Steve > > That's not my take. Tart is meeting parry with parry. I > > think it's an appropiate response. I am often perplexed > > by Tart's perspectives, but who cares. > Judy
> But his whole deal is to *disparage* parrying, to portray > himself as above that sort of thing. Skip down to around > the middle of all the quoted stuff and read his little > lecture, you'll see what I mean. This is the comments of Tart's I focussed on: Note: I snipped some comments that I felt did not apply to my observation. Addressed to Jim: You and others sometimes appear to (operative concept > > "appears to me") to thrill on a sparse and spartan diet of prickly > > thorns, dissention, judgments, smart and witty smack downs, creating > > boundaries and divisions, differentiating your selves into small boxes. > > The universe is a great mirror -- what you see is what you are. I've got to say that this reminds me quite a bit of Jim's postings. You seem to be in the habit of backing up most things you say. Not that I agree with all of it, but you seem thorough in your postings. Jim doesn't seem to feel that need. It is, as far as I can see, a steady diet of smack downs. Tart again: A far as defending others, hardly. I am not interested in > > defending myself, much less others. However, take this morning, for > > example, I have had several nice, insightful (for me) exchanges with > > Turq. What am I to denounce or defend? In the past I have had nice > > exchanges with you. And with Vaj, Empty Bill, Nabs, Peter, and any > > number of others. Do I really need to join some invisible sides and > > denounce others? Simply because others see some flaws in others that are > > either invisible to me, or unimportant -- or if they don't see the same > > joy in life and people that I experience? I felt this was a pretty balanced statement and I related to it.
