Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fatcel_3000" data-source="post: 10174" data-attributes="member: 73">you won&#039;tdidn&#039;t stop you from talking BS in the first place though.about 1/2 lies and BS and 1/2 something like the beliefs of Zen Buddhism. To say that something beliefs is not Zen Buddhism doesn&#039;t really say much lol. Consider makingsimple reminder for skimmers of this thread.stop using the fake enlightened tone you sound like a fag. I&#039;ve tolerated it for the last few responses for the benefit of the audience, because some of the theoretical questions and the points you raised were interesting (ly stupid, mostly). This is an open forum and I writting primarily for the audience, which includes potential unregistered lurkers.&nbsp; In Scientology this is[ATTACH=full]2091[/ATTACH]It&#039;s called tone 1.1. It&#039;s what fags are on usually. There used to be a book about curing your disease but these cases proved to be too difficult so the research line was abandoned.[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://lowtoxinforum.com/threads/people-can-die-as-a-result-of-giving-up-a-state-caused-by-low-dopamine.25872/page-4[/URL]This is a very interesting post on the Ray Peat forum that correlates from about 1-0.You are obviously hating on me but you hide it in forms of questions and oblique statements like mmmmmmmmm..... if it works for you. It&#039;s all over your messageshere is an example of all three.1. You admit you don&#039;t know jack shit about what you&#039;re talking about. This by itself is fine. The purpose of the thread is the inform people about scientology, so that would make you the target audience.it&#039;s when you combine it with2. Passive aggressive questions3. It&#039;s wrong because it&#039;s not what I personally believe (OK? make your own thread then)For my last responses I was speaking more about the theoretical questions and the points you posited.here I am talking to you. Whether or not &quot;getting angry&quot; is something against your religion idc. But as a man to a man, when you don&#039;t like something you should be direct about it instead of making little snickering comments like a little girl.My message to you: you are a bitch and you the dick in your ass that you are desperately begging for.Back to the questions:If these were good faith questions they would be pretty interesting. Worthy of a thread of their own, ngl. I&#039;ll include you in the tag list.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fatcel_3000, post: 10174, member: 73"] you won't didn't stop you from talking BS in the first place though. about 1/2 lies and BS and 1/2 something like the beliefs of Zen Buddhism. To say that something beliefs is not Zen Buddhism doesn't really say much lol. Consider making simple reminder for skimmers of this thread. stop using the fake enlightened tone you sound like a fag. I've tolerated it for the last few responses for the benefit of the audience, because some of the theoretical questions and the points you raised were interesting (ly stupid, mostly). This is an open forum and I writting primarily for the audience, which includes potential unregistered lurkers. In Scientology this is [ATTACH type="full" alt="1728853499799.png"]2091[/ATTACH] It's called tone 1.1. It's what fags are on usually. There used to be a book about curing your disease but these cases proved to be too difficult so the research line was abandoned. [URL unfurl="true"]https://lowtoxinforum.com/threads/people-can-die-as-a-result-of-giving-up-a-state-caused-by-low-dopamine.25872/page-4[/URL] This is a very interesting post on the Ray Peat forum that correlates from about 1-0. You are obviously hating on me but you hide it in forms of questions and oblique statements like mmmmmmmmm..... if it works for you. It's all over your messages here is an example of all three. 1. You admit you don't know jack shit about what you're talking about. This by itself is fine. The purpose of the thread is the inform people about scientology, so that would make you the target audience. it's when you combine it with 2. Passive aggressive questions 3. It's wrong because it's not what I personally believe (OK? make your own thread then) For my last responses I was speaking more about the theoretical questions and the points you posited. here I am talking to you. Whether or not "getting angry" is something against your religion idc. But as a man to a man, when you don't like something you should be direct about it instead of making little snickering comments like a little girl. My message to you: you are a bitch and you the dick in your ass that you are desperately begging for. Back to the questions: If these were good faith questions they would be pretty interesting. Worthy of a thread of their own, ngl. I'll include you in the tag list. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread