--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <lengli...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > How 'bout it. It's a VERY simple question. Are > > you willing to agree with Geezerfreak's state- > > ment above, in the converse? Are you willing to > > state categorically in public, "There is a > > possibility that the TM critics here are right > > and I am wrong?" > > > > Any of the above-listed posters who fail to > > answer are IMO pussies. > > > > They can answer "Yes" or they can answer "No, > > but failure to answer in this case can and IMO > > should be interpreted as a big, fat "No." And > > IMO *that* should be interpreted as fundament- > > alism and the non-response of the "cultwhipped." > > What's the criticism? > > Judy and most other "TBers" on this forum agree with the > TM critics on certain points already. On others, they disagree > vehemently. SO, here's the converse question: > > could it be that the TBers are right afterall?
You didn't answer, pussy. When you answer my question with a "Yes" or "No" answer, then you have the right to pose a diversionary question of your own. Not until.
