patrick.net

I support your right to speak your mind. But that does not make my case any less valid. You are tolerant of personal malice and attacks (even if they are fictional fairytales) that this unfortunate soul actually literally believes are real. You are condoning these attacks which makes your actions as vile as the alleged attack and attacker.

Also @Rin
Quit pissing in the baby food. You have better contributions to make.

PeopleUnited says

I support your right to speak your mind. But that does not make my case any less valid. You are tolerant of personal malice and attacks (even if they are fictional fairytales) that this unfortunate soul actually literally believes are real. You are condoning these attacks which makes your actions as vile as the alleged attack and attacker.

Look, there's a huge difference between me saying that I'm going to track you down, show up at your home, dump gasoline all over it, and burn it down, as I wait outside with several high velocity projectile weapons versus "I'm going to put a hex on you".

You are free to say anything you wish to me, sticks and stones and so on.

Let’s not muddy the waters. The quote is: “ You've given me the right to launch psychic assaults against the 'core worth' of your existence. ”

But regardless, it is a threat of malice. And there is no other way to interpret it. The fact that you dismiss and downplay it does not make it any less malicious. Congratulations on standing up for the bully.

Zak says

Also @Rin
Quit pissing in the baby food. You have better contributions to make.

Congrats on joining in on the bullying!

I guess @PeopleUnited is too sensitive to the imaginary junk that never exists. I remember that @Rin was a bit tired of explaining repeatedly your religious stuff perhaps a bit harsh to you. I seriously doubt that @Rin ever meant any real personal attack towards @PeopleUnited.

Can you read the quote? He said it in at least two separate posts.

He got upset when I told him it was BS that he has lived multiple lives (essentially reincarnation). And started making threats.

PeopleUnited says

Let’s not muddy the waters. The quote is: “ You've given me the right to launch psychic assaults against the 'core worth' of your existence. ”

But regardless, it is a threat of malice. And there is no other way to interpret it. The fact that you dismiss and downplay it does not make it any less malicious. Congratulations on standing up for the bully.

I cannot speak for Patrick, however if I ran this site, I would consider this a threat that can't possibly be carried out.

Say he said nothing, and did the same thing? Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me. These are just words.

My bet is that your "assailant" doesn't believe in this, but is guessing you do. It's not an attack, it's a bluff.

It cannot be carried out but he believes it can. So in other words the threat is real from his perspective.
He legitimately believes he threatened me and you guys are defending the threat and the threatener.

PeopleUnited says

It cannot be carried out but he believes it can. So in other words the threat is real.

No, he's just full of shit.

In my opinion, you're acting like a crazy lefty that claims words are violence. They aren't. Nobody is responsible for what you imagine in your own mind, other than you.

You are entitled to your opinion but Rin is not the type to bluff from my perspective. He legitimately became irate when I told him he has not been reincarnated and started making these threats. It not what I believe that matters here, it is what he believes. You don’t believe his plain words. But he has given every indication that he Does believe he can harness the demonic realm (he calls it psychic) to attack me or others. Just read his posts in the thread I linked in the OP.

I don’t believe he can harm anyone, but he does. Thus the threats he has made are sincere.

personal

richwicks says

In my opinion, you're acting like a crazy lefty that claims words are violence

+100

can’t we all just finf ways to get along?

theres too many real problems out there, why worry over internet invented drama?

When Hexed you Hex right back, but Hex even harder, with Double Jinx Juju.
There are very affordable Hex Mirrors available on the Dark Web.

Trust only authentic monkey paws, don't accept cheap Wuhan knockoffs.

I agree threats shouldn't be tolerated, and definitely advocate flagging replies, and using the ignore feature. But I don't think this compares to someone threatening to come to your house, and saying they know where you live. Not dismissing spiritual warfare as a threat at all, just saying, if you know you have God on your side, what are you worried about?

Not worried about me, worried for him and a culture that tolerates sincere threats (even ones that the person has no powers to carry out). The majority dismiss the threats under the guise of impotence. Those threats are limp dick for sure, threatening an action that he can’t possibly achieve, but meddling in the dark arts is dangerous for him and anyone for that matter who doesn’t know better than to collude with spirits. And a community that tolerates impotent threats, will soon tolerate actions.

