Death wrote:

 

>

 

> "Alias" wrote in message

 

> news:htouuc$qid$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>> Death wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>> news:hton02$hgp$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>> On 05/28/2010 03:52 PM, Death wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>> news:htoffk$8cc$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>> Death wrote:

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>> news:htocsn$r32$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> SNIP

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Your copy and pastes of ill informed opinions is quite boring. I'm

 

>>>>>>>> done with you. No matter what I post, all you will do is try to

 

>>>>>>>> find

 

>>>>>>>> some kind of error. You really have a serious pissing contest

 

>>>>>>>> mentality problem so just fuck off.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> My, my ...such non Buddhist behavior.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> There's no such thing as "Buddhist behavior".

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> It's a do whatever you want religion?

 

>>>>

 

>>>> No, you're responsible for what you do. It's called Karma.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> You better go to confession then.

 

>>

 

>> Um, I'm not a Catholic.

 

>>

 

>

 

> Then talk to your dojo or whatever it is you dumbasses do.

 

 

 

We don't talk to anyone. We make our own decisions. We don't believe in

 

a god either.

 

 

>

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> I thought followers of such nonsense were mellow melon heads.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> You and think obviously have problems.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> All Death knows about Buddhism is your leader is a short, fat,

 

>>>>>>> laughing

 

>>>>>>> guy.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt Wrong!

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> That's all I know about that buddhism crap, really.

 

>>>>> So it's not wrong, dumbass.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> I don't have a leader so it is wrong. I do have a master, as in

 

>>>> Master/Disciple, but he's not fat so you're wrong again.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Is his name Splinter?

 

>>

 

>> No.

 

>>

 

>

 

> Well, that narrows it down.

 

> He's not a talking rat.

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> And the followers smoke the veggies they grow.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Wrong again. You better stay out of this unless you enjoy being seen

 

>>>>>> as a fool.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Every pothead I've ever met has buddha crap strewn across the

 

>>>>> apartment.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Which doesn't translate into "every pothead in the world".

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Well, I haven't met them all ... I rarely keep in contact either ...

 

>>> those kind of people borrow a lot.

 

>>

 

>> Not my fault that you hang out with losers. Neither pot nor Buddhism

 

>> have anything to do with it, however.

 

>>

 

>

 

> I don't hang out with them, dumbass.

 

 

 

Then you can't know much about them.

 

 

> I meet a lot of people ... I observe their behavior, I pass judgment

 

> based on my own morality.

 

 

 

What morality?

 

 

>

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>>> So, it's not wrong dumbass.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> The two you've met isn't a good sampling so, yes, you're wrong.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Way more than two.

 

>>> Between college and the Army you run into quite a few.

 

>>

 

>> Still wrong.

 

>>

 

>

 

> No it isn't.

 

> Followers of all belief systems baffle me.

 

> I find it strange that coherent beings need to be taught right/wrong,

 

> good/evil, up/down by strangers other than their parents.

 

 

 

That's not what's taught in True Buddhism.

 

 

> I personally see it as a sign of weakness,

 

 

 

So do I.

 

 

> and am little surprised at

 

> how often they are moronically mislead by hypocritical douche-bags.

 

 

 

So am I.

 

 

> Says much about you...as you are mindlessly swayed by ubuntushitsthebed.

 

 

 

No what it says is you don't know squat about Buddhism.

 

 

>

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>>> Doesn't the bald fat man teach that humans will not all experience the

 

>>>>> same experiences?

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Who, pray tell, is the bald fat man?

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Like this.

 

>>> http://www.bighappybuddha.com/labugast.html

 

>>

 

>> That's Shakyamuni, not the True Buddha.

 

>>

 

>

 

> Like I fucking care.

 

 

 

We know.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>>> Buddhist seem to like incense too.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> We use it in rituals and not the smoky Hindu type of incense but the

 

>>>> smokeless Japanese incense.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> I know what you use it for, cough, cough.

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> No you don't. In fact, you haven't a clue but that won't stop you from

 

>> posting inanities, now will it?

 

>>

 

>

 

> I know you are a nutjob.

 

 

 

Really? How so?

 

 

> Self medicating lunatic.

 

>

 

 

 

I don't self medicate and you're the lunatic for even trying to debate

 

Buddhism with me.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

"Alias" wrote in message

 

news:htp13o$74t$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

> Death wrote:

 

>>

 

>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>> news:htouuc$qid$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>> Death wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>> news:hton02$hgp$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>> On 05/28/2010 03:52 PM, Death wrote:

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>> news:htoffk$8cc$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>> Death wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>> news:htocsn$r32$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> SNIP

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Your copy and pastes of ill informed opinions is quite boring. I'm

 

>>>>>>>>> done with you. No matter what I post, all you will do is try to

 

>>>>>>>>> find

 

>>>>>>>>> some kind of error. You really have a serious pissing contest

 

>>>>>>>>> mentality problem so just fuck off.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> My, my ...such non Buddhist behavior.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> There's no such thing as "Buddhist behavior".

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> It's a do whatever you want religion?

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> No, you're responsible for what you do. It's called Karma.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> You better go to confession then.

 

>>>

 

>>> Um, I'm not a Catholic.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> Then talk to your dojo or whatever it is you dumbasses do.

 

>

 

> We don't talk to anyone. We make our own decisions. We don't believe in a

 

> god either.

 

>

 

 

 

So you are coming back as a guinea pig?

 

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> I thought followers of such nonsense were mellow melon heads.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> You and think obviously have problems.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> All Death knows about Buddhism is your leader is a short, fat,

 

>>>>>>>> laughing

 

>>>>>>>> guy.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt Wrong!

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> That's all I know about that buddhism crap, really.

 

>>>>>> So it's not wrong, dumbass.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> I don't have a leader so it is wrong. I do have a master, as in

 

>>>>> Master/Disciple, but he's not fat so you're wrong again.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Is his name Splinter?

 

>>>

 

>>> No.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> Well, that narrows it down.

 

>> He's not a talking rat.

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> And the followers smoke the veggies they grow.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Wrong again. You better stay out of this unless you enjoy being seen

 

>>>>>>> as a fool.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Every pothead I've ever met has buddha crap strewn across the

 

>>>>>> apartment.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Which doesn't translate into "every pothead in the world".

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Well, I haven't met them all ... I rarely keep in contact either ...

 

>>>> those kind of people borrow a lot.

 

>>>

 

>>> Not my fault that you hang out with losers. Neither pot nor Buddhism

 

>>> have anything to do with it, however.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> I don't hang out with them, dumbass.

 

>

 

> Then you can't know much about them.

 

>

 

 

 

You don't need to hang out with a dumbass to quickly determine you've

 

spotted one.

 

I've never met you.

 

 

 

 

>> I meet a lot of people ... I observe their behavior, I pass judgment

 

>> based on my own morality.

 

>

 

> What morality?

 

>

 

 

 

It's like a standard, a code, an inherited truth.

 

You were born missing the genetic material required.

 

You may study until pigs fly, you won't find it.

 

 

 

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>>> So, it's not wrong dumbass.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> The two you've met isn't a good sampling so, yes, you're wrong.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Way more than two.

 

>>>> Between college and the Army you run into quite a few.

 

>>>

 

>>> Still wrong.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> No it isn't.

 

>> Followers of all belief systems baffle me.

 

>> I find it strange that coherent beings need to be taught right/wrong,

 

>> good/evil, up/down by strangers other than their parents.

 

>

 

> That's not what's taught in True Buddhism.

 

>

 

>> I personally see it as a sign of weakness,

 

>

 

> So do I.

 

>

 

 

 

And yet you follow.

 

 

 

 

>> and am little surprised at

 

>> how often they are moronically mislead by hypocritical douche-bags.

 

>

 

> So am I.

 

>

 

 

 

And yet you became one.

 

 

 

 

>> Says much about you...as you are mindlessly swayed by ubuntushitsthebed.

 

>

 

> No what it says is you don't know squat about Buddhism.

 

>

 

 

 

What's to know?

 

Another belief system taught to lost souls?

 

I have no need for such hocus-pocus.

 

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>>> Doesn't the bald fat man teach that humans will not all experience

 

>>>>>> the

 

>>>>>> same experiences?

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Who, pray tell, is the bald fat man?

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Like this.

 

>>>> http://www.bighappybuddha.com/labugast.html

 

>>>

 

>>> That's Shakyamuni, not the True Buddha.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> Like I fucking care.

 

>

 

> We know.

 

>

 

 

 

Get your hand out of your pocket.

 

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>>> Buddhist seem to like incense too.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> We use it in rituals and not the smoky Hindu type of incense but the

 

>>>>> smokeless Japanese incense.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> I know what you use it for, cough, cough.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> No you don't. In fact, you haven't a clue but that won't stop you from

 

>>> posting inanities, now will it?

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> I know you are a nutjob.

 

>

 

> Really? How so?

 

>

 

 

 

You think ubuntushitsthebed is a replacement for Windows.

 

 

 

 

>> Self medicating lunatic.

 

>>

 

>

 

> I don't self medicate and you're the lunatic for even trying to debate

 

> Buddhism with me.

 

>

 

 

 

I'm not debating Buddhism, you fool.

 

You may burn incense and share a bowl with bunny rabbits that read runes for

 

all I care.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Death wrote:

 

 

> I'm not debating Buddhism, you fool.

 

 

 

Which is why this "conversation" is over. I'm glad I don't know you

 

personally.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

"Alias" wrote in message

 

news:htp3kh$je0$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

> Death wrote:

 

>

 

>> I'm not debating Buddhism, you fool.

 

>

 

> Which is why this "conversation" is over. I'm glad I don't know you

 

> personally.

 

>

 

 

 

Oh man... you get all squirrely tailed so quickly.

 

OK...I'll be nice.

 

Buddhist are cool...they are known around the world for their deep,

 

introspective thought.

 

Just not you, for some reason.

