You really like it down there, huh?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
> I find myself pondering this in my writing cafe this evening, because as
> far as I can tell, given the extent of my "eavesdropping French," no one
> at this cafe is arguing about *anything*. The closest anyone came to it
> was to have a minor dispute about which wine to order with their dinner,
> and that was resolved amicably by appealing to the gods of chance
> (flipping a coin) rather than by an "appeal to authority" or an
> assertion of "My opinion about this is better than yours, and that's
> Yet on this forum (judging from the posts I skip these days but can grok
> the essence of just from their first words in Message View), some people
> not *only* seem to have a constant need to argue, they *also* seem to
> have a corollary need to portray anyone who *won't* argue with them as
> "broken" or "defective" or "bad" in some way.
> Go figure.
> From my point of view, the desire to argue indicates attachment. Period.
> Full stop.
> Those who are SO attached to their point of view that they feel the need
> to argue it and assert its dominance over other points of view are
> *attached* to that point of view. They *identify* with that point of
> view, and confuse it with "who they are."
> But, to carry the rap one step further, the *need* to argue indicates a
> horribly corpulent ego, and narcissism...and one steaming shovelful of
> The *ultimate* expression of ego -- and the neediness that drives such
> people to assert their ego's supremacy over all others -- is IMO those
> who argue (literally) that anyone who isn't willing *to* argue with them
> *has something wrong with them*.
> From my point of view, that's completely backasswards. It's those who
> continually feel the need to assert their ego's silly ideas and beliefs
> as "better" or "more valid" than other people's who just might have
> something wrong with them.
> Such people really don't "get" it when they encounter someone who is
> able to put their opinion on a subject into one post, and then is
> *through*. If someone wants to reply to it and present a contrary
> opinion, that's just fine with them, but they don't feel any need to
> respond, or to "defend" their opinion. It *IS*, after all, just opinion.
> But some get SO attached to their ego's opinions that they come to
> believe that if any of them are challenged, that is somehow almost a
> challenge to their ego's existence. Can't have that. :-) Gotta try to
> badger such people into an argument, or insult them into an argument, or
> actually slander them into an argument, as some here have done.
> Seems kinda silly to me. Stopping my writing and eavesdropping again for
> a few minutes, I can tell that it seems kinda silly to the Parisians in
> this cafe with me, too.
> Compare and contrast to those whose words to St. Peter, when asked to
> relate their achievements back on Earth as an "entrance exam" to qualify
> for admission to Heaven, will probably have to be, "I never once lost an
> argument on the Internet." Is that SAD, or what? If he's really
> compassionate, St. Peter will resist the urge to dispatch such people
> immediately to "the other place," realizing that they've already spent
> their entire lives there.