Crete's Corner

[ABB]

Who is they?

According to John:

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


Jesus never said 'if you don't worship me you're condemned'.... he said we were all born condemned, through original sin, and that the only way to reverse that is to following his teachings.

There's a difference there.



In order to come to that conclusion you have to look at a couple of individual sentences from the BIble and willfully ignore others that better explain what Jesus was actually getting at.

Yes, according to Mark, Jesus said:

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

However, according to Matthew, Jesus also said:

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So, no... you can't kill a bunch of people and then on your deathbed say "my bad... I've decided that I now believe in you Lord" and you're in just like that. Luke confirmed this:

"Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he [Jesus] said in reply, 'The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed, and no one will announce, 'Look, here it is,' or 'There it is.’ For behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

Thomas narrowed it down further and also explained that it's not about overt worship externally, it's about sincerity internally:

“Jesus said, If your leaders say to you, ‘Behold, the kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds in the sky will get there before you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will get there before you. Rather, the kingdom is inside you and outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and embody poverty” (Saying 3).




That's essentially where I'm at with it as well.

For what it's worth, John said that Jesus said that's ok


Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

There's a theory that thus far there have been 3 reincarnational iterations of Jesus Christ: John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and Paul.

According to the Seth material in Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (and related discussions in The Seth Material), there were three personalities of one Christ entity whose lives became historically blended/confused into the composite figure known as Christ.

These are:

1. John the Baptist (the forerunner).
2. The historical Jesus (the personality most stories of Christ refer to).
3. Paul (Saul of Tarsus) (who came after and worked to implement the ideas in physical/organizational terms).

Seth describes them as three highly gifted, psychic individuals who were portions of the same entity, born at different times (not on the same date), with constant communication between them. The full consciousness of the entity would have been too strong for one body, and a more diversified environment was desired. John came before, the historical Christ performed the central role, and Paul lingered after (though in doing so he helped plant seeds of organization that later smothered some of the original ideas). John and the historical Christ were satisfied with their roles; Paul was left unsatisfied.

Seth also refers to a third/future personality (sometimes called the “third personality of Christ” or linked to the prophesied “Second Coming”). This is not a past historical figure but one yet to appear (in Seth’s framing, emerging in a timeframe leading toward roughly 2075). It will carry characteristics of all three prior personalities, form a new psychic entity/gestalt, initiate a new religious drama (not Christian in conventional terms), and not signal the end of the world. It is described as forming particularly around the unsatisfied aspects of Paul’s personality.

In short: the past “iterations” or physical manifestations of the Christ entity that merged in history are John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul. The additional one Seth discusses is the future personality associated with the Second Coming idea. Note that this is Seth’s esoteric/channeled account (via Jane Roberts), not historical or biblical scholarship.

 

[ABB]

It’s essentially what I intended the gay thread to be but unfortunately the title led to an image of some other concept.

Man....what did you expect? If you had a son named Richie would you send out birthday Evites to come play with Dick?

 

[osubuckeye4]

Crete Thoughts #4:

It's Sunday, the start of a new week. In the past, I've found myself dreading the start of a new week. Having to go to work, having to plug back in, having to hit the treadmill running with my arms outstretched reaching for Friday.

But I've tried to change my mindset a while ago. I no longer have to go to work, I get to go to work and earn a living to provide for my family. I don't have to plug back in, I get to lock in for another week of trying to accomplish my goals. I'm still reaching for Friday, not to put the week behind me, but to look back and see what I've been able to get done and move forward.

And that got me thinking about goals. I'm a very goal oriented person and I believe that we all need some goal to chase, some mountain to climb. My current goals, not just this week but overall are: trim off about five pounds in the next eight weeks to get to 12% body fat, continue at my current pace of exercising without injury, atgemd big birdwatching thing in 8 weeks, become a more engaged member of my community, continue working on my relationship with my lady (to include the dreaded couples counseling), be a present father when the tiny human goes back to school, and focus on getting enough sleep each night.

So Im wondering: what are y'all's goals? Can be for the week, the month, the year, overall, whatever mountain you're trying to summit. Or if you're someone who doesn't really do the whole goal thing...what do you do to progress and avoid stagnation?