 

It's what you mix with the incense that is draining your mind.

 

 

 

Death...pissing downwind on Alias.

 

Hehehe

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:28:06 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

>John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:24:02 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>> On Thu, 27 May 2010 14:10:56 +0200, Alias

 

>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>> On Thu, 27 May 2010 12:11:56 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> On 05/27/2010 07:35 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 13:51:55 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:54:39 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 14:48:02 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copernicus, Galileo, Columbus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and all the

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Buddhas were cursed and ridiculed so I am in good company.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh? How many Buddhas have there been?

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Millions in the universe. On this planet, thousands.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what is the evidence for you

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stating that they were cursed and ridiculed?

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL! You need history lessons too? Figures.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet again I suggest that you are ignorant of what you are posting

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you'd be dead wrong.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, tell me. And do provide some references for your statements,

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> something to indicate that there have been all these magic numbers

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> that you mention and secondly that they have been cursed and

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculed.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> And don't try to weasel out of it by saying that I should read some

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> history since I have already read considerable history..

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> For example:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> The early Pali texts names six Buddhas who lived before the historical

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> Buddha, and one who will come after, who is Maitreya. Theravada

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> Buddhism teaches that there is only one Buddha per age, and the Buddha

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> of our age is the historical Buddha, the person born Siddhartha

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> Gautama in the 6th century BCE. (In Theravada Buddhism, other people

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> who have realized enlightenment during this age are called Arhats.)

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> but,

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> In Mahayana, Buddha-nature is the true nature of all beings. In a

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, everyone is Buddha. In the Zen monastery where I first studied

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> Buddhism, the monks often pointed to the Buddha on the altar and said,

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> "That's you."

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> So enlighten us, O brilliant one.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone has the potential to be a Buddha. Your Buddha nature is covered

 

>>>>>>>>>>> up with a lot of bad karma so it may take several lifetimes before you

 

>>>>>>>>>>> bring out your Buddha nature.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Now, have you figured out my little grammar question yet?

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Yes, everyone does have the potential to become an Enlightened One,

 

>>>>>>>>>> however that is not to say that everyone does, and that is the

 

>>>>>>>>>> translation of the term "Buddha". It simply means an "enlightened

 

>>>>>>>>>> person", so your statement that there have been millions or thousands

 

>>>>>>>>>> is false.... at least unless you have further proof.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Try reading the Lotus Sutra, specifically the 11 chapter, The Treasure

 

>>>>>>>>> Tower.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> And you seem to be ignoring your statement that the Buddhas were

 

>>>>>>>>>> cursed and ridiculed. You still haven't dealt with that question.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Try reading the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren Daishonin's Gosho as well as

 

>>>>>>>>> the Makan Shikan by Tientai the Great. After that, check out Dengyo's

 

>>>>>>>>> works.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Yes, the new style Japanese version. Somewhat like the more outlandish

 

>>>>>>>> versions of Christianity.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Not even close.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Nichiren is the sect that invades your house and tries to force you

 

>>>>>>>> into joining their movement, isn't it?

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> There are many Nichiren sects. What you are referring to is the Soka

 

>>>>>>> Gakkai and they say they are a Nichiren sect but aren't.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> No thank you, I'll stick with the teaching of The Buddha, thank you.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Then you need to heed the Lotus Sutra and follow Nichiren as Shakyamuni

 

>>>>>>> instructed (the first Buddha on earth who preached in India that you

 

>>>>>>> erroneously refer to as "The Buddha").

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> You should not continue this as this subject is way over your head.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> It looks as though there is a choice between believing you and

 

>>>>>> believing what every Monk in Thailand teaches.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Out dated Hinnayana Buddhism. You really are clueless. Do you even know

 

>>>>> how many commandments the Hinnayana Buddhists must follow to merit going

 

>>>>> to Nirvana?

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>> And I'm afraid that

 

>>>>>> having watched you cavort around claiming that Linux systems are based

 

>>>>>> on the desktop system and that the Windows kernel is the registry, I

 

>>>>>> think I'll stick with those who actually know what they are talking

 

>>>>>> about.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Oh, I know a lot more about Buddhism than Linux and you obviously know

 

>>>>> very, very little if you think Thai monks are some kind of authority.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Maybe I would listen to you if you didn't persist in flaunting your

 

>>>> ignorance on a daily basis.

 

>>>

 

>>> Check the glasses you're looking through. They're dirty.

 

>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Pay attention now, I'm going to teach you something:

 

>>>>

 

>>>> 95% OF THE POPULATION OF THAILAND ARE THERAVADA BUDDHISTS. NOT

 

>>>> HINNAYANA.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> (You ignorant ass)

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>

 

>>> Um, Theravada is a form of Hinnayana although some say it isn't but they

 

>>> would be wrong. You can't teach me *anything* about Buddhism. Now, can

 

>>> you answer the question as to how many commandments there are in

 

>>> Hinayana or merely trot out another lame straw man in another desperate

 

>>> attempt to distract from the fact that you don't know? While you're at

 

>>> it, why did Shakyamuni teach Hinayana, Provisional Mahayana and then

 

>>> Actual Mahayana and didn't start with Actual Mahayana from the get go?

 

>>> How many Buddhas does Shakyamuni say there are when he preached the

 

>>> Lotus Sutra? To whom did he entrust the mission to spread his teaching

 

>>> in the Age of Defilement?

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Frankly just as the actual teachings of Jesus Christ seem to have

 

>> little relationship to modern Christianity, I doubt that what the

 

>> Buddha preached can be labeled anything and people that claim to are

 

>> in about the same category as those who calculate how many angels

 

>> could dance on the head of a pin.

 

>>

 

>> In any event, the following may be of interest:

 

>>

 

>> Although the Mahayana movement traces its origin to Gautama Buddha,

 

>> scholars believe that it originated in India in the 1st century CE

 

>> Scholars hold that Mahayana only became a mainstream movement in India

 

>> in the fifth century CE, since that is when Mahayanist inscriptions

 

>> started to appear in epigraphic records in India.[8] Before the 11th

 

>> century CE (while Mahayana was still present in India), the Mahayana

 

>> sutras were still in the process of being revised. Thus, several

 

>> different versions may have survived of the same sutra. These

 

>> different versions are invaluable to scholars attempting to

 

>> reconstruct the history of Mahayana.

 

>>

 

>> As for the Lotus sutra the scholars say:

 

>>

 

>> The oldest parts of the text (Chapters 1-9 and 17) were probably

 

>> composed between 100 BCE and 100 CE: most of the text had appeared by

 

>> 200 CE.

 

>>

 

>> It presents itself as a discourse delivered by the Buddha toward the

 

>> end of his life. The tradition in Mahayana states that the sutra was

 

>> written down at the time of the Buddha and stored for five hundred

 

>> years in a realm of Nagas. After this, they were said to have been

 

>> reintroduced into the human realm at the time of the Fourth Buddhist

 

>> Council in Kashmir. This tradition further claims that the sutra's

 

>> teachings are of a higher order than those contained in the agamas of

 

>> the Sutra Pitaka.. It maintains that humankind had been unable to

 

>> understand the sutra at the time of the Buddha, and hence the teaching

 

>> had to be held back.

 

>> .

 

>> In other words the Buddha gave a sermon to a crowd of people who

 

>> couldn't possible understand it - very logical.

 

>>

 

>> And now for Theravada Buddhism:

 

>>

 

>> Theravada literally, "the Teaching of the Elders" or "the Ancient

 

>> Teaching", is the oldest surviving Buddhist school. It was founded in

 

>> India. It is relatively conservative, and generally closest to early

 

>> Buddhism, and for many centuries has been the predominant religion of

 

>> Sri Lanka (about 70% of the population) and most of continental

 

>> Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Thailand). Theravada is also

 

>> practiced by minorities in parts of southwest China (by the Shan and

 

>> Tai ethnic groups), Vietnam (by the Khmer Krom), Bangladesh (by the

 

>> ethnic groups of Baruas, Chakma, and Magh), Malaysia and Indonesia,

 

>> while recently gaining popularity in Singapore and the Western World.

 

>> Today Theravada Buddhists number over 100 million worldwide, and in

 

>> recent decades Theravada has begun to take root in the West and in the

 

>> Buddhist revival in India.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Now you can argue all you want with the above but please furnish a

 

>> reference as your "say so" is hardly considered a valid argument.

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

>Your copy and pastes of ill informed opinions is quite boring. I'm done

 

>with you. No matter what I post, all you will do is try to find some

 

>kind of error. You really have a serious pissing contest mentality

 

>problem so just fuck off.

 

 

 

 

 

Must be these poor misbegotten Thais. I'm only repeating what several

 

Bishops of Thai Buddhist Temples have told me as well as one bloke

 

with a doctorate in religion from either Cambridge or Oxford (don't

 

remember which) I simply cut and paste so that I can refer you to a

 

reference when you bitch.

 

 

 

And, I can't ever remember ever finding an error with your posts....

 

except when you have made an error.

 

 

 

So just tell the truth and talk about something that you actually know

 

something about (or do more research) and you will discover that I'm

 

really quite a nice guy.

 

 

 

John B. Slocomb

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On 05/29/2010 05:50 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:28:06 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:24:02 +0200, Alias

 

>>> wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>> On Thu, 27 May 2010 14:10:56 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>>> On Thu, 27 May 2010 12:11:56 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> On 05/27/2010 07:35 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 13:51:55 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:54:39 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 14:48:02 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copernicus, Galileo, Columbus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and all the

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Buddhas were cursed and ridiculed so I am in good company.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh? How many Buddhas have there been?

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Millions in the universe. On this planet, thousands.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what is the evidence for you

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stating that they were cursed and ridiculed?

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL! You need history lessons too? Figures.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet again I suggest that you are ignorant of what you are posting

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you'd be dead wrong.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, tell me. And do provide some references for your statements,

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to indicate that there have been all these magic numbers

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you mention and secondly that they have been cursed and

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculed.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> And don't try to weasel out of it by saying that I should read some

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> history since I have already read considerable history..

