I take this criticism of a portion my post as valid and stand corrected. I suppose I have trouble dealing with the level of detail you always manage to eek out of material, so I am a bit sloppier, kind of like Barry, who paints with a broad brush. That I omit something through laxity does not always mean therefore I agree with the opposite of what I did not consider.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > <snip> > > Judy wrote: > > > Lovely wishful thinking, Barry. You're projecting your > > > own terror that your fellow TM critic may be exposed as > > > a liar regarding his qualifications as a critic. And > > > you're also projecting your own terror at the idea that > > > I'm not the TB you keep trying to portray me as. > > > > Judy also has a shtick. I have never been able to grasp > > how Judy interprets what Barry says represent some kind > > of experiential terror in his own experience. > > A commitment to fair play would suggest you ought to > have quoted what I was commenting on in Barry's post > (he was addressing me specifically): > > > W.r.t Vaj, the fact that you are still so terrified of > > saying something that isn't in the approved catechism of > > TM dogma *does not mean* that Vaj should be or has to be > > similarly terrified. He has learned something you have not, > > the ability to think for himself. You suggesting that this > > is a sin merely reveals how strongly you believe that > > thinking for yourself IS a sin. > > Should I assume you believe Barry was entirely correct > in what he said? I.e.: > > --I am terrified of saying something that isn't in > the approved catechism of TM dogma > --I think this means Vaj should be similarly terrified > --I have not learned to think for myself > --I suggested that Vaj having learned to think for > himself was a sin > --I believe that thinking for oneself is a sin > > You haven't said you have any problems grasping how > Barry interprets what I say as he does, so I guess > you agree with him about all the above. > > > I would see that as her own projection, her own interface. > > And that is my own interface interpreting her words as > > representing an internal, and perhaps unconscious interface > > she has regarding her experience of the world. But I find > > it peculiar that she seems to map this idea onto others as > > if it were a fact rather than a supposition. > > But you don't find what Barry says about me the least > bit peculiar in this regard. I'm projecting, but Barry > is not. > > Right? > > Do you find this to be the case with Barry's criticisms > of others here? Do you find their criticisms of him > to be projections, while his of them are simply objective, > accurate observations? >
