--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: <snip> > > I still think this is a viable theory. I think > > it accurately describes what's going on when > > someone feels compelled *on a regular basis* > > to "defend themselves." That is, I think that > > the defensive behavior is a pretty good indi- > > cation of how much "self" or ego that person > > has to "defend," and how attached they are > > to it. > > She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is not defending her "self" > or her "Self" when she drills holes in your diatribes. > An antagonistic rant that makes sweeping generalization, > (such as the above "theorem") meant to demonize others, > deserves to be challenged.
Thank you, exactly right. But Barry really has no other option than to portray me as defending my "self" once his demonizing diatribes have been thoroughly punctured. It's the only thought-stopper that has any hope of working. Question is, are his thought-stoppers designed to stop the thoughts of other FFLers, or only his own?
