--- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote: > > Fallacy of quoting out of context
Please note that the person who has been whining about others "piling on" to posts critical of her will say nothing whatsoever to similarly demonize this "pile on" post of Raunchy's. It's **OK** when one of her own toadies does it. She may even applaud it. "Pile on," the visual aid: [educational video sharing] :-) As for the concept of "out of context" quotes, ALL quotes are out of context. There is *no possibility* of providing the "full context" of any quote, made by anyone, unless you provide the "context" of every moment of their lives. Anyone who pretends otherwise is a fool, or trying to sell you something. Or deluded. For example, let's see these two find a "context" that "explains away" the following quote, made by someone who often writes 20 posts a day attempting to "nail" other posters on this forum, and "prove" that their words reveal something terrible about their *real-life* character and actions and integrity or lack thereof. It is not unfair to say that doing this is this person's "life work." She has been doing this by making 50 to 300 posts *per week* on Fairfield Life and alt.meditation.transcendental for over 15 years now. She has announced in the past that she sees her whole *purpose* on these forums as revealing the lies and intellectual dishonesty of those she considers liars and dishonest. She has said that she considers Andrew Skolnick's "tribute" site to her, which is nothing *but* a compilation of her quotes designed to show that the person she's trying to "nail" is deficient in some way *in real life* to be a "badge of honor." And yet a little over a month ago, she said, in response to Ruth's suggestion that all such attempts at demonization over the Internet are projection: "Anybody who assumes how people behave here reflects how they behave in real life is deluded." -- Judy Stein, FFL, 2 June 2009 Having said *that*, she then went on to claim that "char- acterizing how people behave here is no more likely to be projection than characterizing how they behave in real life if one *knows* them in real life." Judy knows NO ONE HERE in real life. Therefore, *in context*, do we have any choice but to believe that *by her own definition* Judy understands that she is deluded, but keeps not only perpetuating but attempting to *glorify* her delusion anyway? Sure seems that way to me...in context. If she disagrees, and attempts to make the case that *she* is somehow an *exception* to her own statement above, and that her characterizations of others really **DO** reflect accurately on how they behave in real life, then I think we are all equally "exceptions," and are entitled to characterize *her* continued posting habits on this forum and extrapolate from them what that means about who and what she is in real life. I'll start: "My analysis of this person's posting habits -- especially the fact that the only indication of pleasure we ever see in her posts is when she believes that she has "nailed" one of her enemies -- indicates to me that in real life she is a lonely, bitter old woman who is in such a state of cognitive dissonance over having devoted her life to the practice and "defense" of a philosophy and technique that have done nothing for her that she has to take that anger out on others, and daily. If she doesn't get her "I sure nailed him/her that time" fix, she's terrified that she'll have to turn her anger where it belongs -- towards herself -- and *admit* that she's wasted her life pursuing a spiritual path that has left her a bitter 70-year-old woman with zero enlightenment, zero friends, and zero accomplishments in life, only the ongoing "pleasure" of tormenting others on a regular basis and convincing herself that she has 'nailed' them so that she can declare inwardly, 'I win.'" There. That's how I would characterize one poster's "real life" based on their posting history. It remains to be seen whether Judy will uphold her original quote and thus claim that my analysis of her based on "how she behaves here" truly "reflects how she behaves in real life" is "deluded," or valid. Because, after all, if it's valid for *HER* to do this with us, it is equally valid for *ME* or anyone else here to do this with her. We'll wait to see which path she takes through this exercise in "in context." :-)
