Maybe I missed the documentation of how Judy created a macro in Neo, but
it's not important - what is interesting is Judy's statement below,
which contradicts her previous statement, that the TM mantras are not
the names of the personal gods. If Judy refuted her own statement, can
someone post it here so we can all read it. Thanks.
"Richard is lying. I never said anything about "the technique," whatever
it is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't "nicknames" of the
deities (whatever "nicknames" means in this context)."
From: authfriend
Subject: OMG: madhuauudana & definition of dhaaraNaa
Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedLife
Date: November 25, 2013 2:04 PM
On 12/10/2013 10:43 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
Interesting, but not at all unexpected. After I'd refuted Richard's
accusation that I had "fibbed," with documentation, I asked explicitly
if anyone could still detect any "fibs."
Barry couldn't, of course, because there weren't any (duh).
I had done exactly what I had promised to do. So there's Barry, hoist
on his own petard, with egg dripping down his face, as usual. And as
usual, he simply tells his own fibs and pretends his hopeful fantasy
was the reality.
Offer is still open, for anybody, including Barry (but not including
Richard or Xeno) to find any fibs either in what I had said originally
or in my refutation. But you need to specify what the purported fibs
are rather than just declare you found some.
While I'm at it, another REEEEEEELY STOOOOOPID fib Barry tells in the
post I'm commenting on is that I claim to be able to document what I
say but never do. Anyone who actually reads my posts knows that I do
it frequently, most recently with Share (and not the only time I've
done it with her either), and countless times with Barry. Neither of
them is capable of admitting they've been caught telling falsehoods.
Another offer: Anyone (except Richard and Xeno, but including Barry)
who wants to go back to any of Richard's previous (or subsequent)
posts that I've responded to with the macro I started using awhile
back and demand to see the refutations I promised is welcome to do so.
This current one wasn't all that detailed because Richard's fibs
weren't that detailed.
I use the macro because it's not possible to rationally engage with
Richard, as many folks here have discovered. He isn't interested in
rational engagement, only in trolling, and in extending an initial
troll for as long as he can possibly keep it going. The only way to
deal with him is simply to refuse to play his game and make him play
it with himself.
Barry fibbed:.
*/I just thought it was funny, that's all. The crazy old coot does
this all the time -- claim that she *could* document something to
prove how RIGHT she is and how WRONG (or LYING) someone else is -- but
never has any intention of actually doing it. So I figured I'd take
advantage of her blanket offer to see if she'd actually be able to
come up with the "detailed refutation" she claimed to be able to
write. As I suspected, she wasn't. It was just more lame-o "He's
lying" bullshit. /*
*/
More people should call her on this crap. Then as she floundered
around trying to get her own petard out of her ass, *perhaps* there
might be something about her interesting enough to at least laugh at. :-)
/*
>