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> The early Pali texts names six Buddhas who lived before the historical

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Buddha, and one who will come after, who is Maitreya. Theravada

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Buddhism teaches that there is only one Buddha per age, and the Buddha

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> of our age is the historical Buddha, the person born Siddhartha

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gautama in the 6th century BCE. (In Theravada Buddhism, other people

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> who have realized enlightenment during this age are called Arhats.)

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> but,

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> In Mahayana, Buddha-nature is the true nature of all beings. In a

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, everyone is Buddha. In the Zen monastery where I first studied

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Buddhism, the monks often pointed to the Buddha on the altar and said,

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> "That's you."

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> So enlighten us, O brilliant one.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone has the potential to be a Buddha. Your Buddha nature is covered

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> up with a lot of bad karma so it may take several lifetimes before you

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> bring out your Buddha nature.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, have you figured out my little grammar question yet?

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, everyone does have the potential to become an Enlightened One,

 

>>>>>>>>>>> however that is not to say that everyone does, and that is the

 

>>>>>>>>>>> translation of the term "Buddha". It simply means an "enlightened

 

>>>>>>>>>>> person", so your statement that there have been millions or thousands

 

>>>>>>>>>>> is false.... at least unless you have further proof.

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Try reading the Lotus Sutra, specifically the 11 chapter, The Treasure

 

>>>>>>>>>> Tower.

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> And you seem to be ignoring your statement that the Buddhas were

 

>>>>>>>>>>> cursed and ridiculed. You still haven't dealt with that question.

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Try reading the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren Daishonin's Gosho as well as

 

>>>>>>>>>> the Makan Shikan by Tientai the Great. After that, check out Dengyo's

 

>>>>>>>>>> works.

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Yes, the new style Japanese version. Somewhat like the more outlandish

 

>>>>>>>>> versions of Christianity.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Not even close.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Nichiren is the sect that invades your house and tries to force you

 

>>>>>>>>> into joining their movement, isn't it?

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> There are many Nichiren sects. What you are referring to is the Soka

 

>>>>>>>> Gakkai and they say they are a Nichiren sect but aren't.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> No thank you, I'll stick with the teaching of The Buddha, thank you.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Then you need to heed the Lotus Sutra and follow Nichiren as Shakyamuni

 

>>>>>>>> instructed (the first Buddha on earth who preached in India that you

 

>>>>>>>> erroneously refer to as "The Buddha").

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> You should not continue this as this subject is way over your head.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> It looks as though there is a choice between believing you and

 

>>>>>>> believing what every Monk in Thailand teaches.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Out dated Hinnayana Buddhism. You really are clueless. Do you even know

 

>>>>>> how many commandments the Hinnayana Buddhists must follow to merit going

 

>>>>>> to Nirvana?

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> And I'm afraid that

 

>>>>>>> having watched you cavort around claiming that Linux systems are based

 

>>>>>>> on the desktop system and that the Windows kernel is the registry, I

 

>>>>>>> think I'll stick with those who actually know what they are talking

 

>>>>>>> about.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Oh, I know a lot more about Buddhism than Linux and you obviously know

 

>>>>>> very, very little if you think Thai monks are some kind of authority.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Maybe I would listen to you if you didn't persist in flaunting your

 

>>>>> ignorance on a daily basis.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Check the glasses you're looking through. They're dirty.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Pay attention now, I'm going to teach you something:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> 95% OF THE POPULATION OF THAILAND ARE THERAVADA BUDDHISTS. NOT

 

>>>>> HINNAYANA.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> (You ignorant ass)

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Um, Theravada is a form of Hinnayana although some say it isn't but they

 

>>>> would be wrong. You can't teach me *anything* about Buddhism. Now, can

 

>>>> you answer the question as to how many commandments there are in

 

>>>> Hinayana or merely trot out another lame straw man in another desperate

 

>>>> attempt to distract from the fact that you don't know? While you're at

 

>>>> it, why did Shakyamuni teach Hinayana, Provisional Mahayana and then

 

>>>> Actual Mahayana and didn't start with Actual Mahayana from the get go?

 

>>>> How many Buddhas does Shakyamuni say there are when he preached the

 

>>>> Lotus Sutra? To whom did he entrust the mission to spread his teaching

 

>>>> in the Age of Defilement?

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Frankly just as the actual teachings of Jesus Christ seem to have

 

>>> little relationship to modern Christianity, I doubt that what the

 

>>> Buddha preached can be labeled anything and people that claim to are

 

>>> in about the same category as those who calculate how many angels

 

>>> could dance on the head of a pin.

 

>>>

 

>>> In any event, the following may be of interest:

 

>>>

 

>>> Although the Mahayana movement traces its origin to Gautama Buddha,

 

>>> scholars believe that it originated in India in the 1st century CE

 

>>> Scholars hold that Mahayana only became a mainstream movement in India

 

>>> in the fifth century CE, since that is when Mahayanist inscriptions

 

>>> started to appear in epigraphic records in India.[8] Before the 11th

 

>>> century CE (while Mahayana was still present in India), the Mahayana

 

>>> sutras were still in the process of being revised. Thus, several

 

>>> different versions may have survived of the same sutra. These

 

>>> different versions are invaluable to scholars attempting to

 

>>> reconstruct the history of Mahayana.

 

>>>

 

>>> As for the Lotus sutra the scholars say:

 

>>>

 

>>> The oldest parts of the text (Chapters 1-9 and 17) were probably

 

>>> composed between 100 BCE and 100 CE: most of the text had appeared by

 

>>> 200 CE.

 

>>>

 

>>> It presents itself as a discourse delivered by the Buddha toward the

 

>>> end of his life. The tradition in Mahayana states that the sutra was

 

>>> written down at the time of the Buddha and stored for five hundred

 

>>> years in a realm of Nagas. After this, they were said to have been

 

>>> reintroduced into the human realm at the time of the Fourth Buddhist

 

>>> Council in Kashmir. This tradition further claims that the sutra's

 

>>> teachings are of a higher order than those contained in the agamas of

 

>>> the Sutra Pitaka.. It maintains that humankind had been unable to

 

>>> understand the sutra at the time of the Buddha, and hence the teaching

 

>>> had to be held back.

 

>>> .

 

>>> In other words the Buddha gave a sermon to a crowd of people who

 

>>> couldn't possible understand it - very logical.

 

>>>

 

>>> And now for Theravada Buddhism:

 

>>>

 

>>> Theravada literally, "the Teaching of the Elders" or "the Ancient

 

>>> Teaching", is the oldest surviving Buddhist school. It was founded in

 

>>> India. It is relatively conservative, and generally closest to early

 

>>> Buddhism, and for many centuries has been the predominant religion of

 

>>> Sri Lanka (about 70% of the population) and most of continental

 

>>> Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Thailand). Theravada is also

 

>>> practiced by minorities in parts of southwest China (by the Shan and

 

>>> Tai ethnic groups), Vietnam (by the Khmer Krom), Bangladesh (by the

 

>>> ethnic groups of Baruas, Chakma, and Magh), Malaysia and Indonesia,

 

>>> while recently gaining popularity in Singapore and the Western World.

 

>>> Today Theravada Buddhists number over 100 million worldwide, and in

 

>>> recent decades Theravada has begun to take root in the West and in the

 

>>> Buddhist revival in India.

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Now you can argue all you want with the above but please furnish a

 

>>> reference as your "say so" is hardly considered a valid argument.

 

>>>

 

>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>

 

>> Your copy and pastes of ill informed opinions is quite boring. I'm done

 

>> with you. No matter what I post, all you will do is try to find some

 

>> kind of error. You really have a serious pissing contest mentality

 

>> problem so just fuck off.

 

>

 

>

 

> Must be these poor misbegotten Thais. I'm only repeating what several

 

> Bishops of Thai Buddhist Temples have told me as well as one bloke

 

> with a doctorate in religion from either Cambridge or Oxford (don't

 

> remember which)

 

 

 

Useless references.

 

 

> I simply cut and paste so that I can refer you to a

 

> reference when you bitch.

 

 

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

 

>

 

> And, I can't ever remember ever finding an error with your posts....

 

> except when you have made an error.

 

 

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

 

>

 

> So just tell the truth and talk about something that you actually know

 

> something about (or do more research) and you will discover that I'm

 

> really quite a nice guy.

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Sat, 29 May 2010 12:44:02 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> On 05/29/2010 05:50 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:28:06 +0200, Alias

 

>>> wrote:

 

>>>

 

>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> And now for Theravada Buddhism:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Theravada literally, "the Teaching of the Elders" or "the Ancient

 

>>>>> Teaching", is the oldest surviving Buddhist school. It was founded in

 

>>>>> India. It is relatively conservative, and generally closest to early

 

>>>>> Buddhism, and for many centuries has been the predominant religion of

 

>>>>> Sri Lanka (about 70% of the population) and most of continental

 

>>>>> Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Thailand). Theravada is also

 

>>>>> practiced by minorities in parts of southwest China (by the Shan and

 

>>>>> Tai ethnic groups), Vietnam (by the Khmer Krom), Bangladesh (by the

 

>>>>> ethnic groups of Baruas, Chakma, and Magh), Malaysia and Indonesia,

 

>>>>> while recently gaining popularity in Singapore and the Western World.

 

>>>>> Today Theravada Buddhists number over 100 million worldwide, and in

 

>>>>> recent decades Theravada has begun to take root in the West and in the

 

>>>>> Buddhist revival in India.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Now you can argue all you want with the above but please furnish a

 

>>>>> reference as your "say so" is hardly considered a valid argument.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Your copy and pastes of ill informed opinions is quite boring. I'm done

 

>>>> with you. No matter what I post, all you will do is try to find some

 

>>>> kind of error. You really have a serious pissing contest mentality

 

>>>> problem so just fuck off.

