I will take advantage of being nowhere near the posting limit and rewrite this post to fix the grammatical errors caused by having written the original pre-coffee. :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Ruth, I'm not sure what part of Michael's post was > > > > bothersome. Was it his take on Vaj, which seems to > > > > ring true, to me anyway, or his unnecessarily padded > > > > list of ooga booga credentials? > > > > > > She found Michael's list of credentials bothersome > > > because she doesn't like to see Vaj criticized; he > > > reinforces her perspective on TM/TMers/TMO/MMY. I > > > doubt she'd care about Michael's credentials otherwise. > > > She's defending an ally. > > > > Ruth's probably a sadist, too. > > No, she gets mean only when she's angry. It isn't her > standard mode of operations. Because no one else is pointing it out, I will. The person who posted a set of clear, reasonable, questions for Micheal Dean Goodman, the way *any* medical professional would when confronted with someone claiming to be a registered psychologist and then using his supposed "credentials" TO BASH SOMEONE (including calling them a 'rakshasa') would, is Ruth. The person saying that this medical profes- sional is "angry" and merely siding with a fellow anti-TMer is Judy Stein. Attacking Ruth is "par for the course" for Judy. And I think anyone who has watched their continuing interactions on this forum knows what the nature of that relationship is. 1) Ruth says stuff, 2) Judy tries her damnedest to lure Ruth into an argument that Judy then tries to perpetuate forever so that she can show off her "zingers" and "devastate" (at least in her mind) yet another challenger to her self-declared "resident expert on everything" status on FFL, 3) Ruth ignores the provocation and refuses to get sucked into the argument, and 4) Judy gets frustrated and tries harder than ever to get Ruth to respond by arguing, by "upping the insult quotient." The "anger" going on here is IMO on the side of the person who is being denied what she needs so badly -- someone still willing to argue with her. When that (being ignored as irrelevant old harpy she is) happens, the "argument addict" has a history of becoming more and more angry herself and descending further and further into name-calling, which if you think about it is Just Another Way Of Trying To Start An Argument. I'm betting that calling Ruth angry and implying that she's only siding with a fellow anti-TMer won't work on her. Ruth is, after all, much smarter than the person trying to suck her into an argument. Similarly, calling me a sadist isn't going to suck me into arguing with Judy, either. That leaves Ruth and I ignoring a petty tyrant and enjoying our day, and leaves the petty tyrant des- cending deeper and deeper into desperate name-calling and provocation, trying harder and harder to provoke the argument she needs so badly to enjoy *her* day. With all respect to the person who tries to start these arguments so that she can declare herself the "winner" of them, I think Ruth and I win. Our sense of self-worth, after all, is not defined by picking fights with people, sucking them into endless argu- ments, and then declaring "victory." Judy's is. How sad for her.
