Xeno > > 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. >
Judy > This is cheap armchair psychobabble that's really > designed to distract from the issue of Skolnick's > integrity and somehow put the onus on me instead. I'll > deal with my anger, such as it may be, on my own terms, > not with your long-distance impression and > interpretation thereof, thank you very much. Wow, I may have to amend my Atheism if God keeps serving up these gifts on a Sunday morning no less! Plus I get a little lesson in empathy because I can definitely feel your pain Judy. This one's a keeper. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > --- 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. > > That's not what I asked. Got an example of inability on > my part to distinguish between irony, malice, and simple > missteps of the tongue? > > > 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. > > He didn't tell any outright lies in the JAMA article, as > far as I know. I wouldn't have called him a habitual liar > just based on that article. The habitual--and thoroughly > vicious--lying is found in his alt.m.t posts. > > I do think (and have demonstrated at some length) that > much of the article was misleading and was *designed* to > mislead, to give a much more negative impression of the > TMO and Chopra than is warranted. (And I mentioned in > another post that I strongly suspect there was some > funny business on Skolnick and JAMA's part with regard > to the situation that resulted in Skolnick's article.) > > I'm not naive about the TMO's behavior. I've loathed the > organization practically from the beginning; it's one > of the main reasons I never became a TM teacher. Nor do > I trust Chopra. But Skolnick went way beyond what I > consider fair and honest criticism. > > > 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. > > This is cheap armchair psychobabble that's really > designed to distract from the issue of Skolnick's > integrity and somehow put the onus on me instead. I'll > deal with my anger, such as it may be, on my own terms, > not with your long-distance impression and > interpretation thereof, thank you very much. > > <snip> > > 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. > > This is the key point. You don't have the benefit of the > background on these two people, on their history. I do > (as does Lawson). You've seen only a small piece of > their output with regard to TM and TMers, on which you're > basing your opinion of them. > > I'm sure my view skews negative, but yours skews positive. > As with most things in life, the truth is no doubt > somewhere in between. > > > 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. > > Well, Sal has deliberately spilled the beans, despite my > request that only folks who know nothing about the case > but Skolnick's post weigh in with their views. If you can > avoid reading Steve's (seventhray1) and Sal's posts on > the subject to preserve your "innocence," though, go > ahead and respond on this issue when you get around to it. > BTW, the death certificate bit was entirely secondary. > What I was interested in was your impression of the woman's > story based on Skolnick's post. >
