Ways to experience an alien invasion

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Oh wow... you really need to spend a bit more time studying not only my posts but also the general philosophy of conversation. I made no assertions. In fact I tried to "strong man" your argument in my words so that you could correct inconsistency. Instead of doing this you elected to take your argument further down a rabbit hole of evasive, abstract, esoteric gibberish.

At this point this is actually the very FIRST reference you have EVER made to actual mind control! Do you expect your audience to just be able to read your mind??? And just telepathically find what you mean??? If not your writing style is incredibly lazy and infested with inuendo and syllogysm.

I'm not selling anything here. You asked me questions remember, so I was trying to answer them. You made an assertion about what I meant... it was not a quote, and it was wrong.

But, to me the idea of accessing and controlling someones subjective experience is synonymous with mind control.... but its not something I've given much thought (pun!).

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: What do you expect me to conclude?

And I didn't ask you conclude anything, so I don't expect you to.... but do wonder why you seemingly think you must? You replied to a comment of mine, and I've just been explaining the why of it. I don't mind if you get it or not, or agree with it or not. Your reaction to that is just the function of how well it sits or does not sit with your own opinions. There certainly was no need to respond for it was not to you, and no need to understand and explore what I meant... but I welcome the curiosity but not the judgement.

Consider that existing within 'only' the subjective space could be called insane, and existing within only the objective space could be called inane... a spectrum of stupid, with most people living in realm's determined by culture, recent history, circumstance and imagination.... from which group dynamics represent the ebb and flow of personal identity. Somewhere in all that is the constructs of mental health and how psychology tries to enable participation and happiness etc. Getting along with others, and difference, is the most important thing in a 'discussion' forum IMO.

Well rest assured, your inability to hold a coherant conversation has taught me a lesson to be sure. The effort has been a monumental waste of time. Have fun in your subjective mind controlled reality.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Well rest assured, your inability to hold a coherant conversation has taught me a lesson to be sure. The effort has been a monumental waste of time. Have fun in your subjective mind controlled reality.

You hiding from being wrong by attacking the other person? It seems it wasn't a problem of coherency but you not agreeing with the outcome - because you don't want to accept that if there were aliens, and they wanted to invade, that they might possibly have technology to take control of the populations minds before bothering with boots on the ground - and so my original point that limiting scope to objective reality was limiting, was indeed correct!

For that is exactly what was happening in the thread, us developing coherency (to some extent). For in signal theory like communication it's that relation between the two signals, and when discussing different positions its about approaching greater connection... for want of more accurate language LOL. It's just there was not full nor immediate coherency from either side, and that you happened to have nowhere to go since I had a reason for my opinion.

Oh sure, justify away. You said nothing about mind control until 2 posts ago. And I never said you were wrong or I was right. You went I to these obnoxious ramblings about mind states and I said you were incoherant, that was all. Be better in your delivery and stop trying to impress everyone with your "big words".

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Oh sure, justify away. You said nothing about mind control until 2 posts ago. And I never said you were wrong or I was right. You went I to these obnoxious ramblings about mind states and I said you were incoherant, that was all. Be better in your delivery and stop trying to impress everyone with your "big words".

What we're discussing now though is how you dropped the conversation. You obviously reached a point of distinerest and so went to;
"well you are correct in one aspect, you do not make any sense whatsoever"
"I find myself forced to abandon this idiotic conversation"

Which if left there could fairly be written off as a joint effort As I'm happy to share blame in a mutual endeavor that loses its shine, but you went to this;
"This requires a schism of mental processes that equates to skitsophrenia and so I can only hope you get the care that you need"

Which clearly paints me as being the sole target of your insults. But it didn't stop there, because you felt the need to also say my posts were "evasive, abstract, esoteric gibberish" and that my "writing style is incredibly lazy and infested with inuendo and syllogysm" and of course not being able to have a "coherent conversation" must be my fault as well - even though I said several times your line of questioning seemed irrelevant to my point. I'd say it's exactly because your line of questioning was so often irrelevant that I was trying to develop coherency.

And why do you keep bringing up mind control? I didn't reference the concept indirectly till the last few explanatory posts anyway....
And feel free to let me know which were the 'big words' for you?

What on earth is a "mental health accusation"? You make it sound like "mental health" is any kind of undoing one can be accused of.

The reason I don't understand what you are talking about is that you make no effort at all to be clear and indeed are going out of your way to not be. The topic at hand was fairly specific: Alien invasions and how to experience them. Jumping fourteen-and-a-half levels of meta higher from one post to the next and then continuing on with deconstructing "reality" is - at least in my understanding - not a way to get a message across such that it be understood by any would-be interlocutors. None of this has anything to do with the topic nor even with the posts immediately preceeding. Kyrin expressed her own confusion at what you were saying back in post #335771 where it could still have been argued that you are engaging with the topic at hand, after which you proceeded completely off any rails this discussion might have had at the time instead of clearing up any unclarities raised. I disengaged two pages ago because my interest in deconstructionism is slimmer still than your apparent interest in the topic.

Hi,
It has been reported that there are some comments made which are against the terms of behavior unbrcoming. Let us not belittle one another and let us discuss ideas. If this continues to be an issue, I will have this thread locked

Once the terms can be layed out clearly and plainly so that we can all see what is and isn't in violation of them, sure. Until then it is a tool of literally unlimited power in virtue of its deliberate vagueness that has been used exclusively - as predicted - to hunt down any and all challenge, never once to actually alleviate any substantive problems.

From that post I have zero information as to who did wrong, what they did wrong, or to whom. No apology will come of this and no bystander will learn any lesson until any such information is made public.


According to Behavior Unbecoming the consequence of violations is suspensions or permanent bans, not thread locking and not threats of that. If we are going to pretend like this is actually in accord with some kind of "ruleset" (as opposed to a capricious witch hunt I remember predicting), then let's at least apply it as stated.

The warning has been issued. Back on topic.

I'm asking us please not to belittle people. One does not have to like or agree with the ideas to see the individual behind them.

I don't mind a challenge at all, but if we tear down people, we dont help them...even if we think that is what we are doing/trying to do.