Read what I wrote again. You are lying when you say I was trying to pass off my opinions as fact. Not that it's a surprise to find you telling falsehoods. That's how you deal with conflict, dishonestly. And there's more than enough hard evidence of that in the archives. Want some examples?
I believe you were pandering to Barry and are not telling the truth when you deny it. And I write my posts for my own satisfaction, not yours. You did not cover the issue to my satisfaction. See how that works? I get to say what I think, whether you like it or not. Suck it up. Judy to my satisfaction I covered the issue you mention when I wrote: And what about our own motivations as we ascribe blame without having all the facts? I felt turq's compassion in his post. I was not pandering. But you, as usual, are attempting to pass off your opinions as fact and your unsuccessful attempts at mind reading as successful. On Thursday, March 13, 2014 8:43 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: There may be, shall we say, mixed motivations--i.e., other than compassion--involved in the ascribing of blame by the TM critics on FFL. In the past, when the TMO has come significantly a-cropper, there have been veritable explosions of glee here from the critics, just as in this instance. I think it may be naive to attribute that glee to compassion. Such an attribution, in fact, looks a lot like pandering. Nobody wants the pandits to suffer; that's a given and really doesn't merit special acclaim. ...But can we really know the motivations of all concerned? The parents, the TMO, the pundits themselves? And what about our own motivations as we ascribe blame without having all the facts? Can we ever know all the facts? Is there such a thing as facts anyway? I feel in this post of yours a lot of compassion. For that I thank you.
