Enneagram Type 4 Board Archive

That's IT? [ Boards: Main, Type4, Movie, Care, Chat ][ Top 10 ] [ HOME ]

That's IT?

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 4 Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Bartholomew on April 14, 2002 at 15:35:19:

In Reply to: Re: Haha, pay no attention to Isaac posted by Emily on April 14, 2002 at 14:51:06:

That's seriously your entire argument?

Follow Ups:

Re: That's IT? Emily 17:45:18 04/14/02 (26)
- Re: That's IT? Bartholomew 19:08:33 04/14/02 (24)
  - The enneagram and enneagram wing theory explained (for Mr. Frog)... Emily 20:46:56 04/14/02 (12)
    - Re: Bartholomew 21:10:25 04/14/02 (11)
      - Re: Enneagram Emily 21:25:55 04/14/02 (10)
        
        Think some more when you write. Bartholomew 21:57:52 04/14/02 (9)
        
        I am right and you are wrong. Emily [nt] 22:03:00 04/14/02 (8)
        
        F**k you. This is a serious debate. (nt) Bartholomew 22:08:16 04/14/02 (7)
        
        You just became very sexually attractive to me. Emily [nt] 22:11:06 04/14/02 (6)
        
        Just want to point out Emily and Bart... Ex 04:06:04 04/15/02 (3)
        
        I should point out... Emily 10:55:22 04/15/02 (1)
        
        i understand - nt Ex 18:05:47 04/15/02 (0)
        
        Re: Just want to point out Emily and Bart... Buk Rogers 07:30:54 04/15/02 (0)
        
        You two need a diversion.... Bertram Ostrer 00:39:08 04/15/02 (1)
        
        You forgot the last verse! 13:12:12 04/15/02 (0)
  - If I replace the engine in your car with a different engine, it's NOTstill the same car unless the engine is identical. nt Tiggy 19:37:08 04/14/02 (10)
    - It was your car before the engine was replaced. It is still your car after the engine was replaced. Its identity therefore did not change. (nt) Bartholomew 21:02:51 04/14/02 (8)
      - Now you're talking about identity based on possession and not identity based on content. Emily [nt] 21:09:57 04/14/02 (7)
        
        I'm talking about identity based on recognizability, and I always was. (nt) Bartholomew 21:11:37 04/14/02 (6)
        
        That's only cos you can't see the engine. If it stopped working or used loads more fuel, you'd soon complain it wasn't the same car. nt Tiggy 18:53:24 04/15/02 (1)
        
        No, even if you could see the engine, it would be the same car. If you put that car in with 500 other cars, you'd be able to pick it out, creaky engine and all. (nt) Bartholomew 13:02:53 04/16/02 (0)
        
        So you're saying that... Emily 21:33:54 04/14/02 (3)
        
        I'm not going to argue any more with you here Bartholomew 22:07:14 04/14/02 (2)
        
        Well thank Jesus! Emily [nt] 22:08:55 04/14/02 (1)
        
        P.S. Emily 22:09:45 04/14/02 (0)
    - Yes... Emily 20:10:56 04/14/02 (0)
- This is truely very funny. :) NT Smart Aleck 17:49:39 04/14/02 (0)
That IS the entire wing theory, in a very small nutshell. Emily [nt] 17:34:24 04/14/02 (2)
- Calling your theory "nutty" isn't really helping its case. (and this is a very bad pun, but just what kind of "case" do you think that is?) (nt) Bartholomew 19:12:09 04/14/02 (1)
  - But it's not my theory. It's the regular old enneagram wing theory. Emily [nt] 20:06:49 04/14/02 (0)
Can someone clearly define what a wing is? (I mean someone from the adjacent school of thought?) NT froggyTheFrog (9w1) 15:53:28 04/14/02 (0)

Post a Followup

Your Ad Here