Progressive Liberalism is a Mental Dissorder (merged)

[Dowly]

Wo ich kaufe Lederhosen kann, das vom realen Schnurrbarthaar gebildet wird?

Mein Esel ist tot, you see.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Don't talk to me about murder. On this very forum you have advocated deliberately murdering the innocent children of Burmese generals in order to force them to allow more political freedom in their country.

That sir is the mark of a Zealot and in my eyes it makes you no better than the fanatics who stormed our embassies.

Nice attempt. But what for? There is no medal you can win here. So when you run out of argument, why don'T you just shut up, instead of trying cheats and defame others by intentionally misquoting them, giving yourself a bad name that way as a cheater. I recall that thread, it was years ago, it had nothing to do with the issue here, and I made a very different point back then than what you now imply in an attempt to give me bad name. But why caring for such subtleties when lies serve your purpose so much better.

I take from this desperate stunt that you have no more arguments to defend your confusion and that you ran out of knowledge on what is being talked about in this thread.


---



For the record, in a years ago ago thread about Burma I said that tyrants most likely educate their children in the same spirit they act by themselves, so that their children, when being grown up, do like their fathers; so in order to make tyrants like in Burma giving up their tyranny it could be considered legal to threaten their families or when upprise of th epeople occurs it may not be sufficient to justg kill the tyrant, but his offpsrings as well since else they will survive and bring back conflict later in a bid to regain what their fathers have lost. I also said, I think in a different thread at that time, that when it comes to weighing the fate of millions against the fate of a few, threatening the families of tyrants in order to make them give up their power can be considered a valid option. Compare to for exmaple the defence in some states for shooting down hijacked passanger planes, sacrificing the few in order to save the many on the ground. A policy that August's country subscribes to, btw, both regarding hijacked planes and collateral damages caused by drone warfare as well - the ratio the US finds acceptable between killed valid targets and collateral losses, rates higher than 1:10.

Why August linked a discussion on Chan buddhism and psychology to Burmese tyrant'S families instead of mentioning the shooting order for hijacked planes or the high rate of collateral losses by drone warfare, and why he thinks any of this has anything to do with an eplanation of the thinking frame of Chan buddhism, will remain his own secret. You could as well answer with "Blue" when somebody asks you for the time.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I take from this desperate stunt that you have no more arguments to defend your confusion and that you ran out of knowledge on what is being talked about in this thread.

No, I have stated my position on this quite clearly I think. Unlike you I don't have to resort to typing several pages of voluminous backpedaling and fake outrage just because someone calls you on a simple point about vandalism.

...threatening the families of tyrants in order to make them give up their power can be considered a valid option....

As I said at the time maybe that's a "valid option" in Skybirds world but it's not in the world of the sane. The very fact that you feel it is ok to commit these crimes tells us a lot about you, and let me say it's not a very flattering viewpoint.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

For the record, in a years ago ago thread about Burma I said that tyrants most likely educate their children in the same spirit they act by themselves, so that their children, when being grown up, do like their fathers; so in order to make tyrants like in Burma giving up their tyranny it could be considered legal to threaten their families or when upprise of th epeople occurs it may not be sufficient to justg kill the tyrant, but his offpsrings as well since else they will survive and bring back conflict later in a bid to regain what their fathers have lost. I also said, I think in a different thread at that time, that when it comes to weighing the fate of millions against the fate of a few, threatening the families of tyrants in order to make them give up their power can be considered a valid option. Compare to for exmaple the defence in some states for shooting down hijacked passanger planes, sacrificing the few in order to save the many on the ground. A policy that August's country subscribes to, btw, both regarding hijacked planes and collateral damages caused by drone warfare as well - the ratio the US finds acceptable between killed valid targets and collateral losses, rates higher than 1:10.

I, too, remember this discussion, and August is correct. Your assertion that the spilling of the blood of innocents in a 'just crusade' is a service of justicie is humanly cold, and ethically reprehensible. I am sorry, but you will have to own those remarks.

Why August linked a discussion on Chan buddhism and psychology to Burmese tyrant'S families instead of mentioning the shooting order for hijacked planes or the high rate of collateral losses by drone warfare, and why he thinks any of this has anything to do with an eplanation of the thinking frame of Chan buddhism, will remain his own secret. You could as well answer with "Blue" when somebody asks you for the time.

