EmeraldHope
The Living Force
Stevie Argyll said:Shane said:Stevie Argyll said:Gonzo said:And almost each time this happens, I notice the initial poster continuing to try to steer the conversation back to the original topic.
But to allow such steering would betray the purpose of the forum.
in In Search Of The Miraculous and in Beelzebubs Tales the Law of the Octave or the Law of Heptaparaparshinokh are outlined. They state that at a point in any process there can be a divergence from the original direction due to external or mechanical influence and at this point a conscious effort is required to ensure the process remains on track. The nudges back to the point of the post was to stop this diverging onto other topics. A 'work' discipline if you like.
So you're the conscious directer of this mechanical group?
I said I wouldn't post again but I just have to.
Shane, your comment is class, it has me in fits :)
FWITW i will try and explain it , still laughing :).
If someone comes to the thread at page 5 they might have missed the point of the topic, so I was attempting to keep pointing back to the topic so that it didn't meander tooo far.
Thanks :)
Here is my two cents Stevie, for what they are worth.
It seems to have been clearly ascertained at this point if one has been following this thread, that your original post was made, in the very least, without you having a full and clear understanding of the many concepts we are woking with here, such as ponerology and the traits from the big 5, and the aim of protecting the forum from these behaviours. Since this has now been pointed out, and you have said that you read and understand better now, why are you steering the topic back to its original concept? Is there further clarification that you need, or questions that you have, in regards to telepethy and distant personailty diagnosis?
If not, it would seem that to go back to the topic would be futile, and a more contructive use of the thread would be to to address what the majority here "see" and are pointing out to you. That would be for your benefit. You seem to be offended by Shane's comment, based on your language. It was a valid question based on what you wrote and I do not think he was jesting. Your predator seems quite offended.