Tart was doing a whole lot of "questioning" yesterday. He did appear to be focusing mainly on Barry's and Vaj's antagonists, "questioning" their antagonism and asserting that he, Tart, felt no need to be antagonistic (except, it seemed, to those whose antagonism he was criticizing).
He did "question" one of Barry's posts. Barry responded, once, not realizing at first that his post was being criticized until Tart "questioned" his response. (Oddly enough, Tart referred to this as having had "several nice exchanges" with Barry.) I suspect Tart would strongly reject the notion that he was being antagonistic toward anyone, or even criticizing them, and would criticize me for saying so, if it weren't for the fact that he doesn't read my posts (perhaps fearing that if he did, he'd have a hard time continuing the charade that he has evolved beyond antagonism). As I observed yesterday, it's difficult to avoid self- contradiction when one is busy criticizing others for being critical. Tart hasn't quite mastered it yet. It really can't be done if one insists on holding oneself up as an example of how the spiritually advanced have transcended the need to be critical. --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@...> wrote: > > In that case, why would he have questioned one of > Barry's posts? (See, now I'm being tart's apologist~~ > I hope I'm doing a creditable job. ) > > Sal > > On May 21, 2011, at 10:50 AM, whynotnow7 wrote: > > From your reactions today, tartbrain, I assume you are taking > the role of Barry and Vaj's apologist? If not, you are sure > appearing that way to me dude. > > --- In [email protected], tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > >> > >> Boo Yah! Nicely delivered smack down. Thanks, Richard. > > > > YES! "Great smack downs are what the good life is all about" > > Socrotes