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Must be these poor misbegotten Thais. I'm only repeating what several

 

>>> Bishops of Thai Buddhist Temples have told me as well as one bloke

 

>>> with a doctorate in religion from either Cambridge or Oxford (don't

 

>>> remember which)

 

>>

 

>> Useless references.

 

>>

 

>>> I simply cut and paste so that I can refer you to a

 

>>> reference when you bitch.

 

>>

 

>> Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> And, I can't ever remember ever finding an error with your posts....

 

>>> except when you have made an error.

 

>>

 

>> Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> So just tell the truth and talk about something that you actually know

 

>>> something about (or do more research) and you will discover that I'm

 

>>> really quite a nice guy.

 

>>>

 

>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>

 

>> Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

>

 

>

 

> Yes, your response if breathtaking. the logic is astounding. and you

 

> prove once again that you really are an idiot.

 

>

 

> And a hypocrite as well. After all you brag on your vast knowledge of

 

> Buddhism and then sink to personal attacks.

 

>

 

> Right Speech and right Actions..... Ah yes the real Buddhist actions..

 

>

 

> What a phony.

 

>

 

> cheers,

 

>

 

> John B.

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildorcom)

 

 

 

Gosh, the man thinks that all Buddhists should be perfect Christians.

 

Not only that, he keeps quoting outdated and invalid Buddhist concepts

 

that no longer have power in this day and age. Read the Lotus Sutra and

 

then get back to me as our "conversation" is between a sage (me) and a

 

fool (you).

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On Sat, 29 May 2010 12:44:02 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

>On 05/29/2010 05:50 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:28:06 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

 

>>>>

 

>>>> And now for Theravada Buddhism:

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Theravada literally, "the Teaching of the Elders" or "the Ancient

 

>>>> Teaching", is the oldest surviving Buddhist school. It was founded in

 

>>>> India. It is relatively conservative, and generally closest to early

 

>>>> Buddhism, and for many centuries has been the predominant religion of

 

>>>> Sri Lanka (about 70% of the population) and most of continental

 

>>>> Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Thailand). Theravada is also

 

>>>> practiced by minorities in parts of southwest China (by the Shan and

 

>>>> Tai ethnic groups), Vietnam (by the Khmer Krom), Bangladesh (by the

 

>>>> ethnic groups of Baruas, Chakma, and Magh), Malaysia and Indonesia,

 

>>>> while recently gaining popularity in Singapore and the Western World.

 

>>>> Today Theravada Buddhists number over 100 million worldwide, and in

 

>>>> recent decades Theravada has begun to take root in the West and in the

 

>>>> Buddhist revival in India.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Now you can argue all you want with the above but please furnish a

 

>>>> reference as your "say so" is hardly considered a valid argument.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>

 

>>> Your copy and pastes of ill informed opinions is quite boring. I'm done

 

>>> with you. No matter what I post, all you will do is try to find some

 

>>> kind of error. You really have a serious pissing contest mentality

 

>>> problem so just fuck off.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Must be these poor misbegotten Thais. I'm only repeating what several

 

>> Bishops of Thai Buddhist Temples have told me as well as one bloke

 

>> with a doctorate in religion from either Cambridge or Oxford (don't

 

>> remember which)

 

>

 

>Useless references.

 

>

 

>> I simply cut and paste so that I can refer you to a

 

>> reference when you bitch.

 

>

 

>Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> And, I can't ever remember ever finding an error with your posts....

 

>> except when you have made an error.

 

>

 

>Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> So just tell the truth and talk about something that you actually know

 

>> something about (or do more research) and you will discover that I'm

 

>> really quite a nice guy.

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

>Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, your response if breathtaking. the logic is astounding. and you

 

prove once again that you really are an idiot.

 

 

 

And a hypocrite as well. After all you brag on your vast knowledge of

 

Buddhism and then sink to personal attacks.

 

 

 

Right Speech and right Actions..... Ah yes the real Buddhist actions..

 

 

 

What a phony.

 

 

 

cheers,

 

 

 

John B.

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildorcom)

On 05/30/2010 07:15 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Sun, 30 May 2010 10:39:10 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> On 05/30/2010 09:27 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:07:30 +0200, Alias

 

>>> wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 12:44:02 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>> On 05/29/2010 05:50 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:28:06 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> And now for Theravada Buddhism:

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Theravada literally, "the Teaching of the Elders" or "the Ancient

 

>>>>>>>>> Teaching", is the oldest surviving Buddhist school. It was founded in

 

>>>>>>>>> India. It is relatively conservative, and generally closest to early

 

>>>>>>>>> Buddhism, and for many centuries has been the predominant religion of

 

>>>>>>>>> Sri Lanka (about 70% of the population) and most of continental

 

>>>>>>>>> Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Thailand). Theravada is also

 

>>>>>>>>> practiced by minorities in parts of southwest China (by the Shan and

 

>>>>>>>>> Tai ethnic groups), Vietnam (by the Khmer Krom), Bangladesh (by the

 

>>>>>>>>> ethnic groups of Baruas, Chakma, and Magh), Malaysia and Indonesia,

 

>>>>>>>>> while recently gaining popularity in Singapore and the Western World.

 

>>>>>>>>> Today Theravada Buddhists number over 100 million worldwide, and in

 

>>>>>>>>> recent decades Theravada has begun to take root in the West and in the

 

>>>>>>>>> Buddhist revival in India.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Now you can argue all you want with the above but please furnish a

 

>>>>>>>>> reference as your "say so" is hardly considered a valid argument.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Your copy and pastes of ill informed opinions is quite boring. I'm done

 

>>>>>>>> with you. No matter what I post, all you will do is try to find some

 

>>>>>>>> kind of error. You really have a serious pissing contest mentality

 

>>>>>>>> problem so just fuck off.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Must be these poor misbegotten Thais. I'm only repeating what several

 

>>>>>>> Bishops of Thai Buddhist Temples have told me as well as one bloke

 

>>>>>>> with a doctorate in religion from either Cambridge or Oxford (don't

 

>>>>>>> remember which)

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Useless references.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> I simply cut and paste so that I can refer you to a

 

>>>>>>> reference when you bitch.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> And, I can't ever remember ever finding an error with your posts....

 

>>>>>>> except when you have made an error.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> So just tell the truth and talk about something that you actually know

 

>>>>>>> something about (or do more research) and you will discover that I'm

 

>>>>>>> really quite a nice guy.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Yes, your response if breathtaking. the logic is astounding. and you

 

>>>>> prove once again that you really are an idiot.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> And a hypocrite as well. After all you brag on your vast knowledge of

 

>>>>> Buddhism and then sink to personal attacks.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Right Speech and right Actions..... Ah yes the real Buddhist actions..

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> What a phony.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> cheers,

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> John B.

 

>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildorcom)

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Gosh, the man thinks that all Buddhists should be perfect Christians.

 

>>>> Not only that, he keeps quoting outdated and invalid Buddhist concepts

 

>>>> that no longer have power in this day and age. Read the Lotus Sutra and

 

>>>> then get back to me as our "conversation" is between a sage (me) and a

 

>>>> fool (you).

 

>

 

> Well, I certainly compliment you on your title of "Sage", self

 

> appointed one assumes.

 

 

 

Only compared to you.

 

 

>

 

> However, if you do, in fact, know anything about Buddhism we'll just

 

> put a mark in the wall here - "Alias knows something about something!"

 

> A first for him.

 

 

 

How patronizing of you, your specialty.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> I see. You first deny basic precepts of Buddhism and then brag about

 

>>> how much you know about the subject of Buddhism.

 

>>

 

>> This from someone who stated there has only been one Buddha. I've

 

>> forgotten more about Buddhism then you'll ever know.

 

>

 

> Yes, you deny the Buddha's teaching, fine then you deny the basis of

 

> the religion. In essence then you are not a Buddhist,. You may be a

 

> Nichiren Buddhist, but it is hardly the same thing, is it.

 

 

 

It's True Buddhism. In the Lotus Sutra, it's made clear that all that

 

was taught before is provisional so that the Lotus Sutra could

 

understood and should be discarded like the scaffolding after the

 

building is built.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> As someone once wrote, "A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at

 

>>> least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool

 

>>> indeed."

 

>>

 

>> You should take heed, fool.

 

>>

 

> Oh I do. Certainly I am not a Sage.

 

 

 

You don't have to swear on your bible for everyone to believe that.

 

 

> By the way, tell us, do we have to

 

> get down on all fours and bang our head on the flood three times when

 

> we are introduced to the Great Sage Alias?

 

 

 

More flippant and patronizing drivel.

 

 

>

 

>

 

> Obvious the one who thinks himself wise...

 

 

 

You missed the part about "compared to you".

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> You continue to rabbet on about the Lotus sutra, apparently not

 

>>> knowing that it was likely written some 300 to 400 years after the

 

>>> death of The Buddha it's provenance seems flawed, at best, however

 

>>> both the Tientai and Nichiren sects are based on it..

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> cheers,

 

>>>

 

>>> John B.

 

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildorcom)

 

>>

 

>> It was passed down orally before it was written down. And, as you

 

>> stated, it was *likely* written 300 to 400 years after the death of

 

>> Shakyamuni.

 

>

 

> It is generally thought that the earliest Mahayana scriptures were

 

> composed from the 1st century CE onward which is usably stated to be

 

> some 5 centuries after the Death of The Buddha.

 

>

 

> The Theravada Tipitaka as the most authoritative collection of texts

 

> on the teachings of Gautama Buddha and were thought to have been

 

> written down in the 1sr century BCE, or probably 200 years before the

 

> Lotus Sutra.

 

>

 

> cheers,

 

>

 

> John B.

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildorcom)

 

 

 

All the teachings were passed down orally. In those days, people's

 

memories were much better than now because they couldn't jot it down for

 

later. The Buddhist Councils formalized the teachings.