My main goals right now are health and family related.

I've been hitting the gym pretty hard for the last 2 months... down 18'sh pounds and the ultimate short-term goal is to get to the point where I can actively train with my daughter when she begins track and field this spring at her school. I'm not looking to get back into the form I was in in high school... but, if she's maxing out at 60 second 400's, I should reasonably be able to get there by February/March when track starts.

In the meantime, I've been 'nudging' her into lifting. We've started small... for upper body it's mostly dumbbell curl to press, lat pulldowns, tricep pushdowns, chest flys. For legs we do squats and incline treadmill (also knocks off the cardio). For core she has all her cheerleading stuff and we've incorporated hanging leg raises.

Over time, we'll incorporate bench press and deadlifts but the goal is to keep it simple in the early going and to improve her shoulder strength and flexibility (what her tumbling coach says is keeping her from most of the level 2/3 stuff she is stuck on).

She's definitely into it... my goal is to try to keep it balanced. I want to encourage her without burning her out on it right out the gate by making it too difficult. She's going into 8th grade so we've got some time before we need to start incorporating the 'intervals till you puke' death workouts that every successful runner eventually builds up to if they want to compete at a high level.

 

[QuarterCircleForwardPunch]

Who is they?

According to John:

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


Jesus never said 'if you don't worship me you're condemned'.... he said we were all born condemned, through original sin, and that the only way to reverse that is to following his teachings.

There's a difference there.



In order to come to that conclusion you have to look at a couple of individual sentences from the BIble and willfully ignore others that better explain what Jesus was actually getting at.

Yes, according to Mark, Jesus said:

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

However, according to Matthew, Jesus also said:

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So, no... you can't kill a bunch of people and then on your deathbed say "my bad... I've decided that I now believe in you Lord" and you're in just like that. Luke confirmed this:

"Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he [Jesus] said in reply, 'The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed, and no one will announce, 'Look, here it is,' or 'There it is.’ For behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

Thomas narrowed it down further and also explained that it's not about overt worship externally, it's about sincerity internally:

“Jesus said, If your leaders say to you, ‘Behold, the kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds in the sky will get there before you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will get there before you. Rather, the kingdom is inside you and outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and embody poverty” (Saying 3).




That's essentially where I'm at with it as well.

For what it's worth, John said that Jesus said that's ok


Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Not affronting faith. Its my day off and I'm trying to do nothing active so I'm browsing for engagement. My question is, in the deference you show to scripture, does that scripture include that in the Garden of Bethesda Jesus was show the sins of man, past present and future. It's a thing I've seen but my knowledge of the bible and it variations is not something I would dig my heels on

 

[cmvideo75]

Who is they?

According to John:

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


Jesus never said 'if you don't worship me you're condemned'.... he said we were all born condemned, through original sin, and that the only way to reverse that is to following his teachings.

There's a difference there.



In order to come to that conclusion you have to look at a couple of individual sentences from the BIble and willfully ignore others that better explain what Jesus was actually getting at.

Yes, according to Mark, Jesus said:

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

However, according to Matthew, Jesus also said:

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So, no... you can't kill a bunch of people and then on your deathbed say "my bad... I've decided that I now believe in you Lord" and you're in just like that. Luke confirmed this:

"Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he [Jesus] said in reply, 'The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed, and no one will announce, 'Look, here it is,' or 'There it is.’ For behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

Thomas narrowed it down further and also explained that it's not about overt worship externally, it's about sincerity internally:

“Jesus said, If your leaders say to you, ‘Behold, the kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds in the sky will get there before you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will get there before you. Rather, the kingdom is inside you and outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and embody poverty” (Saying 3).




That's essentially where I'm at with it as well.

For what it's worth, John said that Jesus said that's ok


Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

I'm telling you what was drilled into my head in 8 years of Catholic school. This is 100% what they taught me. You will not be accepted into heaven if you do not accept god first and foremost as your savior. Commandment #1. And you could pretty much do anything in life and it will be forgiven as long as you show penance and accept the lord as your savior.

That is how the message was delivered. Maybe the church has softened up on that message since catholic school in the 1980s but this was totally the message they DRILLED into your head back then.

