This is where things get kind of screwy, (or so I think). You think the point has been made, but then it still goes on. But I guess it is important to Judy to keep driving it home. To me it crosses a line from a normal discussion to something quite obsessive.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" curtisdeltablues@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote > > > And you know what? I've been pondering what Robin has > > > said about your appropriation of context. I think this > > > is an example. You have terrible difficulty perceiving > > > any context but your own. Not that we all aren't limited > > > to some degree in perceiving another person's context, > > > but most of us do take a stab at it, if only so that we > > > can more effectively argue our own perspective. You > > > rarely even try. > > > > When it concerns a misrepresentation of my own POV I am not > > open to considering what point you think I was making. And > > if you are making a case for having a superior ability for > > understanding my context this would be a counterexample for > > that claim. You have attempted to reframe the discussion > > about whether or not I was "comparing" Maharishi and Mao, > > which was never in question, of course I was. > > This is what you said to Nabby: > > Usually I would > > > > > > correct you concerning this vicious lie pointing out that > > > > > > my point about Mao had to do with the unreliability of > > > > > > people's subjective darshon experiences > > No "of course I was" about it. You were telling Nabby > that you *hadn't* been comparing MMY and Mao, that > your point about Mao had to do only with the darshan > experiences of his followers. > > Nor did you contradict Nabby's assertion that you'd > said MMY was "worse than Mao." You didn't even mention > it. *I* was the one who mentioned it, calling it a "lie." > I even *documented* that it was a lie by quoting you to > the effect that MMY was "a dim bulb" by comparison with > Mao. > > > But that comparison did not have the odious and practically > > insane suggestion that a pop guru was worse than the single > > greatest mass murder in history whose status in buttholery > > might only be challenged by Stalin. > > Right. That's a given, and I acknowledged and documented > it, as noted. Nabby's gun said "Bang!" and you freaked. > > > So no, I am not open to the bullshit context you are > > attempting and that is not evidence of my lack of ability > > to understand another person's POV. > > Well, yes, it is, because you've completely missed my > context in this post as well. > > > The question I have for you is why you thought you would > > get away with such a weak case while demonstrating the very > > lack of perceptiveness you are accusing me of? You haven't > > demonstrated that you get my context, quite the opposite. > > You've just proved my (and Robin's) point in spades, but > you're incapable of recognizing it. > > You weren't even going after Nabby in your initial post, > BTW; you were going after me *via* Nabby. But you were so > intent on getting me that you lost focus and shot yourself > in the foot instead. >
