gatito

Now that is very funny I really like that +10 to you TS

Now, after 44 pages - this being the 700th post in this thread: - Does everyone understand how a tautological argument works? Was that a waste of time (i.e. meaningless)? Do you think that the initial proposition was an expresion of SatChitAnanda (i.e God, the Tao, the Truth etc.) or was it an expression of ignorance (of the the Truth)? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NB: Tautological rhetoric: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29 (://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29)

I'd like to suggest that when this happens, the original thread is pitted in its entirety and then the public thread is simply weeded of those posts deemed unacceptable (for whatever reason). The record of the entire original is then there for people either to follow or to continue posting, if they choose so to do. Furthermore, I assume that this would make the editing of the public portion much easier, and it also follows the spirit of the Founding Principles more closely.

Please don't

And, I nearly forgot (thanks for reminding me zerostao), I believe in the teachings of Lao Tzu and Sun Tzu. I am a Taoist

I believe in the teachings of John Levy. I am a Jew

I believe in the teachings of Rumi. I am a Sufi

I love practicing Buddhists

.......as am I.

and my wife (of 15 years) is a de facto Buddhist

^^^ I think that part of the problem is that TTBs is based on original principles that no other forum really understands (and which a few Bums don't seem to understand either )

And here's de facto Buddhism - originally posted by a de facto Buddhist (C.T.): - http://thetaobums.com/topic/23512-bells-of-mindfulness/?hl=%2Bbells+%2Bmindfulness (://thetaobums.com/topic/23512-bells-of-mindfulness/?hl=%2Bbells+%2Bmindfulness)

Yes, although I think that having said that there's a a huge difference between those who label themselves as Buddhists and de facto Buddhists - who don't behave like that.

^^^ Extra "Like" Just to add that I'm not sure that hiding gems is the conscious intent

I withdraw my "remarks" - and I shake your hand, buy you a beer and take my hat off

Comments withdrawn

On Page 1 (post 13), I offered a two-sentence logical construct, - which demonstrates clearly that it is completely pointless to attempt to debunk a creator. Sadly, nobody here understood it - did they? So is there really any point in this thread going beyond 24 pages (and 385) posts? Come on people, some of you are really bright and it's also possible tho figure this stuff out without relying on appeals to authority. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NB "Appeal to authority" (Argumentum ab auctoritate) https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority (://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority (://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)

Although, the pitted version would actually be the pure version. They could be labelled Pit and Public, which would, to a certain extemt, mitigate problems that arise from people feeling that they've done something "bad", when actually, all they've done is break the ToS and/or go against the Founding principles..

So, I'm going for a walk with SnugglePuppy and Cerberus I might drop by tomorrow

I can't get a word in edgeways And they're definitely not being "nice" - are they?

I simply cannot - and will not attempt to keep up with two of you machinegun posting at me - this is NOT "nice"

I'm going to walk away if you don't pack this in For the third and final time - what I have been taught is not

We are going around in circles here already I've said it doesn't matter

It could take years and probably will Is that also OK?

Believing that the Vedas are of divine origin is unnecessary but you can believe that if you want Niether position presents a barrier