--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > <snip> > > Judy is good at comparing what someone wrote at one time > > compared to another and dealing with precise phraseology, > > but I am not sure she always is able to distinguish between > > irony, malice, and simple missteps of the tongue. > > Got an example?
I did not think Skolnick, in his JAMA article was malicious or untrue, based on my own experiences with the TM orgs. Yet you presented him as an habitual liar. I think he was doing a good job as a medical journalist. I do not feel your characterisation of him is correct. I do not think of you as a liar, but something seems to be getting you riled up. If you are feeling angry at these people, I would wonder what the source really is. Anger destroys balance of mind, I know this from first hand experience, and the source of that anger may be completely hidden in us, it is seldom the current situation that is the source, the current situation is the trigger. > > <snip> > > Judy does seem to hold on to feelings for a long time. I > > would think that is a sign enlightenment is a long way off, > > but even if that is not true it is a sign that a button is > > being pushed and the stress behind that has not released; > > in movement terminology it might be a sign that the stress > > is releasing constantly, and maybe one day it will pass away. > > Has anybody ever told you that you're very manipulative? No, but I can acknowledge the possibility. I think your reactions are beyond what the situation requires, and I was hypothesising what might be, so what I have said in these previous posts concerning you are not statements of fact, they are conjectural ideas, my attempt in my own mind to understand what is going on with you, why these people upset you so much. > > I get the sense that the above is an expression of your > annoyance that I can back up what I say about Skolnick > and Knapp, when you figured you'd be able to make me see > that they couldn't really be all that bad. I do not see them as all that bad at all. My annoyance is that you are annoyed. I do not like to see people annoyed. I do not think your view of Skolnick and Knapp is a balanced view. I am not sure you could back up your claims. I have not the time to go over ancient posts, so I would be at a disadvantage here. There is another post in this exchange (the one where Skolnick mentions a death certificate) which I think I will have to get to tomorrow (I am thinking about it though), as I am stuck in a family obligation today, in New York City. > > And finally: > > > While you seem somewhat detached from the goings on here, > > are kind of gruff sometimes, I do think you genuinely have > > a desire to get people here to look at their experiences > > in a more expanded context. Whatever sense of that got you > > into the movement has been recycled and has become more > > self-reflective and self-sufficient. > > I have a hunch that many of those who have been reading > Barry's posts for some time will find this as amusing as > I do. > Sometimes I have been known to pound my head into a brick wall without effect. I can fictionalise in my mind a kinder, gentler Barry, he has a rather impenetrable veneer. If it amuses you, I hope you have a genuine grin on your face. As I have said before, I am not immune to doing stupid things, to misunderstanding etc., but the nature of truth is not right versus wrong, if we are considering enlightenment.
