--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Zoran Krneta <krneta.zoran@> wrote: > > > > It's disgusting what are you doing! > > > > I did not ask that you publicly comment my friends > > from my FB list here on FFL. I asked you that in > > case you know somebody you can check directly with > > them who I am... > > I kept your privacy here... which in turn you did > > not with my friends... in addition you abuse them > > to make yourself important... > > > > What a perverseness...! > > > > Alex, Rick... how you will call this abuse...? > > Call it "The Nablus/Judy Stein Theory Of Debate." > > Otherwise known as "The ends justify the means."
Is this an instance of hypocrisy so blatantly obvious and transparent that it's comic? Or is it a symptom of serious mental deterioration? Less than 24 hours ago, Barry threatened to expose Nabby's real identity, and would have done so if Alex hadn't warned him not to. He's actually done it to several people previously; that's why the guidelines now have a provision against it. Nabby didn't expose anything about Zoran that anyone with a Facebook account couldn't have discovered, since Zoran uses his real name. I have never even threatened to expose anyone's identity or private information. It would never occur to me. And yet, according to Barry, Nabby and I are the Bad Guys. What did Barry say were the ends that justified his means in threatening Nabby? He "just wanted Nabby to experience a moment of panic." Charming. > The way it goes is, in any debate in which they > cannot actually defend something indefensible, > or whenever their opponents in the debate seem > to be making points they can't counter, the > strategy is to *go on the offensive* and *become > offensive*. The ONLY point of this strategy is > to attack and discredit the critic. Anybody who follows Barry's posts knows that he is describing his own strategy above: whenever his opponents in a debate make points he can't counter, he *goes on the offensive* and *becomes offensive* to attack and discredit his critics, ruthlessly demonizing them, lying about them, distorting what they've said--or threatening to breach their anonymity to "give them a moment of panic"--while never addressing their substantive points. And that's the biggest difference between Barry and me: I may "go on the offensive," but I always address my debating opponents' substantive points; and I do my damndest to be honest and fair. Barry has no such scruples. For him, it's always the ends--discrediting his critics--justify the means, all the time. By now his tactics have become such a joke that he never achieves those ends, but it's not for lack of trying. He's never actually debated any of my points about the Great Secret Marriage Scandal. All he's done is attack me for making them, while lying about what I've said. So is all this just hilariously transparent hypocrisy on Barry's part? Or is it yet another sign of his recent mental decline, documented here in profuse detail? Is he really as vile a human being as this smear of Nabby and me suggests? Or is he to be pitied because he's losing his faculties and genuinely doesn't recognize he's describing his own behavior? > And where did they LEARN this tactic? Duh. Look > at how the TM movement responds to criticism of > teaching TM in schools. The same way. They trot > out the same old arguments to smear the critics > and discredit them in any way possible. And this worn-out mantra of Barry's doesn't become any more valid with repetition. It's horse pucky, it's always been horse pucky, and he knows it's horse pucky. > Attempting to smear one's critics is OFFICIAL > TMO POLICY. No, it's not. But it was the policy of Frederick Lenz, "Rama," Barry's previous guru. Check out the Wikipedia article on Lenz under "Criticisms and controversial incidents" for a bunch of examples, including: "His supporters made the unverifiable claim that these critics represented a very small fraction (less than one percent) of the population of parents and students. They also alleged that complaints were coming from 'persons who may have had private motivations for their actions.'" "His supporters counter-allege that Eastwood's claims of sexual assault should not be treated as the report of a sex crime, but as 'a vindictive ploy based on her expectation to have a relationship with Lenz that never panned out.'" "Lenz and his supporters label the cult watchdog groups as 'hate groups' and deprogrammers as 'kidnappers.'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Lenz#Criticisms_and_controversial_incidents And the reason is because "The ends > justify the means" is OFFICIAL TM POLICY. There's some truth to this, but it's a common approach in any messianic group, including Lenz's. Unlike Lenz and his group and Barry, however, the TMO does not *lie* about its critics.