 

 

 

I suggest you read the Gosho if you're really serious, although I doubt

 

you are.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On 05/30/2010 07:15 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Sun, 30 May 2010 10:39:10 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> On 05/30/2010 09:27 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:07:30 +0200, Alias

 

>>> wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 12:44:02 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>> On 05/29/2010 05:50 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:28:06 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> And now for Theravada Buddhism:

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Theravada literally, "the Teaching of the Elders" or "the Ancient

 

>>>>>>>>> Teaching", is the oldest surviving Buddhist school. It was founded in

 

>>>>>>>>> India. It is relatively conservative, and generally closest to early

 

>>>>>>>>> Buddhism, and for many centuries has been the predominant religion of

 

>>>>>>>>> Sri Lanka (about 70% of the population) and most of continental

 

>>>>>>>>> Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Thailand). Theravada is also

 

>>>>>>>>> practiced by minorities in parts of southwest China (by the Shan and

 

>>>>>>>>> Tai ethnic groups), Vietnam (by the Khmer Krom), Bangladesh (by the

 

>>>>>>>>> ethnic groups of Baruas, Chakma, and Magh), Malaysia and Indonesia,

 

>>>>>>>>> while recently gaining popularity in Singapore and the Western World.

 

>>>>>>>>> Today Theravada Buddhists number over 100 million worldwide, and in

 

>>>>>>>>> recent decades Theravada has begun to take root in the West and in the

 

>>>>>>>>> Buddhist revival in India.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Now you can argue all you want with the above but please furnish a

 

>>>>>>>>> reference as your "say so" is hardly considered a valid argument.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Your copy and pastes of ill informed opinions is quite boring. I'm done

 

>>>>>>>> with you. No matter what I post, all you will do is try to find some

 

>>>>>>>> kind of error. You really have a serious pissing contest mentality

 

>>>>>>>> problem so just fuck off.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Must be these poor misbegotten Thais. I'm only repeating what several

 

>>>>>>> Bishops of Thai Buddhist Temples have told me as well as one bloke

 

>>>>>>> with a doctorate in religion from either Cambridge or Oxford (don't

 

>>>>>>> remember which)

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Useless references.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> I simply cut and paste so that I can refer you to a

 

>>>>>>> reference when you bitch.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> And, I can't ever remember ever finding an error with your posts....

 

>>>>>>> except when you have made an error.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> So just tell the truth and talk about something that you actually know

 

>>>>>>> something about (or do more research) and you will discover that I'm

 

>>>>>>> really quite a nice guy.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Yes, your response if breathtaking. the logic is astounding. and you

 

>>>>> prove once again that you really are an idiot.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> And a hypocrite as well. After all you brag on your vast knowledge of

 

>>>>> Buddhism and then sink to personal attacks.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Right Speech and right Actions..... Ah yes the real Buddhist actions..

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> What a phony.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> cheers,

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> John B.

 

>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildorcom)

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Gosh, the man thinks that all Buddhists should be perfect Christians.

 

>>>> Not only that, he keeps quoting outdated and invalid Buddhist concepts

 

>>>> that no longer have power in this day and age. Read the Lotus Sutra and

 

>>>> then get back to me as our "conversation" is between a sage (me) and a

 

>>>> fool (you).

 

>

 

> Well, I certainly compliment you on your title of "Sage", self

 

> appointed one assumes.

 

 

 

Only compared to you.

 

 

>

 

> However, if you do, in fact, know anything about Buddhism we'll just

 

> put a mark in the wall here - "Alias knows something about something!"

 

> A first for him.

 

 

 

How patronizing of you, your specialty.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> I see. You first deny basic precepts of Buddhism and then brag about

 

>>> how much you know about the subject of Buddhism.

 

>>

 

>> This from someone who stated there has only been one Buddha. I've

 

>> forgotten more about Buddhism then you'll ever know.

 

>

 

> Yes, you deny the Buddha's teaching, fine then you deny the basis of

 

> the religion. In essence then you are not a Buddhist,. You may be a

 

> Nichiren Buddhist, but it is hardly the same thing, is it.

 

 

 

It's True Buddhism. In the Lotus Sutra, it's made clear that all that

 

was taught before is provisional so that the Lotus Sutra could

 

understood and should be discarded like the scaffolding after the

 

building is built.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> As someone once wrote, "A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at

 

>>> least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool

 

>>> indeed."

 

>>

 

>> You should take heed, fool.

 

>>

 

> Oh I do. Certainly I am not a Sage.

 

 

 

You don't have to swear on your bible for everyone to believe that.

 

 

> By the way, tell us, do we have to

 

> get down on all fours and bang our head on the flood three times when

 

> we are introduced to the Great Sage Alias?

 

 

 

More flippant and patronizing drivel.

 

 

>

 

>

 

> Obvious the one who thinks himself wise...

 

 

 

You missed the part about "compared to you".

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> You continue to rabbet on about the Lotus sutra, apparently not

 

>>> knowing that it was likely written some 300 to 400 years after the

 

>>> death of The Buddha it's provenance seems flawed, at best, however

 

>>> both the Tientai and Nichiren sects are based on it..

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> cheers,

 

>>>

 

>>> John B.

 

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildorcom)

 

>>

 

>> It was passed down orally before it was written down. And, as you

 

>> stated, it was *likely* written 300 to 400 years after the death of

 

>> Shakyamuni.

 

>

 

> It is generally thought that the earliest Mahayana scriptures were

 

> composed from the 1st century CE onward which is usably stated to be

 

> some 5 centuries after the Death of The Buddha.

 

>

 

> The Theravada Tipitaka as the most authoritative collection of texts

 

> on the teachings of Gautama Buddha and were thought to have been

 

> written down in the 1sr century BCE, or probably 200 years before the

 

> Lotus Sutra.

 

>

 

> cheers,

 

>

 

> John B.

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildorcom)

 

 

 

All the teachings were passed down orally. In those days, people's

 

memories were much better than now because they couldn't jot it down for

 

later. The Buddhist Councils formalized the teachings.

 

 

 

I suggest you read the Gosho if you're really serious, although I doubt

 

you are.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:14:23 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

 

 

>>>>> fool (you).

 

>>

 

>> Well, I certainly compliment you on your title of "Sage", self

 

>> appointed one assumes.

 

>

 

>Only compared to you.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> However, if you do, in fact, know anything about Buddhism we'll just

 

>> put a mark in the wall here - "Alias knows something about something!"

 

>> A first for him.

 

>

 

>How patronizing of you, your specialty.

 

>

 

Hardly patronizing.

 

 

 

You expounded on Windows, specifically you stated that the Window's

 

kernel is the registry. Absolutely wrong. And not only that but any

 

Windows Geek knows that the Registry is simply a data base, so you are

 

doubly dump. You don't know what a system kernel is and you don't know

 

what a data base is. To use the vernacular, Alias doesn't know shit

 

about Windows.

 

 

 

You stated that two Linux distros, Ubuntu and Fedora, are based on

 

Gnome when in face Linux systems, by definition must be based on the

 

Linux kernel. Again. as the jargon has it Alias doesn't know shit

 

about Linux.

 

 

 

So far you are batting zero for two.

 

 

 

Now you claim to be an expert on Buddhism, your third claim to fame

 

and the jury is still out on this but if you again are proved wrong

 

you'll have struck out.

 

 

 

In short you make positive statements and are shown to be wrong! Is

 

there any hope that you might be correct this time?

 

 

 

I wonder what the antonym of Sage might be? Fool?

 

 

 

John B. Slocomb

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:14:23 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

 

 

>>>>> fool (you).

 

>>

 

>> Well, I certainly compliment you on your title of "Sage", self

 

>> appointed one assumes.

 

>

 

>Only compared to you.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> However, if you do, in fact, know anything about Buddhism we'll just

 

>> put a mark in the wall here - "Alias knows something about something!"

 

>> A first for him.

 

>

 

>How patronizing of you, your specialty.

 

>

 

Hardly patronizing.

 

 

 

You expounded on Windows, specifically you stated that the Window's

 

kernel is the registry. Absolutely wrong. And not only that but any

 

Windows Geek knows that the Registry is simply a data base, so you are

 

doubly dump. You don't know what a system kernel is and you don't know

 

what a data base is. To use the vernacular, Alias doesn't know shit

 

about Windows.

 

 

 

You stated that two Linux distros, Ubuntu and Fedora, are based on

 

Gnome when in face Linux systems, by definition must be based on the

 

Linux kernel. Again. as the jargon has it Alias doesn't know shit

 

about Linux.

 

 

 

So far you are batting zero for two.

 

 

 

Now you claim to be an expert on Buddhism, your third claim to fame

 

and the jury is still out on this but if you again are proved wrong

 

you'll have struck out.

 

 

 

In short you make positive statements and are shown to be wrong! Is

 

there any hope that you might be correct this time?

 

 

 

I wonder what the antonym of Sage might be? Fool?

 

 

 

John B. Slocomb

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On 05/31/2010 05:36 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:14:23 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>>>>>> fool (you).

 

>>>

 

>>> Well, I certainly compliment you on your title of "Sage", self

 

>>> appointed one assumes.

 

>>

 

>> Only compared to you.

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> However, if you do, in fact, know anything about Buddhism we'll just

 

>>> put a mark in the wall here - "Alias knows something about something!"

 

>>> A first for him.

 

>>

 

>> How patronizing of you, your specialty.

 

>>

 

> Hardly patronizing.

 

 

 

More than hardly.

 

 

>

 

> You expounded on Windows, specifically you stated that the Window's

 

> kernel is the registry. Absolutely wrong. And not only that but any

 

> Windows Geek knows that the Registry is simply a data base, so you are

 

> doubly dump. You don't know what a system kernel is and you don't know

 

> what a data base is. To use the vernacular, Alias doesn't know shit

 

> about Windows.

 

>

 

> You stated that two Linux distros, Ubuntu and Fedora, are based on

 

> Gnome when in face Linux systems, by definition must be based on the

 

> Linux kernel. Again. as the jargon has it Alias doesn't know shit

 

> about Linux.

