--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > <snip> > > Me: This is a difference we have had in the past. You seen > > unable to distinguish a person's attack on an idea with a > > personal attack. I have not made any statement about what I > > think of you as a person if you decide you want to embrace the > > idea that looking at your turds is harmful. I am saying that > > this belief is misguided, wrong, nonsense,like much information > > from pre-scientific societies. > <snip> > > Your characterization of my belief > > as howling and barking, the vocalizations of dogs, is personally > > insulting in every culture I know. > > So your characterization of Jim's belief as "misguided, > wrong, and nonsense" isn't an attack on Jim; but Jim's > characterization of your belief as "howling and barking" > *is* an attack on you. > > How does that work, exactly? I sure don't know > how I would make that distinction.
I am still getting to the point of understanding what specifically he does believe about this, he has not stated it. But you may have a point about how to phrase my opinion in the idea rather than the belief. The context is that Jim claims a higher state so his choice of this belief if he does may make perfect sense. Perhaps with celestial perception you can see awareness diminishing Rakshashas jumping off of turds. But his statement was about my statement, mine was about a belief in the scriptures. I accept that I need to be careful once Jim has stated what he does believe. But if he does choose it I can be more diplomatic about how I feel about it. Some of the terms I used have more emotional weight than necessary to get my point across that it I don't believe it. >