 

[Sedulous]

how's your mom doing @Sedulous ? I remember the story you told about your dad, that one stayed with me.

It took some years but I've mostly found peace with how everything went down. There was a moment a few years ago where she brought up what happened with her and my dad and seemed to blame it on hormones that made her temporarily crazy. She said something about "having a lot of regrets". I didn't dig deeper though, just listened to whatever she wanted to volunteer. I don't mind having emotional discussions but I don't really want to have them with her.

These days I really just try to placate her and not give her an excuse to get weird about things. She's the type of person who reads into everything. EXAMPLE: I was on the phone with her last year and the kids were distracting me so I didn't say much. A day or two later she texts me that she needs to talk to me. So I call her and she asks me if I'm mad at her. I'm confused AF and then she points to how little I said on the phone two days ago. It really drives me crazy how sensitive she can be.

Not just me but my wife, Amy, too. We drove to the coast with the kids to visit her specifically a few months ago. We met her at beach and spent hours with her. Two days later Amy gets a text from her asking if she did something to offend her because apparently Amy didn't converse with her enough. Now, I don't really text or call my mom unprompted. However, Amy sends her pics and updates about the kids all the time. She arranged that whole beach day herself. She really goes out of her way to include my mom in a way that I just don't. Amy is also a no-nonsense type of person. She's a director or nursing at a very large hospital. She has dealt with angry families, violent psych patients, drug-thieving nurses, and emotional burnt out managers for 15 years. If she has an issue with someone she cares about, she's going to have a civil discussion with them face to face. So this text really pissed her off because it's not the first time my mom has pulled this oversensitive bullshit with her. Amy basically told her to call, not text, if she wants to talk about this sort of thing and that if she (Amy) has a problem with her (my mom) that she would talk to her about it.

So my mom burned another important bridge there.

Bottomline, my kids love spending time with her and she loves spending time with them. That's been her saving grace. It could be worse though. She's not a mean nasty person and I can handle her in small doses a few times a year. She just gets weird sometimes.

 

[bconcrete]

My main goals right now are health and family related.

I've been hitting the gym pretty hard for the last 2 months... down 18'sh pounds and the ultimate short-term goal is to get to the point where I can actively train with my daughter when she begins track and field this spring at her school. I'm not looking to get back into the form I was in in high school... but, if she's maxing out at 60 second 400's, I should reasonably be able to get there by February/March when track starts.

In the meantime, I've been 'nudging' her into lifting. We've started small... for upper body it's mostly dumbbell curl to press, lat pulldowns, tricep pushdowns, chest flys. For legs we do squats and incline treadmill (also knocks off the cardio). For core she has all her cheerleading stuff and we've incorporated hanging leg raises.

Over time, we'll incorporate bench press and deadlifts but the goal is to keep it simple in the early going and to improve her shoulder strength and flexibility (what her tumbling coach says is keeping her from most of the level 2/3 stuff she is stuck on).

She's definitely into it... my goal is to try to keep it balanced. I want to encourage her without burning her out on it right out the gate by making it too difficult. She's going into 8th grade so we've got some time before we need to start incorporating the 'intervals till you puke' death workouts that every successful runner eventually builds up to if they want to compete at a high level.

This is just my personal belief, so take it for what it's worth, but I believe there is something VERY powerful in doing the activity WITH your kid.

Letting them see you do the work and do what they're doing not only helps you bond, it adds credibility, and I've found it somehow makes them take the whole thing more seriously while having them enjoy it more too.

 

[osubuckeye4]

I'm telling you what was drilled into my head in 8 years of Catholic school. This is 100% what they taught me. You will not be accepted into heaven if you do not accept god first and foremost as your savior. Commandment #1.

Correct on that point.

Again though, it's not "you must worship me or I'll send you to hell, mwahahhahaha!

It's, "everyone is born going to hell... here is how you circumvent/avoid that fate" (include all the teachings of Christ)

And you could pretty much do anything in life and it will be forgiven as long as you show penance and accept the lord as your savior.

That is how the message was delivered. Maybe the church has softened up on that message since catholic school in the 1980s but this was totally the message they DRILLED into your head back then.

I went to CCD (late 80s/early 90s) and was told a lot of the same.