 

 

 

I've never claimed to be a computer expert, unlike you who claims to be

 

an expert on everything. I got my terminology mixed up but my point --

 

which you've ignored in favor of pouncing on my mistakes -- is that

 

Linux' architecture is by design less vulnerable to malware compared to

 

Windows' architecture.

 

 

 

 

>

 

> So far you are batting zero for two.

 

 

 

Gosh, two mistakes in all this time. Wow, that must make you feel like

 

Sherlock fucking Holmes.

 

 

>

 

> Now you claim to be an expert on Buddhism,

 

 

 

No, I didn't. The more I learn about Buddhism, the more I know how

 

little I know.

 

 

> your third claim to fame

 

> and the jury is still out on this but if you again are proved wrong

 

> you'll have struck out.

 

>

 

> In short you make positive statements and are shown to be wrong! Is

 

> there any hope that you might be correct this time?

 

>

 

> I wonder what the antonym of Sage might be? Fool?

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

Read the Lotus Sutra and the Gosho and enlighten yourself. Meanwhile,

 

you'd be much better off if you just drop the subject.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On 05/31/2010 05:36 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:14:23 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>>>>>> fool (you).

 

>>>

 

>>> Well, I certainly compliment you on your title of "Sage", self

 

>>> appointed one assumes.

 

>>

 

>> Only compared to you.

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> However, if you do, in fact, know anything about Buddhism we'll just

 

>>> put a mark in the wall here - "Alias knows something about something!"

 

>>> A first for him.

 

>>

 

>> How patronizing of you, your specialty.

 

>>

 

> Hardly patronizing.

 

 

 

More than hardly.

 

 

>

 

> You expounded on Windows, specifically you stated that the Window's

 

> kernel is the registry. Absolutely wrong. And not only that but any

 

> Windows Geek knows that the Registry is simply a data base, so you are

 

> doubly dump. You don't know what a system kernel is and you don't know

 

> what a data base is. To use the vernacular, Alias doesn't know shit

 

> about Windows.

 

>

 

> You stated that two Linux distros, Ubuntu and Fedora, are based on

 

> Gnome when in face Linux systems, by definition must be based on the

 

> Linux kernel. Again. as the jargon has it Alias doesn't know shit

 

> about Linux.

 

 

 

I've never claimed to be a computer expert, unlike you who claims to be

 

an expert on everything. I got my terminology mixed up but my point --

 

which you've ignored in favor of pouncing on my mistakes -- is that

 

Linux' architecture is by design less vulnerable to malware compared to

 

Windows' architecture.

 

 

 

 

>

 

> So far you are batting zero for two.

 

 

 

Gosh, two mistakes in all this time. Wow, that must make you feel like

 

Sherlock fucking Holmes.

 

 

>

 

> Now you claim to be an expert on Buddhism,

 

 

 

No, I didn't. The more I learn about Buddhism, the more I know how

 

little I know.

 

 

> your third claim to fame

 

> and the jury is still out on this but if you again are proved wrong

 

> you'll have struck out.

 

>

 

> In short you make positive statements and are shown to be wrong! Is

 

> there any hope that you might be correct this time?

 

>

 

> I wonder what the antonym of Sage might be? Fool?

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

Read the Lotus Sutra and the Gosho and enlighten yourself. Meanwhile,

 

you'd be much better off if you just drop the subject.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On Mon, 31 May 2010 10:57:12 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

>On 05/31/2010 05:36 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:14:23 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>>>>>> fool (you).

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Well, I certainly compliment you on your title of "Sage", self

 

>>>> appointed one assumes.

 

>>>

 

>>> Only compared to you.

 

>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> However, if you do, in fact, know anything about Buddhism we'll just

 

>>>> put a mark in the wall here - "Alias knows something about something!"

 

>>>> A first for him.

 

>>>

 

>>> How patronizing of you, your specialty.

 

>>>

 

>> Hardly patronizing.

 

>

 

>More than hardly.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> You expounded on Windows, specifically you stated that the Window's

 

>> kernel is the registry. Absolutely wrong. And not only that but any

 

>> Windows Geek knows that the Registry is simply a data base, so you are

 

>> doubly dump. You don't know what a system kernel is and you don't know

 

>> what a data base is. To use the vernacular, Alias doesn't know shit

 

>> about Windows.

 

>>

 

>> You stated that two Linux distros, Ubuntu and Fedora, are based on

 

>> Gnome when in face Linux systems, by definition must be based on the

 

>> Linux kernel. Again. as the jargon has it Alias doesn't know shit

 

>> about Linux.

 

>

 

>I've never claimed to be a computer expert, unlike you who claims to be

 

>an expert on everything. I got my terminology mixed up but my point --

 

>which you've ignored in favor of pouncing on my mistakes -- is that

 

>Linux' architecture is by design less vulnerable to malware compared to

 

>Windows' architecture.

 

>

 

 

 

Again you are rationalizing. You write that I clam to be an expert on

 

everything. I have never said that. You have inferred that. But you

 

use the fact that I correct some of your wilder assertions as thinking

 

I'm an expert..... Just as you run about waving your arms and shouting

 

and repeating over and over how wonderful Ubuntu is. No you never said

 

"I am an expert" but you certainly tried to make everyone think so.

 

 

 

You are still batting 0 for 2 and working on a strike-out.

 

>>

 

>> So far you are batting zero for two.

 

>

 

>Gosh, two mistakes in all this time. Wow, that must make you feel like

 

>Sherlock fucking Holmes.

 

>

 

No, two is all that I wrote down. After all, one does try to save

 

bandwidth.

 

 

>>

 

>> Now you claim to be an expert on Buddhism,

 

>

 

>No, I didn't. The more I learn about Buddhism, the more I know how

 

>little I know.

 

>

 

>> your third claim to fame

 

>> and the jury is still out on this but if you again are proved wrong

 

>> you'll have struck out.

 

>>

 

>> In short you make positive statements and are shown to be wrong! Is

 

>> there any hope that you might be correct this time?

 

>>

 

>> I wonder what the antonym of Sage might be? Fool?

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

>Read the Lotus Sutra and the Gosho and enlighten yourself. Meanwhile,

 

>you'd be much better off if you just drop the subject.

 

 

 

 

 

Alias, I hate to be the one to tell you but the Lotus sutra didn't

 

even exist at the time the Theravada books were written down. And

 

there is certainly no question that it sets out a rather different

 

emphasis on practice of the religion.

 

 

 

However, to argue that your way is better that another's is really not

 

what Buddhism is about. It is really about a few simple thing as a

 

path to nirvana.

 

 

 

The Buddhist religion certainly starts with Siddhartha and his

 

original teachings. If someone wants to advance a scheme in which

 

other actions are necessary to reach nirvana then peace be on them as

 

The Buddha was once questioned on certain what might be termed

 

metaphysical subjects and replied that he had not taught anything

 

except certain fundamental rules that if followed would result in

 

Nirvana. That questions regarding whether the world would last for

 

ever, whether saints existed after death, and so on, were not material

 

to his teaching and he had not commented on them.

 

 

 

In short his teachings are important, the rest is dross.

 

 

 

John B. Slocomb

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On Mon, 31 May 2010 10:57:12 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

>On 05/31/2010 05:36 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:14:23 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>>>>>> fool (you).

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Well, I certainly compliment you on your title of "Sage", self

 

>>>> appointed one assumes.

 

>>>

 

>>> Only compared to you.

 

>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> However, if you do, in fact, know anything about Buddhism we'll just

 

>>>> put a mark in the wall here - "Alias knows something about something!"

 

>>>> A first for him.

 

>>>

 

>>> How patronizing of you, your specialty.

 

>>>

 

>> Hardly patronizing.

 

>

 

>More than hardly.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> You expounded on Windows, specifically you stated that the Window's

 

>> kernel is the registry. Absolutely wrong. And not only that but any

 

>> Windows Geek knows that the Registry is simply a data base, so you are

 

>> doubly dump. You don't know what a system kernel is and you don't know

 

>> what a data base is. To use the vernacular, Alias doesn't know shit

 

>> about Windows.

 

>>

 

>> You stated that two Linux distros, Ubuntu and Fedora, are based on

 

>> Gnome when in face Linux systems, by definition must be based on the

 

>> Linux kernel. Again. as the jargon has it Alias doesn't know shit

 

>> about Linux.

 

>

 

>I've never claimed to be a computer expert, unlike you who claims to be

 

>an expert on everything. I got my terminology mixed up but my point --

 

>which you've ignored in favor of pouncing on my mistakes -- is that

 

>Linux' architecture is by design less vulnerable to malware compared to

 

>Windows' architecture.

 

>

 

 

 

Again you are rationalizing. You write that I clam to be an expert on

 

everything. I have never said that. You have inferred that. But you

 

use the fact that I correct some of your wilder assertions as thinking

 

I'm an expert..... Just as you run about waving your arms and shouting

 

and repeating over and over how wonderful Ubuntu is. No you never said

 

"I am an expert" but you certainly tried to make everyone think so.

 

 

 

You are still batting 0 for 2 and working on a strike-out.

 

>>

 

>> So far you are batting zero for two.

 

>

 

>Gosh, two mistakes in all this time. Wow, that must make you feel like

 

>Sherlock fucking Holmes.

 

>

 

No, two is all that I wrote down. After all, one does try to save

 

bandwidth.

 

 

>>

 

>> Now you claim to be an expert on Buddhism,

 

>

 

>No, I didn't. The more I learn about Buddhism, the more I know how

 

>little I know.

 

>

 

>> your third claim to fame

 

>> and the jury is still out on this but if you again are proved wrong

 

>> you'll have struck out.

 

>>

 

>> In short you make positive statements and are shown to be wrong! Is

 

>> there any hope that you might be correct this time?

 

>>

 

>> I wonder what the antonym of Sage might be? Fool?

