I did see that I missed a call from you a few weeks ago. I am not one of those people who is tied to their phone. I don't have a smart phone, and I keep the ringer off. So I have to remind myself to try and find my phone every few days and check for messages. It just isn't my primary way of communicating. What are we airing?
What a pleasant and long overdue surprise! Your response is
the airing and I think you have an inkling as to what it is. By the way, I am not married to a phone either. This was a chief complaint of the last Judge I worked for.
On you tube you claim 9 years of study but you are counting.
Lol! Great comeback.
In 2009 I had to put my Russian Wolfhound down in May, and then my husband died in hospice the next day. Three months later my sister died of an accidental overdose. To say I was in shock is an understatement.
I know this pain. It takes strength to overcome it. I hear you "roar".
I post MBT theory and provide evidentiary support and you contort it into your way of understanding MBT. At the being level your behavior specific to this gives me cause for concern.
The problem, as I see it, is that you are a very linear thinker. My ex-husband was an engineer and was the same way. If I ask him to book plane tickets for a trip on a certain day, he would come back and tell me none were available. When I ask him if he had tried the day before or the day after, he would give me a blank look. He is a very smart man, it is just how he thinks. And so you seem to find one quote from Tom from a YouTube video, and that becomes your rock hard understanding.
No, your description of your husband does not describe my profile. I ask my wife to book plane tickets for a trip on a certain day and she will tell me none were available. The difference being I would then find and book a flight that day or book it another day. My wife is an engineer. In humility I state: I am a forensic CPA, an expert witness, a State Certified General Contractor and a Private Investigator. I also served as a Court appointed Mediator and Arbitrator. I have a 4th degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do.
No, I find a quote from Tom as evidence in support of his theory to justify a post. When I write a report to the Court, I had better have evidence to support it. Nothing is carved in stone when it comes to Tom's theory or other models nor should the use of metaphors be taken literally. You take Tom's theory and metaphors literally.
I have tried to take what Tom has said in totality, and derived meaning from that - along with what I have personally experienced. I have provided you corroborating quotes to try and put forward my point. But you seem to ignore those.
I am investigating subjective reality using my forensic investigative techniques, in part, to understand my experiences and to find the common thread among the myriad of models. You need to pull up one instance where you provided a corroborating point that I have ignored. Here is mock-up of a recent interaction between us:
John: The IUOC projects a fragment of its consciousness (FWAU) into a rendered data stream.
Sainsbury response: As always, I have a problem with your language. The FWAU does not project its fragment into a rendered data stream it gets a data stream.
John's response: I did not say the FWAU projects.
I then provide a quote from Tom: "The IUOC projects a fragment of its consciousness into a rendered data stream." Your original response above restated is: the FWAU does not project and the FWAU gets a data stream. I agree with that restated response. But that was not my original post. You misread my post. Then you double down and with the misread post etched in your mind you challenged my language.
So I have a quote from Tom supporting my post. Are you suggesting that your response was a corroborating quote? Because that response was the only answer I got from you. Please provide the corroborating evidence that the FWAU projects as you state rather than the IUOC or your rational or intent for ignoring TOM's quote as my support.
Do you really think I have a negative Intent when I answer you? I don't.
The previous interaction gives it cause for consideration. I can provide other examples if you want.
All the MBT Theory I need is available here and on YouTube. I have a clear understanding of it. I would not do that to Tom.
I am kind of stunned that you think you understand everything about MBT.
I said I have a clear understanding of it. Part of my effort is to drill down to the details left out in the Trilogy that are either in the Wiki or the videos. See how you mischaracterized my post. Not very nice.
And do what to Tom? Ask questions to clarify your understanding? Do you somehow think that is insulting?
I don't have questions. Besides why would I ask a question that has been asked and answered many times. I prefer to mine it out myself.
For the sake of future forum members, I will continue to address any misconceptions I see posted on the forum.
Good, as you should. Just make sure you understand the context of the conception rather than cherry pick the content that is most favorable to your intent, pay attention to the feed back from others that tell you that you missed the point and carefully read the content of the post.
Thanks again for engaging in this discussion.