--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: <snip> One of the things that made > me think about this "victim mentality" thing > was the attempt to demonize the Dalai Lama
(Gotta-Hide-This-Gotta-Get-Judy-Post Alert!) > (or at the very least portray him as having > "flawed judgment") because he said something > positive about George W. Bush. Ooooooooopsie. Two deliberate attempts to deceive in the three lines above. First, Barry put the phrase "flawed judgment" in quotes to suggest those were my words (a tactic he uses often when he wants to be able to load his take on what somebody said). Second, he carefully leaves out the positive "thing" the Dalai Lama said about George W. Bush, because it was so obviously in error. Here's what I *actually* said in response to Barry's ludicrous "thought-stopper" post: "Any evidence, for example, demonstrating that the Dalai Lama does not have perfect judgment is designed to make you stop having any thoughts that there is any good whatsoever to be found in the Dalai Lama. If he has any less than 100 percent perfect judgment, you are supposed to think that must mean he is All Bad." And: "The Dalai Lama may be a great guy generally speaking, but to claim that George Bush is 'honest and straightforward' suggests at the very least that the DL has not been following the ins and outs of U.S. politics and foreign relations all that closely." Anyone who > believes that is devoid of compassion; the > Dalai Lama is not. Of course, anyone who said what Barry *claims* I said would be devoid of compassion. Anybody who believes I *did* say what Barry claims I said, however, is devoid of reading comprehension. The attempted deceptions are quite skillful. With his calculated rephrasing, Barry intends to make it appear that my remarks about the Dalai Lama were much broader than they actually were. He did this because it would be impossible for him to defend the notions that the Dalai Lama has 100 percent perfect judgment, or--especially on this forum--that George W. Bush was "honest and straightforward." Likewise, claiming that I was "devoid of compassion" because I said the Dalai Lama had less than 100 percent perfect judgment in proclaiming that Bush was honest and straightforward would be too absurd even for Barry to try to put over. Barry *himself* doesn't believe Bush was "honest and straightforward." And if he believes the Dalai Lama's judgment is 100 percent perfect, I've got a nice bridge to sell him. He doesn't believe that either, though. So the only way he could make his claim about me sound reasonable was to rephrase it in much more general terms, to make it appear as though I had said the Dalai Lama's judgment was poor because he saw something positive in Bush. Heck, *I* see some positive things in Bush. Had the Dalai Lama said, for example, that Bush had a friendly personality and a sharp sense of humor, I'd have agreed with him. <snip> > In my opinion, the ability to see "shades of > gray" and NOT "bag" everything you see as > 100% negative or 100% bad or 100% good is > synonymous with what we call "evolution" or > higher states of consciousness. The concept > of an enlightened being thinking of another > human being (or themselves) as "all bad" or > "all good" just does not compute for me. Right. Except that Barry purportedly finds it an outrage for someone to suggest that the Dalai Lama's judgment isn't 100 percent perfect. So apparently his own thoughts do not compute for him. Bottom line: If Barry had a solid case to make, he could have made it without attempting to deceive. But he doesn't, so he didn't.