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

>Read the Lotus Sutra and the Gosho and enlighten yourself. Meanwhile,

 

>you'd be much better off if you just drop the subject.

 

 

 

 

 

Alias, I hate to be the one to tell you but the Lotus sutra didn't

 

even exist at the time the Theravada books were written down. And

 

there is certainly no question that it sets out a rather different

 

emphasis on practice of the religion.

 

 

 

However, to argue that your way is better that another's is really not

 

what Buddhism is about. It is really about a few simple thing as a

 

path to nirvana.

 

 

 

The Buddhist religion certainly starts with Siddhartha and his

 

original teachings. If someone wants to advance a scheme in which

 

other actions are necessary to reach nirvana then peace be on them as

 

The Buddha was once questioned on certain what might be termed

 

metaphysical subjects and replied that he had not taught anything

 

except certain fundamental rules that if followed would result in

 

Nirvana. That questions regarding whether the world would last for

 

ever, whether saints existed after death, and so on, were not material

 

to his teaching and he had not commented on them.

 

 

 

In short his teachings are important, the rest is dross.

 

 

 

John B. Slocomb

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Mon, 31 May 2010 10:57:12 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> On 05/31/2010 05:36 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:14:23 +0200, Alias

 

>>> wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>>>>>> fool (you).

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Well, I certainly compliment you on your title of "Sage", self

 

>>>>> appointed one assumes.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Only compared to you.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> However, if you do, in fact, know anything about Buddhism we'll just

 

>>>>> put a mark in the wall here - "Alias knows something about something!"

 

>>>>> A first for him.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> How patronizing of you, your specialty.

 

>>>>

 

>>> Hardly patronizing.

 

>>

 

>> More than hardly.

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> You expounded on Windows, specifically you stated that the Window's

 

>>> kernel is the registry. Absolutely wrong. And not only that but any

 

>>> Windows Geek knows that the Registry is simply a data base, so you are

 

>>> doubly dump. You don't know what a system kernel is and you don't know

 

>>> what a data base is. To use the vernacular, Alias doesn't know shit

 

>>> about Windows.

 

>>>

 

>>> You stated that two Linux distros, Ubuntu and Fedora, are based on

 

>>> Gnome when in face Linux systems, by definition must be based on the

 

>>> Linux kernel. Again. as the jargon has it Alias doesn't know shit

 

>>> about Linux.

 

>>

 

>> I've never claimed to be a computer expert, unlike you who claims to be

 

>> an expert on everything. I got my terminology mixed up but my point --

 

>> which you've ignored in favor of pouncing on my mistakes -- is that

 

>> Linux' architecture is by design less vulnerable to malware compared to

 

>> Windows' architecture.

 

>>

 

>

 

> Again you are rationalizing. You write that I clam to be an expert on

 

> everything. I have never said that. You have inferred that. But you

 

> use the fact that I correct some of your wilder assertions as thinking

 

> I'm an expert..... Just as you run about waving your arms and shouting

 

> and repeating over and over how wonderful Ubuntu is. No you never said

 

> "I am an expert" but you certainly tried to make everyone think so.

 

>

 

> You are still batting 0 for 2 and working on a strike-out.

 

>>>

 

>>> So far you are batting zero for two.

 

>>

 

>> Gosh, two mistakes in all this time. Wow, that must make you feel like

 

>> Sherlock fucking Holmes.

 

>>

 

> No, two is all that I wrote down. After all, one does try to save

 

> bandwidth.

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> Now you claim to be an expert on Buddhism,

 

>>

 

>> No, I didn't. The more I learn about Buddhism, the more I know how

 

>> little I know.

 

>>

 

>>> your third claim to fame

 

>>> and the jury is still out on this but if you again are proved wrong

 

>>> you'll have struck out.

 

>>>

 

>>> In short you make positive statements and are shown to be wrong! Is

 

>>> there any hope that you might be correct this time?

 

>>>

 

>>> I wonder what the antonym of Sage might be? Fool?

 

>>>

 

>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>

 

>> Read the Lotus Sutra and the Gosho and enlighten yourself. Meanwhile,

 

>> you'd be much better off if you just drop the subject.

 

>

 

>

 

> Alias, I hate to be the one to tell you but the Lotus sutra didn't

 

> even exist at the time the Theravada books were written down. And

 

> there is certainly no question that it sets out a rather different

 

> emphasis on practice of the religion.

 

>

 

> However, to argue that your way is better that another's is really not

 

> what Buddhism is about. It is really about a few simple thing as a

 

> path to nirvana.

 

>

 

> The Buddhist religion certainly starts with Siddhartha and his

 

> original teachings. If someone wants to advance a scheme in which

 

> other actions are necessary to reach nirvana then peace be on them as

 

> The Buddha was once questioned on certain what might be termed

 

> metaphysical subjects and replied that he had not taught anything

 

> except certain fundamental rules that if followed would result in

 

> Nirvana. That questions regarding whether the world would last for

 

> ever, whether saints existed after death, and so on, were not material

 

> to his teaching and he had not commented on them.

 

>

 

> In short his teachings are important, the rest is dross.

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

We're done, John. Find someone else to pick at. You are not interested

 

in dialogue or debate. You're only interested in a pissing contest.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Mon, 31 May 2010 10:57:12 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> On 05/31/2010 05:36 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:14:23 +0200, Alias

 

>>> wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>>>>>> fool (you).

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Well, I certainly compliment you on your title of "Sage", self

 

>>>>> appointed one assumes.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Only compared to you.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> However, if you do, in fact, know anything about Buddhism we'll just

 

>>>>> put a mark in the wall here - "Alias knows something about something!"

 

>>>>> A first for him.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> How patronizing of you, your specialty.

 

>>>>

 

>>> Hardly patronizing.

 

>>

 

>> More than hardly.

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> You expounded on Windows, specifically you stated that the Window's

 

>>> kernel is the registry. Absolutely wrong. And not only that but any

 

>>> Windows Geek knows that the Registry is simply a data base, so you are

 

>>> doubly dump. You don't know what a system kernel is and you don't know

 

>>> what a data base is. To use the vernacular, Alias doesn't know shit

 

>>> about Windows.

 

>>>

 

>>> You stated that two Linux distros, Ubuntu and Fedora, are based on

 

>>> Gnome when in face Linux systems, by definition must be based on the

 

>>> Linux kernel. Again. as the jargon has it Alias doesn't know shit

 

>>> about Linux.

 

>>

 

>> I've never claimed to be a computer expert, unlike you who claims to be

 

>> an expert on everything. I got my terminology mixed up but my point --

 

>> which you've ignored in favor of pouncing on my mistakes -- is that

 

>> Linux' architecture is by design less vulnerable to malware compared to

 

>> Windows' architecture.

 

>>

 

>

 

> Again you are rationalizing. You write that I clam to be an expert on

 

> everything. I have never said that. You have inferred that. But you

 

> use the fact that I correct some of your wilder assertions as thinking

 

> I'm an expert..... Just as you run about waving your arms and shouting

 

> and repeating over and over how wonderful Ubuntu is. No you never said

 

> "I am an expert" but you certainly tried to make everyone think so.

 

>

 

> You are still batting 0 for 2 and working on a strike-out.

 

>>>

 

>>> So far you are batting zero for two.

 

>>

 

>> Gosh, two mistakes in all this time. Wow, that must make you feel like

 

>> Sherlock fucking Holmes.

 

>>

 

> No, two is all that I wrote down. After all, one does try to save

 

> bandwidth.

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> Now you claim to be an expert on Buddhism,

 

>>

 

>> No, I didn't. The more I learn about Buddhism, the more I know how

 

>> little I know.

 

>>

 

>>> your third claim to fame

 

>>> and the jury is still out on this but if you again are proved wrong

 

>>> you'll have struck out.

 

>>>

 

>>> In short you make positive statements and are shown to be wrong! Is

 

>>> there any hope that you might be correct this time?

 

>>>

 

>>> I wonder what the antonym of Sage might be? Fool?

 

>>>

 

>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>

 

>> Read the Lotus Sutra and the Gosho and enlighten yourself. Meanwhile,

 

>> you'd be much better off if you just drop the subject.

 

>

 

>

 

> Alias, I hate to be the one to tell you but the Lotus sutra didn't

 

> even exist at the time the Theravada books were written down. And

 

> there is certainly no question that it sets out a rather different

 

> emphasis on practice of the religion.

 

>

 

> However, to argue that your way is better that another's is really not

 

> what Buddhism is about. It is really about a few simple thing as a

 

> path to nirvana.

 

>

 

> The Buddhist religion certainly starts with Siddhartha and his

 

> original teachings. If someone wants to advance a scheme in which

 

> other actions are necessary to reach nirvana then peace be on them as

 

> The Buddha was once questioned on certain what might be termed

 

> metaphysical subjects and replied that he had not taught anything

 

> except certain fundamental rules that if followed would result in

 

> Nirvana. That questions regarding whether the world would last for

 

> ever, whether saints existed after death, and so on, were not material

 

> to his teaching and he had not commented on them.

 

>

 

> In short his teachings are important, the rest is dross.

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

We're done, John. Find someone else to pick at. You are not interested

 

in dialogue or debate. You're only interested in a pissing contest.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On Mon, 31 May 2010 18:00:57 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

>John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 10:57:12 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> On 05/31/2010 05:36 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:14:23 +0200, Alias

 

>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> fool (you).

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Well, I certainly compliment you on your title of "Sage", self

 

>>>>>> appointed one assumes.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Only compared to you.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> However, if you do, in fact, know anything about Buddhism we'll just

 

>>>>>> put a mark in the wall here - "Alias knows something about something!"

 

>>>>>> A first for him.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> How patronizing of you, your specialty.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>> Hardly patronizing.

 

>>>

 

>>> More than hardly.