He did it becuase it is reference to the mindset of an adherent to a particular philosophy. For you, nearly any collateral damage is permissible so long as the means to end are met. This is a dangerous view. This, contrary to your statement, has everything to do with the issue at hand. There is no misquote inherent. You claim there is in your first paragraph, but then concede this in your third. Inconsistency indeed.

And for emphasis:

A policy that August's country subscribes to

As does your's and every other nation on earth. The self-preservation of nation-states is universal. Pointing out the stick in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in your own is not virtuous.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I, too, remember this discussion, and August is correct. Your assertion that the spilling of the blood of innocents in a 'just crusade' is a service of justicie is humanly cold, and ethically reprehensible. I am sorry, but you will have to own those remarks.

I do not deny that somethign was said by me at that time. I deny that it was like you and Augiust make it appear now. I also deny that it was that context-less as you and August now claim it was.

Quoting out of context and by that distort what somebody said and give it a bad twist is one of the often committed sins in this forum, and August is one of the most prominent masters of this art. But it is cheating, it is rude rethoric tricking. It is the reason why I had him on the ignore list for so long.

Another example for what I - so often in these years - complained about:

You could also foul-name me by saying that "Skybird wants nuclear wars". In a way it is correct that I expressed something like that - but it is also wrong. I did not talk about general nuclear war and nuking other states at random will. The point is,I said I will carefully selected nuclear strikes with mini-nukes agfainst certain ultra-hardened Iranian key componnents that now are driven deep inside mountains, for I doubt these can be reached and destroyed by any conventional ammuntiion anymore. Sopmebody once "auoted" me with that I want tio nuke cities. This I never said. And I also never spoke out in favour of anything like an arbitrary conflict anywhere on the globe being turned into a nuclear war at the first possible opportunity. So, you can refer to me and say I do not rule out nuclkear strikes in prinicple when it comes to Iran, or the Pakistani weapon stiocks beiung ijn danger to fall into terrorist hands. But when you do not mention the context in which I said that, and when you are not precise regarding what I really said, then you intneitonally distort what I said, hoping to score an easy rehtoric victory without having to care for an argument .

What it comes down to is that August runs by a method - also in discussions with others that turn angry - of that just anything is allowed if somebody opposes his views and he runs out of reasonable arguments. He then draws it to the personal level, very often. Note that his last post to me to which I answered did not include any argument on the matter of this thread at all, and he also did not refer to anything I tried to explain to him, when I saw that it was new stuff for him. It was just an attempted defamation on the basis of a distorted quote, and more it never was meant to be. That's cheap. The only forum members I remember to exceed his excellence in doing so, are Tribesman, and Subman1. Although Tribesman, last time I read him (and that is a long time ago), was camping in a very different opinion camp, by method he and August operate by the same standards.

In the end, Tak, August does not like when religions get rejected in their claim to be granted special rights and special freedoms and special exceptions from general rules to which everybody else is being subjected by law. And you do not like that rejection, too. But religious people like you should ask themselves why you claim the right to push your freedoms at the cost of others who not only not share your belief, but also claim the right to not be bothered by you practicing it. And this is where I compare to the neighbour in the flat beside your appartement, the one running his radio too loud. I refuse to accept that whenever he becomes npoisy with it, I need to go there and knock his door and friendly or angrily tell him to turn his damn music silent so that I am not forced to share his loife and radio program. I insist that people all by themselves play thaeir damn radios in such a manner that their neighbours must not be bothered in the first. But religious missionaries - and there are many here on this board - do not accept that and think their freedom to act as they want is more precious and valid than that of others not wanting to get bothered by them. It is ab out double standards. Priviliged standards for relgious ones, and infidels, or wqorse: atheists, are expected to accept taking the longer road, to give room, to fall back. And when they don't and refuse to buy bull and insist their freedom is not of less value than that of relgious people - then they get called the aggressors and the intolerant ones. But looking at the special rights granted to religions already the many exceptions from laws, taxes, jurisdiction, the special status they can act on in society and public sectors like education and health, it is hardly convincing to claim that religions are "under attack" and are the victims of evil atheist being on the march. That is a classical projection - to accuse others of what one is practicing oneself.