That's a lot of the reason why I drifted away from organized religion... the ridiculous contradictions and the way many 'religious' people would fall back on the same one-off sentences to justify overt hypocrisy.

It's true that Jesus did say that you could be forgiven of just about anything... somewhat oddly, 'blasphemy of the Holy Spirt' being the lone exception

According to Mark:

““I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.”"

I guess if you want to take that sentence and combine it with this sentence:

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

You could somehow get to the justification that it's fine to be the worst monster ever, as long as on your deathbed you say 'my bad, we good Jesus? I love you Jesus"

Doing that willfully ignores pretty much everything else Jesus says though.




It would be like if your dad said, "okay you can go out, but curfew is 10... be home before then" and you went on a murderous rampage, led cops on a high speed chase but you shoulder rolled thru the front door at 9:59 and said to your dad, "hey, I'm home before 10! Remember when you said I could literally do anything I wanted and it would be fine as long as I was home before 10? Ok, an officer is going to come to the door in about 3 seconds, please explain that to him because I really don't feel like going to prison."

Yea, that's not gonna fly.

 

[osubuckeye4]

Not affronting faith. Its my day off and I'm trying to do nothing active so I'm browsing for engagement. My question is, in the deference you show to scripture, does that scripture include that in the Garden of Bethesda Jesus was show the sins of man, past present and future. It's a thing I've seen but my knowledge of the bible and it variations is not something I would dig my heels on

Let me start this off with a very important disclaimer... these are 100% my opinions. I don't proclaim to know all the answers or that everything I'm typing is correct. It's just what I feel/believe. Also, if you (or anyone) disagrees with me, that's fine. I struggled, questioned and at times disagreed with some of this in the past, and I completely understand why people would push away from it... especially with the way that others have weaponized Jesus' teachings over the course of history.


As far as if Jesus was directly shown the sins of man... I have no idea.

Many believe in the Holy Trinity... in that God, Holy Spirit and Jesus are essentially the same entity that exists in three distinct personas... but each of them share the same essence.

I don't know about all that. I haven't really delve into the weeds enough to say with certainty that I believe that to be the case.


I will say that I do believe that Jesus Christ walked the Earth, that he was the Son of God and that the only path to salvation is by trying to live a Christ filled life and by accepting him as my Savior.


I completely understand where CM, Sedulous, Brick and others are coming from when they say that's a bunch of malarky.

I don't really know how to explain it other than to say that I've read enough and lived enough to just believe that it is the truth.

I will not push back on anyone who says, "I looked into it... not for me". I only push back on the stuff like, "Jesus is the biggest hypocrite ever because he demands we worship him or else he'll send us to hell."... that's just not accurate (for the reasons I listed)

 

[QuarterCircleForwardPunch]

Let me start this off with a very important disclaimer... these are 100% my opinions. I don't proclaim to know all the answers or that everything I'm typing is correct. It's just what I feel/believe. Also, if you (or anyone) disagrees with me, that's fine. I struggled, questioned and at times disagreed with some of this in the past, and I completely understand why people would push away from it... especially with the way that others have weaponized Jesus' teachings over the course of history.


As far as if Jesus was directly shown the sins of man... I have no idea.

Many believe in the Holy Trinity... in that God, Holy Spirit and Jesus are essentially the same entity that exists in three distinct personas... but each of them share the same essence.

I don't know about all that. I haven't really delve into the weeds enough to say with certainty that I believe that to be the case.


I will say that I do believe that Jesus Christ walked the Earth, that he was the Son of God and that the only path to salvation is by trying to live a Christ filled life and by accepting him as my Savior.


I completely understand where CM, Sedulous, Brick and others are coming from when they say that's a bunch of malarky.

I don't really know how to explain it other than to say that I've read enough and lived enough to just believe that it is the truth.

I will not push back on anyone who says, "I looked into it... not for me". I only push back on the stuff like, "Jesus is the biggest hypocrite ever because he demands we worship him or else he'll send us to hell."... that's just not accurate (for the reasons I listed)

Thats cool man! I have no interest in pushing back on anyones faith or trying to change minds. There's things I pick up on and wonder if it's part of a thought process is all. Appreciate ya expanding on yours for me

 

[osubuckeye4]

This is just my personal belief, so take it for what it's worth, but I believe there is something VERY powerful in doing the activity WITH your kid.