 

>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> You expounded on Windows, specifically you stated that the Window's

 

>>>> kernel is the registry. Absolutely wrong. And not only that but any

 

>>>> Windows Geek knows that the Registry is simply a data base, so you are

 

>>>> doubly dump. You don't know what a system kernel is and you don't know

 

>>>> what a data base is. To use the vernacular, Alias doesn't know shit

 

>>>> about Windows.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> You stated that two Linux distros, Ubuntu and Fedora, are based on

 

>>>> Gnome when in face Linux systems, by definition must be based on the

 

>>>> Linux kernel. Again. as the jargon has it Alias doesn't know shit

 

>>>> about Linux.

 

>>>

 

>>> I've never claimed to be a computer expert, unlike you who claims to be

 

>>> an expert on everything. I got my terminology mixed up but my point --

 

>>> which you've ignored in favor of pouncing on my mistakes -- is that

 

>>> Linux' architecture is by design less vulnerable to malware compared to

 

>>> Windows' architecture.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> Again you are rationalizing. You write that I clam to be an expert on

 

>> everything. I have never said that. You have inferred that. But you

 

>> use the fact that I correct some of your wilder assertions as thinking

 

>> I'm an expert..... Just as you run about waving your arms and shouting

 

>> and repeating over and over how wonderful Ubuntu is. No you never said

 

>> "I am an expert" but you certainly tried to make everyone think so.

 

>>

 

>> You are still batting 0 for 2 and working on a strike-out.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> So far you are batting zero for two.

 

>>>

 

>>> Gosh, two mistakes in all this time. Wow, that must make you feel like

 

>>> Sherlock fucking Holmes.

 

>>>

 

>> No, two is all that I wrote down. After all, one does try to save

 

>> bandwidth.

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Now you claim to be an expert on Buddhism,

 

>>>

 

>>> No, I didn't. The more I learn about Buddhism, the more I know how

 

>>> little I know.

 

>>>

 

>>>> your third claim to fame

 

>>>> and the jury is still out on this but if you again are proved wrong

 

>>>> you'll have struck out.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> In short you make positive statements and are shown to be wrong! Is

 

>>>> there any hope that you might be correct this time?

 

>>>>

 

>>>> I wonder what the antonym of Sage might be? Fool?

 

>>>>

 

>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>

 

>>> Read the Lotus Sutra and the Gosho and enlighten yourself. Meanwhile,

 

>>> you'd be much better off if you just drop the subject.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Alias, I hate to be the one to tell you but the Lotus sutra didn't

 

>> even exist at the time the Theravada books were written down. And

 

>> there is certainly no question that it sets out a rather different

 

>> emphasis on practice of the religion.

 

>>

 

>> However, to argue that your way is better that another's is really not

 

>> what Buddhism is about. It is really about a few simple thing as a

 

>> path to nirvana.

 

>>

 

>> The Buddhist religion certainly starts with Siddhartha and his

 

>> original teachings. If someone wants to advance a scheme in which

 

>> other actions are necessary to reach nirvana then peace be on them as

 

>> The Buddha was once questioned on certain what might be termed

 

>> metaphysical subjects and replied that he had not taught anything

 

>> except certain fundamental rules that if followed would result in

 

>> Nirvana. That questions regarding whether the world would last for

 

>> ever, whether saints existed after death, and so on, were not material

 

>> to his teaching and he had not commented on them.

 

>>

 

>> In short his teachings are important, the rest is dross.

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

>We're done, John. Find someone else to pick at. You are not interested

 

>in dialogue or debate. You're only interested in a pissing contest.

 

 

 

 

 

You keep saying this as a means to attempting to save some shred of

 

self-respect while I am just repeating the truth - or in the case of

 

Buddhism what is believed by 95% of the population in Thailand and

 

most of SEA. Of course this is an opinion as no one has yet to "prove"

 

a religion, which are simply beliefs.

 

 

 

And even in religion I have been tolerant - did I not just say the if

 

you believe differently then "peace be on you"?

 

 

 

But you take exception to anyone that demonstrates the falseness of

 

your erroneous statements and questions your religious beliefs. I, on

 

the other hand, have provided some reasons for my beliefs while you

 

simply repeat, like a broken record ,"read the Lotus Sutra".

 

 

 

So yes, the discussion about religion is closed as your broken record

 

responses neither prove nor even explain your arguments.

 

 

 

However, if you continue to mouth unproven "facts" and romantic

 

theories about operating systems then I shall continue to comment.

 

 

 

Participate in some of the more technical threads that exist in this

 

group. No one will bad-mouth you if you know what you are talking

 

about. But continue with your paeans of phrase for Ubuntu (the

 

newbee's delight) then undoubtedly not only myself but many others

 

will pounce upon you.

 

 

 

John B. Slocomb

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On Mon, 31 May 2010 18:00:57 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

>John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 10:57:12 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> On 05/31/2010 05:36 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:14:23 +0200, Alias

 

>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> fool (you).

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Well, I certainly compliment you on your title of "Sage", self

 

>>>>>> appointed one assumes.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Only compared to you.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> However, if you do, in fact, know anything about Buddhism we'll just

 

>>>>>> put a mark in the wall here - "Alias knows something about something!"

 

>>>>>> A first for him.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> How patronizing of you, your specialty.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>> Hardly patronizing.

 

>>>

 

>>> More than hardly.

 

>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> You expounded on Windows, specifically you stated that the Window's

 

>>>> kernel is the registry. Absolutely wrong. And not only that but any

 

>>>> Windows Geek knows that the Registry is simply a data base, so you are

 

>>>> doubly dump. You don't know what a system kernel is and you don't know

 

>>>> what a data base is. To use the vernacular, Alias doesn't know shit

 

>>>> about Windows.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> You stated that two Linux distros, Ubuntu and Fedora, are based on

 

>>>> Gnome when in face Linux systems, by definition must be based on the

 

>>>> Linux kernel. Again. as the jargon has it Alias doesn't know shit

 

>>>> about Linux.

 

>>>

 

>>> I've never claimed to be a computer expert, unlike you who claims to be

 

>>> an expert on everything. I got my terminology mixed up but my point --

 

>>> which you've ignored in favor of pouncing on my mistakes -- is that

 

>>> Linux' architecture is by design less vulnerable to malware compared to

 

>>> Windows' architecture.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> Again you are rationalizing. You write that I clam to be an expert on

 

>> everything. I have never said that. You have inferred that. But you

 

>> use the fact that I correct some of your wilder assertions as thinking

 

>> I'm an expert..... Just as you run about waving your arms and shouting

 

>> and repeating over and over how wonderful Ubuntu is. No you never said

 

>> "I am an expert" but you certainly tried to make everyone think so.

 

>>

 

>> You are still batting 0 for 2 and working on a strike-out.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> So far you are batting zero for two.

 

>>>

 

>>> Gosh, two mistakes in all this time. Wow, that must make you feel like

 

>>> Sherlock fucking Holmes.

 

>>>

 

>> No, two is all that I wrote down. After all, one does try to save

 

>> bandwidth.

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Now you claim to be an expert on Buddhism,

 

>>>

 

>>> No, I didn't. The more I learn about Buddhism, the more I know how

 

>>> little I know.

 

>>>

 

>>>> your third claim to fame

 

>>>> and the jury is still out on this but if you again are proved wrong

 

>>>> you'll have struck out.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> In short you make positive statements and are shown to be wrong! Is

 

>>>> there any hope that you might be correct this time?

 

>>>>

 

>>>> I wonder what the antonym of Sage might be? Fool?

 

>>>>

 

>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>

 

>>> Read the Lotus Sutra and the Gosho and enlighten yourself. Meanwhile,

 

>>> you'd be much better off if you just drop the subject.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Alias, I hate to be the one to tell you but the Lotus sutra didn't

 

>> even exist at the time the Theravada books were written down. And

 

>> there is certainly no question that it sets out a rather different

 

>> emphasis on practice of the religion.

 

>>

 

>> However, to argue that your way is better that another's is really not

 

>> what Buddhism is about. It is really about a few simple thing as a

 

>> path to nirvana.

 

>>

 

>> The Buddhist religion certainly starts with Siddhartha and his

 

>> original teachings. If someone wants to advance a scheme in which

 

>> other actions are necessary to reach nirvana then peace be on them as

 

>> The Buddha was once questioned on certain what might be termed

 

>> metaphysical subjects and replied that he had not taught anything

 

>> except certain fundamental rules that if followed would result in

 

>> Nirvana. That questions regarding whether the world would last for

 

>> ever, whether saints existed after death, and so on, were not material

 

>> to his teaching and he had not commented on them.

 

>>

 

>> In short his teachings are important, the rest is dross.

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

>We're done, John. Find someone else to pick at. You are not interested

 

>in dialogue or debate. You're only interested in a pissing contest.

 

 

 

 

 

You keep saying this as a means to attempting to save some shred of

 

self-respect while I am just repeating the truth - or in the case of

 

Buddhism what is believed by 95% of the population in Thailand and

 

most of SEA. Of course this is an opinion as no one has yet to "prove"

 

a religion, which are simply beliefs.

 

 

 

And even in religion I have been tolerant - did I not just say the if

 

you believe differently then "peace be on you"?

 

 

 

But you take exception to anyone that demonstrates the falseness of

 

your erroneous statements and questions your religious beliefs. I, on

 

the other hand, have provided some reasons for my beliefs while you

 

simply repeat, like a broken record ,"read the Lotus Sutra".

 

 

 

So yes, the discussion about religion is closed as your broken record

 

responses neither prove nor even explain your arguments.

 

 

 

However, if you continue to mouth unproven "facts" and romantic

 

theories about operating systems then I shall continue to comment.

 

 

 

Participate in some of the more technical threads that exist in this

 

group. No one will bad-mouth you if you know what you are talking

 

about. But continue with your paeans of phrase for Ubuntu (the

 

newbee's delight) then undoubtedly not only myself but many others

 

will pounce upon you.

 

 

 

John B. Slocomb

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)