Leave relgion to thyself. Yur porcious opersonal beleif is just this: private. Where you turn it to the public, you turn your religion into politics, anbd yourself you turn ionto an aggressor. Whjat you see as your idol, and your relation as you define it, is an intimate thing between it and you. Dont' bother the world with it. You have no right to demand the world nedding to take note of it,k catring for it, accepting to give you special status because of it. Your freedoms end where you start to limit the freedom of others. Your claim to be peaceful turns into a lie where you expect the other to react to your advance, may it be that the other should tell you he does not want to deal with you, may it be that the other should evade so that you have your way, may it be that you demand entrance into education and law-making on the grounds of your religion. Where you expect the other to behave lime this, you are the agressor.

And that is what I bare my fangs about. I do not want to tell my neighbour time and again to turn down his ****ing radio - i de,mand him to take care all by himself tha he does not turn it up too much from all start on. Don'T bother me, and I don'T bother you. Start to push me, and the more I push back, increasingly angry. It'S so easy to coexist and live peacefully with me, door by door. Some call it the Golden Rule. I call it reciprocity.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Its your summary that does not match the thing you claim to have summarised.

Agreed. It was a very broad generalization done in haste.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Enlightenment is an all-or-nothign at-all thing. It cannot be gained step by step, but in total completeness only, suddenly.

Have had a similar experience.

Originally Posted by Skybird

And it is nothing that is gained, but is something that is left behind. It is no qulaity, and no divine reward for doing the right things and living the right life. It is a state of mind.

Again, a similar experience.

Originally Posted by Skybird

And this mind is fully aware of itseld, of life and world, and it does not overshadow these by its own judgements.

Such a mind accepts responsibility, because somebody knowing how he himself is the cause of the way in which he organises and constructs perceptions, cannot claim somebody else as guilty for having caused it. Such a mind is free and unhindered, because it can arrange the perception patterns any way it wants. And such a mind is tolerant, because the freedom it experiences in its free choice to construct in this or that way, or not at all, it necessarily must realise to be the basis for the other'S mind, too.

An on going process and a challenging one for sure.

I would ask this question, Skybird, in regards to any so called enlightenment. Is it only enlightenment when it meets the criteria set by some people who claim to have achieved it or claim to know what it is? What right do they have to make such a claim? This smacks of the same kind of religious indoctrination and dogma that some here have railed against. I realize that meditation and Buddhism are Atheistic in belief but since atheists believe that God is an invention of man then in all cases we are left with the mere opinions of other humans regardless of how they arrived at them.

Originally Posted by Skybird

..and there should be no rites and rituals keeping people locked like running hamsters in a wheel, running al, the time, but not getting anywhere. But the busy mind is the mind that does not think about asking questions - and that is what religions really want: to prevent sovereign, educated, independent. own thinking. At least it is what they acchieve, and they seem to be not too unhappy with it.

Now I am afraid it is you who is making a generalization. There are many people who have a religious/theistic/spiritual life who do not live like this nor do they allow others to dictate the path that they should take. Quite the opposite in fact. Yes there are many obedient sheep, but I would question their actual belief and their knowledge about that belief.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Buddhism by core and essence is no religion. Like atheism is no religion, too. But Buddhism is atheistic.

Maybe so but Buddhism has some remarkable beliefs. One is rebirth, a process whereby beings go through a succession of lifetimes as one of many possible forms of sentient life, each running from conception to death. I wonder if you believe this.

I for one do not care what I come back as, as long as it is not a hamster.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

What it comes down to is that August runs by a method - also in discussions with others that turn angry - of that just anything is allowed if somebody opposes his views and he runs out of reasonable arguments. He then draws it to the personal level, very often.

That's quite a selective memory you have there Skybird. You call me derogatory names in two languages then you accuse me of making it personal.

Why can't you just admit that your hero was wrong in this instance and let it go at that? The fact that Takeda and I actually agree on something ought to tell you that you're way out in left field here.