Letting them see you do the work and do what they're doing not only helps you bond, it adds credibility, and I've found it somehow makes them take the whole thing more seriously while having them enjoy it more too.

100% agree.

I also made sure to be patient and wait for her to make the decision.

 

[osubuckeye4]

There's a theory that thus far there have been 3 reincarnational iterations of Jesus Christ: John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and Paul.

According to the Seth material in Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (and related discussions in The Seth Material), there were three personalities of one Christ entity whose lives became historically blended/confused into the composite figure known as Christ.

These are:

1. John the Baptist (the forerunner).
2. The historical Jesus (the personality most stories of Christ refer to).
3. Paul (Saul of Tarsus) (who came after and worked to implement the ideas in physical/organizational terms).

Seth describes them as three highly gifted, psychic individuals who were portions of the same entity, born at different times (not on the same date), with constant communication between them. The full consciousness of the entity would have been too strong for one body, and a more diversified environment was desired. John came before, the historical Christ performed the central role, and Paul lingered after (though in doing so he helped plant seeds of organization that later smothered some of the original ideas). John and the historical Christ were satisfied with their roles; Paul was left unsatisfied.

Seth also refers to a third/future personality (sometimes called the “third personality of Christ” or linked to the prophesied “Second Coming”). This is not a past historical figure but one yet to appear (in Seth’s framing, emerging in a timeframe leading toward roughly 2075). It will carry characteristics of all three prior personalities, form a new psychic entity/gestalt, initiate a new religious drama (not Christian in conventional terms), and not signal the end of the world. It is described as forming particularly around the unsatisfied aspects of Paul’s personality.

In short: the past “iterations” or physical manifestations of the Christ entity that merged in history are John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul. The additional one Seth discusses is the future personality associated with the Second Coming idea. Note that this is Seth’s esoteric/channeled account (via Jane Roberts), not historical or biblical scholarship.

There are a lot of interesting takes with a lot of interesting reasoning/thought (or sometimes lack of thought) behind them.

I have no idea how to respond to a lot of them.

There are people who believe Jesus was from a super advanced ancient civilization that took to space and that he was essentially giving a warning of, "we're letting you continue to be custodians of the planet, don't fuck it up because we'll be back".

I have no idea how to respond to that other than, if it brings you closer to living by Jesus' teachings I suppose that's a good thing? Though some of the theories get really far out there.

 

[nubbynub76]

In order to come to that conclusion you have to look at a couple of individual sentences from the BIble and willfully ignore others @osubuckeye4 That's pretty much what you have to do with anything about the Bible you want to believe. You have to pick and choose.

 

[osubuckeye4]

In order to come to that conclusion you have to look at a couple of individual sentences from the BIble and willfully ignore others @osubuckeye4 That's pretty much what you have to do with anything about the Bible you want to believe. You have to pick and choose.

For the Bible as a whole, absolutely.

Ned Flanders said it best:




When it comes to Christs teachings though, it's much more straightforward.


That said, of course there are dozens of different translations and each are going to use slightly different verbiage... and of course some of the wording is open to interpretation.

Like when Jesus says whomever does not believe will be condemned, is he including babies who don't really have the capacity to understand or live Christs teachings?

I don't know man, I feel like when you start getting to that point you're missing the bigger message.

 

[Ulf Murphy]

Oh, and lets address fiduciary duty requiring transparancy on investor updates...

How can you have fiduciary duty for future projections on companies that you have not yet even defined as competition?

Fiduciary duty only involves defined monetary policy, which was reviewed and confirmed, I am assuming, with the 10-K. I didn't watch or listen to the call as I will never have stake in TKO. But you are conflating a few investment principals here.

If your quoting yourself is to me, I am not arguing about context at all. I do not care about the context as I do not care about TKO. I was only trying to say that he was intentionally obscure because he could be, so trying to read the tea leaves from his actual words will not be easy as to you first questions, which was language context.