You all will do what you will, but I think it's wise - though maybe not perfectly rational - not to fuck around with real curses.

"Take a long walk off a short dock." or "That's the dumbest idea since the pet rock." or "What a dumbass".

Y'all might want to stay away from invoking powers and principalities, I think that's a bad idea.

Look at that Ash O'brien, call it mental illness, but man does it seem in involve some kind of possession or external force amping it up in there.

WookieMan says

richwicks says

Nobody is responsible for what you imagine in your own mind, other than you.

This. Nothing else needs to be said.

Richwicks is a cunt. You think he's going to lose sleep over what I just typed?

I didn't lose any sleep over it, and if I'm a cunt, explain how. I am willing to correct my thinking and behavior if you're correct in your reasoning and I am wrong.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Wow!

This thread is a complete compliment. I've never been so honored that someone believes that I can invoke some Bathomet-like demon character (I'm guessing it's a deceased Frenchmen), from the ethers to haunt someone on the opposite side of the country.

If anything, his compliment has calmed me down and now, those losers from the "Supernatural" show can go back to the hole where they came from.

The people who allegedly work with such entities, like let's say Aleister Crowley & the other bad boys of the Victorian age, only channel so-called ghosts & have very limited capabilities. Crowley, himself, was a broken morphine addict.

If one were to be able to launch a true bonafide attack, it would not involve such hanger-on-ers but could involve actually dispersing a person's energy (however you can define that as an ensemble) at a distance.

Since a lot of what the OP mentioned earlier was that he was all about his awareness of 'reality', which involves a pretty extensive collection of characters in the Scriptures, then where's his Trifecta of Archangel Michael, Gabby, and Raffy to give him the perfect auric shield? I mean isn't the OP a part of a team?

One can't have it both ways ... talk about reality but then, have no basis in that alleged 'reality' for discussing psychic attacks or entity possessions which according to all the so-called natural sciences, can't occur without some electromagnetic tools in the middle toying with the brain.

Otherwise, it's just fantasy or Sci-Fi.

Patrick says

Ugh, @Rin please don't do that

Ok, I won't launch psychic attacks. Scouts honor!

personal

personal

Lets all just be friends people

This is by far, the funniest thread ever on patnet and that's saying something.

Zak says

Umm.. I can almost see Rin's eyes rolling from space. "Sending bad thoughts" is not the same thing as physical threats of violence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUMLG8O4JA8

Rin says

It's to get me to try to troll him again which I'd already promised Patrick I wouldn't do.

Trolling is fun but better without any implied threats of any kind. Pretend that you agree and bring idea to unreasonable extreme which I suppose was done in this case

Reading this whole thread, I can't figure out if one side is serious, both sides are serious, or both sides are being sarcastic. Maybe there should be an explicit </sarc> label that people could use; that would save people some worry.

When Rin finally responded, I think it would have been better if he had been straightforward (assuming he was being sarcastic): "I was being sarcastic and meant no harm. I'm sorry if my behaviour offended or worried anyone, as that was not my intention. I'll label my sarcasm in the future."

Oh... as a todo for Patrick (if he has the time and inclination): I added the < and > symbols above by escaping them like "&lt;" but then when I hit the edit button to change my post, the escaped characters weren't escaped on edit text, so I had to re-escape them or otherwise they would effectively be discarded when submitted.

@SunnyvaleCA I'm not sure how to fix that.

When you type the escape sequence, it does get saved as such (three characters) in the database. But then when you go to edit it, the browser displays it as one character in the edit box. If you do a view source when on the edit page, you'll see that the html that was sent has the three characters.

How do I tell the brower "display this textarea content literally"?

Just add a round of html encoding of the text.

`<textarea>${htmlEncode(text)}</textarea>`

Its the right way to do it in any case, because you never want actual html tags in a textarea. Otherwise, you could break your markup if a user were to, say, include a closing textarea tag in the middle of a comment, as the browser will get confused where the real closing tag is. That cannot happen if html encoded, as no tag can ever appear.