But no, I guess you won't get it because like all Zealots you can brook no hint of dissension to your inspired vision. You'll continue to publish 5000 word rants that drip with pompous condescension and that nobody will read in a vain effort to prove your point because you see yourself as some kind of authority. Kinda sad really...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

That's quite a selective memory you have there Skybird. You call me derogatory names in two languages then you accuse me of making it personal.

Why can't you just admit that your hero was wrong in this instance

Neither is he "my hero" (if that is not derogatory, then what could ever be...), nor are you in a position to judge him, since you simply do not know enough, or anything, about the man, what he stands for, and his historic importance. Nor do you care at all to get yourself a little education about the man - I bet you have not made one attempt to use the web to find out a bit more about him. All you know is one anecdote that is being told in Zen only for illustrating purpose to not overestimate the value of helpful tools, for tools are not the item they create nor the object they point at. Zen "hates" sticking with rites and written traditions. Its all just ballast, and misleads people.

I do not mock you for not knowing that. If you never came into contact with Zen and never heared anything about it, then you cannot know, and so I tried to give some basic epxlanations oin the thinking behind Zen and its psychological model, and my description by far is not complete in any way - but you already complain m aboitzu "walls of texts". What I mock you for is your arrogance to judge something that you do not know, and your obvious pride you take from wanting to stay in thnat state, while nevertheless still criticising the matter nevertheless. You know, a true sceptic knows what he is criticising. You are not knowing the matter. You are not sceptical therefore - you are partisan, prejudiced. It would have been easy to google a bit and find one of many sites giving biographic notes on the man (whose authenticity by far is not beyond doubt, btw), or a brief introduction on the thinking of Zen, and why it does what it does in the way that forms its tradition. But an August does not need to know some of that in order to know all about it nevertheless. And that is what I am laughing about.

That is no glorification of an idol that I am preaching. I am simply aware that the direct pragmatism of the figure - whether it be a historically correctly described figure or a partially invented, partially artifical figure - has had an influence and importance in the history of Chan/Zen that cannot be overestimated. The value lies in the method of teaching teachers like Hui Neng, and some others of the so-called "giants of Zen". I simply know much more on that matter than you do, in a factual, academic way, since you heared of it the first time yesterday, while I have been dealing with such teachings since the better part of my life, and have taught it to others as well. His rank compares to for example Kant'S importance for Western philosphy, or Newton's in Western science. If you talk about Chan, you cannot avoid three names, three giants: Lin Chi, Hui Neng, Huang Po - that would be like a history of poetry that does not mention Shakespeare, or Goethe.

And would anyone call Goethe a sexist barbar because he wrote "Kaum seh' ich deine Schenkel, denk ich gleich an Enkel"...?

At stake for thze searching student is simply everything, life and death. Nothing is important in the face of this, like nothing is important in the face of death. The story that you do not get along with, has massive educational, illustrating value - that'S why it is being told. And that is what counts. The historic authenticity is, like with many Zen stories, "under debate".

And you get fixiated on issues over property laws. While the library belonged to the monastery.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And you get fixiated on issues over property laws. While the library belonged to the monastery.

You think this is about laws?! Now it's my turn to

Go to bed Skybird. Your fantasy world will still be there when you wake up.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

Have had a similar experience.

Congrats, if that is so, then you are a fully realised Buddha, the returning messiah in Chrsitian terminology, and you are far ahead of me - since I never had a Satori experience like this, I think. My mere doubt proves that I never had it for sure.

I would ask this question, Skybird, in regards to any so called enlightenment. Is it only enlightenment when it meets the criteria set by some people who claim to have achieved it or claim to know what it is?

You already went into the trap here. that is why Zen does not like written traditions and thweopreticl studies and clasiscal teaching, but focusses on the ordinary things to do. The relation between master and student, in Asia traditionally differently settled than in the West, is beyond words, and is utmost direct, and must be so. That is hard to explain and cannot even be "described" in words. There is nothing to be described in words, you see. Words just mislead, they call into life all the catogorial thinking and polariszatrion of the images in your minds. A rose is not a rose when you call it that. A rose is the immediate, direct sensation of seeing it, smelling it, hearing the wind in its leaves, seeing it bowing in the moving air - but you cannot pack that into words: youmust experience it.

that is what it is about: own, direct, immediate experience. Awareness in everything you do, every moment you realise, everything that happens to you. Another Zen story goes like this:"Wonder oh marvellous wonder! I chop wood and carry water!" I liked to lead students' focus either to their breathing - or to their hands. Watching it, looking at it, seeing it moving, turningk, the fingers, the figurs you can form with it, the things it can do: what a wonderful tool a human hand is! A true and rteal miracle by design.