His spoken words are not clear because they do not have to be. Part of that could be incompetence. Part could be intentionally vague. Part of that could simply be he has no clue and answered to the best of his ability in the moment. Any of those things would lead me away from his stock, but I am ultra conservative and really prefer index funds because they beat all other forms of investing over my still 20 year timeline.

 

[ABB]

It took some years but I've mostly found peace with how everything went down. There was a moment a few years ago where she brought up what happened with her and my dad and seemed to blame it on hormones that made her temporarily crazy. She said something about "having a lot of regrets". I didn't dig deeper though, just listened to whatever she wanted to volunteer. I don't mind having emotional discussions but I don't really want to have them with her.

These days I really just try to placate her and not give her an excuse to get weird about things. She's the type of person who reads into everything. EXAMPLE: I was on the phone with her last year and the kids were distracting me so I didn't say much. A day or two later she texts me that she needs to talk to me. So I call her and she asks me if I'm mad at her. I'm confused AF and then she points to how little I said on the phone two days ago. It really drives me crazy how sensitive she can be.

Not just me but my wife, Amy, too. We drove to the coast with the kids to visit her specifically a few months ago. We met her at beach and spent hours with her. Two days later Amy gets a text from her asking if she did something to offend her because apparently Amy didn't converse with her enough. Now, I don't really text or call my mom unprompted. However, Amy sends her pics and updates about the kids all the time. She arranged that whole beach day herself. She really goes out of her way to include my mom in a way that I just don't. Amy is also a no-nonsense type of person. She's a director or nursing at a very large hospital. She has dealt with angry families, violent psych patients, drug-thieving nurses, and emotional burnt out managers for 15 years. If she has an issue with someone she cares about, she's going to have a civil discussion with them face to face. So this text really pissed her off because it's not the first time my mom has pulled this oversensitive bullshit with her. Amy basically told her to call, not text, if she wants to talk about this sort of thing and that if she (Amy) has a problem with her (my mom) that she would talk to her about it.

So my mom burned another important bridge there.

Bottomline, my kids love spending time with her and she loves spending time with them. That's been her saving grace. It could be worse though. She's not a mean nasty person and I can handle her in small doses a few times a year. She just gets weird sometimes.

sounds like mom is carrying a heavy burden of guilt and looking for any way to let herself off of the hook. almost like she wants to repent without taking responsibility. maybe she wants her relationship with her son to return to it's formal glory without confronting the elephant in the room.

the great thing is that she can be herself with her grandkids. maybe that will be motivation to confront the obstacle that has prevented her from being honest with what version of herself let you down.

everyone makes mistakes. it's ok Mom, we're all here trying to figure this whole thing out and none of us get it right 100% of the time.

 

[QuarterCircleForwardPunch]

How can you have fiduciary duty for future projections on companies that you have not yet even defined as competition?

Fiduciary duty only involves defined monetary policy, which was reviewed and confirmed, I am assuming, with the 10-K. I didn't watch or listen to the call as I will never have stake in TKO. But you are conflating a few investment principals here.

If your quoting yourself is to me, I am not arguing about context at all. I do not care about the context as I do not care about TKO. I was only trying to say that he was intentionally obscure because he could be, so trying to read the tea leaves from his actual words will not be easy as to you first questions, which was language context.

His spoken words are not clear because they do not have to be. Part of that could be incompetence. Part could be intentionally vague. Part of that could simply be he has no clue and answered to the best of his ability in the moment. Any of those things would lead me away from his stock, but I am ultra conservative and really prefer index funds because they beat all other forms of investing over my still 20 year timeline.

Your fiduciary duty would require you to be transparent on whether a company was viewed as competition and if so whether you were actively working to be better. That was missing from that exchange.

If you don't care about the context why did you engage in my question? The context is requisite to what I was asking....

 

[QuarterCircleForwardPunch]

Oh, and lets address fiduciary duty requiring transparancy on investor updates...

And here I replied to the wrong post, sorry

 

[Ulf Murphy]

Couple things.