Rin says

So Rickwicks, remember that idea you had about the OP communicating with a moderate Muslim friend of yours? Now, do you see that the OP is just another sandwich board carrying bible thumper who'll have absolutely nothing in common with anyone other than members of his denomination?

I'd just tell him not to talk about his religion.

What's funny, is people have more in common with one another than they are different, provided they merely talk about their thinking rather than whatever goofy group they decided to "belong to".

Patrick says

How do I tell the brower "display this textarea content literally"?

<pre>
anything
</pre>

Is SUPPOSED to work.

Hircus says

you never want actual html tags in a textarea

Thanks @HIrcus it's kind of late for me on that though. I've built it in to the site, in that there is a small subset of html tags you can use directly when composing or editing a post or comment:

a b blockquote br code del font hr i iframe img li ol p strike sub sup u ul video vsmall

So, the browser will translate html encoded characters into their corresponding non-encoded character. ie &lt; will become < and so on.

So, if your web server html response text is:

<textarea>&lt;foo&gt;</textarea>

then the following will be true

document.querySelector('textarea').value === '<foo>'

and the .value is what the browser will POST to your sever. In other words, it should work. And notice, there are no "html tags in your textarea" because the text in it is html encoded, so the 2 characters < and > never actually appear in the html, so the browser will never interpret any text in the textarea as an html tag.

Its an important concept for avoiding xss, and for program correctness. ALL text placed into an html document must be html encoded unless you want the browser to interpret it as html.

Hircus says

unless you want the browser to interpret it as html

But I do indeed want the browser to interpret certain tags within comments as html.

For example, when you quote someone, you see a bit of html in the comment box which creates a link back to the origin of the quote. That's really useful.

SunnyvaleCA says

Oh... as a todo for Patrick (if he has the time and inclination): I added the < and > symbols above by escaping them like "<" but then when I hit the edit button to change my post, the escaped characters weren't escaped on edit text, so I had to re-escape them or otherwise they would effectively be discarded when submitted.

@SunnyvaleCA I think I fixed that problem when editing a comment with the < and > symbols.

richwicks says

I didn't lose any sleep over it, and if I'm a cunt, explain how. I am willing to correct my thinking and behavior if you're correct in your reasoning and I am wrong.

It was sarcasm. Just was proving a point that it is words on a screen and it's nothing worth getting worked up about. You didn't get worked up. You helped prove my point.

WookieMan says

richwicks says

I didn't lose any sleep over it, and if I'm a cunt, explain how. I am willing to correct my thinking and behavior if you're correct in your reasoning and I am wrong.

It was sarcasm. Just was proving a point that it is words on a screen and it's nothing worth getting worked up about. You didn't get worked up. You helped prove my point.

The only time I'm insulted when somebody insults me, is if I suspect the person insulting me, might be right. Even then I don't get very upset, somebody just has to explain it to me, and there's a good chance I'll be flustered for a bit, but if I'm being a dickhead, I'll admit it after a bit.

Call me stupid, well, if you explain it to me, I'll admit it, but the bonus is, I'll stop being quite a stupid after that. But call me stupid and be unwilling (i.e. unable) to explain it, engh, I'll just think you're full of shit and angry at me for some reason. I think I stopped being fully human a few decades ago.

Patrick says

Hircus says

unless you want the browser to interpret it as html

But I do indeed want the browser to interpret certain tags within comments as html.

For example, when you quote someone, you see a bit of html in the comment box which creates a link back to the origin of the quote. That's really useful.

edit-

You need to treat the display of comments differently vs the display of the textarea. You do not want html in your textarea. You DO want html in your html (display of comments).

Just try encoding it like I showed, should only take 1 minute. You'll see it works exactly how it should. Note I only suggested encoding the text placed into textareas - nowhere else. And I only suggested doing the encoding of the text at the point where it's concatenated ino the html document - not before that point. Its a tiny change, and nothing is implied beyond what I showed (aside from the definition of htmlEncode() of course).