You see, there is nothign that can be taught, and there is nothign that you miss. You just need to ralsie it by giving up illusions. Enlightenment is not about something to be gained, but about something to be let. There is nothing you can gain. You must not "do". Just let things, and lead your awareness to what is going on in the focus of your mind. Be aware. Witness, do not judge.

What right do they have to make such a claim? This smacks of the same kind of religious indoctrination and dogma that some here have railed against. I realize that meditation and Buddhism are Atheistic in belief but since atheists believe that God is an invention of man then in all cases we are left with the mere opinions of other humans regardless of how they arrived at them.

Sigh. Atheists do not believe something. Atheists say that if somebody claims God existsa, they want evidence, and until then they say it is unlikjely that he does excist, like it is un likely to thinkg that babies are brought by the stgork as long as you do not prove it. Relgious people claim to kjnow how things are and that God is. Atheists know that they do not know. in logics, you cannot prove the nonexiostence of something, it is impossible, like you cannot divide numbers by zero.

originally, Chan does not hold a dogma or law code that is being told. You seem to compare it to church business, or any of the great world religions' practices. It is not like that - though there were many sects in Buddhism that brought it down to the level of ordinary religion indeed, for reasons of political control and influence over the crowds - Asia was not immune to make the same mistakes like the europeans did with Jesus). People, crowds crave for being led, they want to be led, and thus they fall so easily for false prophets and illmeaning leaders.

There is no manual with categories for englightenment, and when the candidate scores enough points, tha n he is made a Buddha. Nonsense. Master and student have a most direct relation and - bull, I try the impossible although I should know it better. Forget what I said, its all bull. In reply to your question I give you to different alternatives instead to learn about it.

First a wonderful film with almost no words in it, from Korea, I think 1988. "Why has Bodhidharma left for the East?" The film is beautiful like a poem that has been transformed into pictures, it is very calm and uses almost no words. Watch it not with your eyes, but with your heart, and you will learn a lot about what you ask for here. You can find out about it here: LINK.

Second, the only book that I have kept from my former Buddhist library (that I collected in my foolish years is a book by my secind mentor, after I had left Berlin and my first one had died: Wolfgang Kopp: Free yourself of everything. Radical guidance in the spirit of Chan and Christian Mysticism. Cheap kindle version available. The book is not too long, is straight and has no time to waste with mild politeness and flattering. It is somewhat uncompromised and leaves the reader no space to evade in srearch of comfortable consolation and shortcuts. This book is a bazooka against candy-sweet esoteric fantasy-religion and rainbow-coloured naivety. It compares Christian and Chan texts, and teaches you why it is important to die the "mystical death". Period. I have recommended this book often - most people do not read beyond the first few pages - they do not like the uncompromised directness of the text. You want easy solutions and some more entertainment? Spiritual fireworks and happy group sit-ins? Then look elsewhere. what the book does not tell you is about the practice, you cannot teach that in words, you must DO it, and preferrably under supervision by a realised master. Adn these guys are rare, I tell you. I consider myself to be an extremnelyl blessed and gifted man that I were found by such rare persons not juzst once but even twice in my life. I'm a lucky dog. The author btw, was the one who kicked my a$$ and threw me out again vcery early, saying that he coulkd not teach me any more and that nmow I should teach meditation mywself to pepple, which I did for several years. Without his well-meant aggression i maybe would never have gotten that act of my life together - due to fear.
Its the only book I hand to people when they ask for a book about Buddhism. academical study is all nice and well when you want to write a paper, but for your own spiritual cause it helps not at all. It even is a hindering obstacle, and deafens your mind. Find a real master. Or better: let yourself get found. When you are ripe for it, you will be found.

Maybe so but Buddhism has some remarkable beliefs. One is rebirth, a process whereby beings go through a succession of lifetimes as one of many possible forms of sentient life, each running from conception to death. I wonder if you believe this.

