--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 10, 2008, at 11:12 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote: > > > I find it odd that I am assumed to be smug when all I say is that I > > understand the theories and I don't agree. Is not agreeing smug? I > > also find it frustrating when some TMers assume that my thinking is > > flawed or I don't get certain metaphysical concepts. No matter how > > often I say I get it, they never will believe me because they cannot > > conceive that I understand but simply do not agree. The problem with > > this is that it feels like I am being minimized, that my opinion and > > feelings are not as valid as the believers' opinions and feelings. > > > I've often experienced the same thing here. > > There's a high amount of cognitive dissonance I've noticed in > addition when you refuse to use common TM-org buzzwords for > describing your own experience--which often come with a lot of > accumulated baggage and instead use your own words. That's regarded > very suspiciously and often with great anger. And heaven forbid you > were actually trained by an acharya in the same tradition that MMY > claims to come from and have some little perspective on things, then > a whole host negativity gets aimed at you: ad hominems, poisoned well > tactics, ambiguation, misdirection, lies--you name it--a long list of > logical fallacies--which despite being untenable argumentation, > people will often "pile on" to as if honesty in discussion didn't > matter! Some posters may even claim to be perfectly honest at the > same time. > > Pretty funny to watch, again and again, but pretty sad too. >
"ad hominems"? "honesty in discussion"? From Vaj? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/175437