First, change your mental framing. Ironic for the conversation, but we're almost TOO goal and metric focused when it comes to weight loss. You say you "want to lose weight," but I bet if I said I could wave a magic wand and you'd drop 30lbs, but it'd all come back in four months that's not what you'd want at all. So really what you want to do is change your habits, and the weight loss is a by-product of that. So that'd be my first recommendation: don't look at it as losing weight or anything with a numeric value or time box. You're just trying to change your habits, and the scale will follow. Guaranteed. There's a saying "focus on the scale, you're doomed to fail" so let the scale be the by product of building a healthy lifestyle.

Second, don't try to boil the ocean. Things fall apart because people try to do too much, too fast. They want a new exercise program, a diet, drink water, get their steps, etc etc and they're changing like 5-7 things simultaneously. We're kinda just wired to reject such drastic changes, and changing so much so fast drops adherence odds to the floor. I recommend picking just one thing, and building it for a month (that's how long it takes to make a behavior a habit, and our goal is building better habits). A good starting spot is steps, set a step goal and aim to hit 5 out of the 7 days a week and just focus on that for a month. A month let's life stress test it a little bit, and you can find the best spot where it fits, and by the end it's become routine and you're just doing it. Then you look at adding the second thing. Say, going to the gym 3 days a week. Then you focus on that for a month. Rinse and repeat. Six months of that, you'll have six new healthy habits and not only will the scale have moved, you'll feel night and day better.

Third, and imo this is the hardest, learn to love the process. Again, there is no finish line. No "I just need to lose 20lbs and I'm good" or "I just follow this 90 day program and I'm good." Cuz those things may get the weight off temporarily but without the long term changes, it won't stay off and you won't be healthier. People use those finish lines because they kinda hate what they're doing and want it to stop. So, learn to love the process and the grind and embrace it. Find ways to make it work for you. Maybe you hate going to the gym, just loathe it, ok. What can you do instead of that so you love what you're doing? A healthy life doesn't come cheaply, it takes investment and work. It gets a lot easier when you start seeing results after a few months and feel it start paying you back for the work you put in.

Ok, last thing, but I just thought of it for your generation specifically: hold yourself accountable, but give yourself grace. You Gen X'ers are fucking TERRIBLE about the negative self talk, so don't let that creep in. You'll have days you slip, days you don't do the work. That's not a personal indictment of you, where you now have the right to call yourself a lazy piece of shit and all that and be discouraging to yourself. Acknowledge it, "yep, I fucked yesterday up and had two Big Macs." Then LEAVE IT THERE, say "I'll do better today " because you can't change it and focus on the day and week ahead of you. Because that you can change. Talking down to yourself can and will psychologically start to discourage you and push adherence down. So acknowledge when you slip, tell the negative voices to stfu, and physically tell yourself "I'll do better today." Positive self talk, gay as it sounds, WILL make a big difference.

Sorry, I know that's a lot lol, but this topic is one I've invested a lot of time in and thought a lot about over the years lol.

I appreciate this a lot. I think you are right about a few things. When losing weight prior, it was an all or nothing and it worked until it didn't. Then I gained it all back plus an additional 10.

And yeah, Gen X is rife with self-loathing and I am a great example of both victimizing myself and self blame/shame. It sometimes is a daily struggle. As it pertains to eating, it is really easy to just eat an entire bag of chips when I already had 2 servings and guilt trip myself into eating 3 oreos on top since I already fucked up.

 

[Ulf Murphy]

Your fiduciary duty would require you to be transparent on whether a company was viewed as competition and if so whether you were actively working to be better. That was missing from that exchange.

If you don't care about the context why did you engage in my question? The context is requisite to what I was asking....

I guess I didn't think the context mattered in this situation because a) he has no fiduciary duty to give an in depth discussion regarding competition as any conversation about competition is future looking and therefore has no fiduciary requirements and b) you asked about context due to the language used (as if not a native English speaker) and I was trying to help you understand that this example is not what you think it is and you should look elsewhere for a more clear opportunity to understand the language.

Or maybe I clearly misunderstood your question and should have kept my nose out of it. Either way, sorry for wasting your time.

And for the record, his fiduciary duty means he cannot put his personal interests ahead of the company of its shareholders, so honestly, as I think about this, there is no fiduciary duty at all in any conversation about competition, unless he is moonlighting for them which we know to be untrue (do we???). So again, if your request to assist with language is what you wanted, then my original point stands. It's a bad example.