I do not know whether it is like this, but I warn to take symbols too literal. I find it very unlikely that I get reborn as a worm when I behave too badly, however, I think nothing goes lost in this unioverse, and nothing gets added, and every cause is followed by a consequnce, no matter how subtle it may be, no matter how well it may be hidden in complexity. Buddha was asked oine day whether there is a surviving indiovidual soul, and he said a clear and sounding "No". However, the thing to be mentionjed here is the idera of atman and an-atman, ego and non-ego. For buddhism, our egolk our ordinary self-conceptions, are just an illusion thatz feeds itself and lets us beolieve in dualiostic terms basiong on the dseparation between "me" and "the world". This individual ego/atman runs by motoions of the mind, which are classified in five categories of decreaisng matetrial density, called skandhas. Buddha denied the lasting nature of such a sould or ego or atman, however he taught that the real self is beyond the individual level, is a non-self (anatman), and maybe it can be grabbed in that nordic and Indsian idea of the collective "world soul". However. That already is much os destracting theory again that helps you nothing in mastering this life that you must live right now, in this moment. I personally am very surfe that not the smallest individual qualkity of myself will survive beyoidn my death. But I do not rule out that there is something beyond death. Of course that makes it difficult for me to beleiie a too linear and simplified idea like causal, linear rebirthing or reincarnation. maybe Carl sagan pout it well when saying "We are all star stuff". When hearing that the first time, for a long time I saw no need to find words in reply to that.

I for one do not care what I come back as, as long as it is not a hamster.

This world is transoitory, and thus life is suffering - the most basic truth in buddhism. Maybe the trick is not to come back at all. And maybe it is altruism making you agreeing to come back nevertheless.

One can play the thinking game until all heaven falls down. Better focus on what you are doing right now. Send all that holiness to hell, and get your things done, and don't do one thing - with your mind being somewhere else. Thats more worth than a hundred temple visits , fifty clever books you learn to recite freely, or a spell given by the pastor.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Moro Dowly & Hottentott!

Kirjoitatte hyvin ruotsia tässä kierre!

*ducks from flying puukkos*

I help him learn the basics of our noble language so that he can one day become a citizen 1st class in the great empire of Finland instead of a potato peeler. I even teach him the proper greeting to make him come across as a civilized being instead of one of those lunatics fenced inside the Ring III. And this: this is how he stabs me in the back.

Et tu, Spheniscus magellanicus?

()

[gimpy117]

what is it I said?

even the trolls here have over 1,00 posts

sorry Yubba, but ti's your personal belief and all, but please don't belittle others. it's free speech and all, but just because you can...

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

I help him learn the basics of our noble language so that he can one day become a citizen 1st class in the great empire of Finland instead of a potato peeler. I even teach him the proper greeting to make him come across as a civilized being instead of one of those lunatics fenced inside the Ring III. And this: this is how he stabs me in the back.

Et tu, Spheniscus magellanicus?

()

Beware the ides of September.

Actually I am not sure if my sentence was correct. Using google translate to check how they translate it, the first part made not much sense - so I guess it's right, while the second part was translated correctly - so it must be wrong.
Should I also have used the inessive case with the last word, or is it enough to use it for 'täma'?

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Beware the ides of September.

I think this calls for Operation "Total Defense". Dowly, do you have the potato salad? I'll bring the horse. Meet you at you-know-where, don't be followed.

Using google translate to check how they translate it, the first part made not much sense - so I guess it's right, while the second part was translated correctly - so it must be wrong.

That's...actually exactly right. The first part was flawless, but the "tässä kierre" part was lost in translation. It would mean "here spiral" (or a twist, I suppose), which is probably not what you meant?

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Beware the ides of September.

Actually I am not sure if my sentence was correct. Using google translate to check how they translate it, the first part made not much sense - so I guess it's right, while the second part was translated correctly - so it must be wrong.
Should I also have used the inessive case with the last word, or is it enough to use it for 'täma'?

The only thing wrong with it was the word "kierre", I guess you mean't the word thread,
which I'd translate to "ketju"(=chain) in this case. Then, there's the stuff
you need to apply to the end of the word, so the correct sentence would be:

Kirjoitatte hyvin ruotsia tässä ketjussa.