that played.
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by PalynkaIf you can't disassociate the question from the reference, then sadly, you shouldn't post in this thread.
Your own original post was about people, you muppet.
The post is not about people per se...it's about how you can differentiate people based on their conversations.
In other words, it's an IDEA. We are discussing an IDEA that uses people as its construct. You understand now Mr. Noncomprehension?
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by uzlessSimple minds discuss simplistic ideas.
If you can't disassociate the question from the reference, then sadly, you shouldn't post in this thread.
The post is not about people per se...it's about how you can differentiate people based on their conversations.
In other words, it's an IDEA. We are discussing an IDEA that uses people as its construct. You understand now Mr. Noncomprehension?
18 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysIn case you hadn't thought about it, the original post assumes more than one conversation. It would be pretty stupid to assume you could learn much about a person from just one post or conversation....almost as stupid as to assume the original posts assumes you could learn much about a person from just one post.
How is making fun of the thread "discussing events"? One of the problems with your categorising and labelling is that the categories are far from clear in many cases. For example, in my first post I made a point about exactly that problem (discussing ideas according to you), while at the same time making a comment about you (discussing people) and making fun ...[text shortened]... hread (discussing events according to you). So I have a simple average superior mind, I guess.
The original post is true if your sample set is spread out over many many conversations. You'll notice the word "most conversations" in the original thread if you read it again.
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by uzlessMost of my conversations fall into most of the categories.
In case you hadn't thought about it, the original post assumes more than one conversation. It would be pretty stupid to assume you could learn much about a person from just one post or conversation....almost as stupid as to assume you could learn much about a person from just one post.
The original post is true if your sample set is spread out over many ...[text shortened]... s. You'll notice the word "most conversations" in the original thread if you read it again.
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by uzlessThat's ridiculous. The fact that you assign labels on people based on simplistic concepts makes clear your intention: to set a separating line between yourself and others.
If you can't disassociate the question from the reference, then sadly, you shouldn't post in this thread.
The post is not about people per se...it's about how you can differentiate people based on their conversations.
In other words, it's an IDEA. We are discussing an IDEA that uses people as its construct. You understand now Mr. Noncomprehension?
Your following posts clearly confirm this assertion. So, in your own definitions, you're as simple as they come.
Besides, I don't consider such labeling to even deserve the status of "idea" because it's simply a side product of lack of ideas and ignorance.