Excellent point, Steve. Barry (mis)uses his "shoot the messenger" shtick as an 
all-purpose rebuttal and excuse to dismiss a response, when in fact it rarely 
applies. To "shoot the messenger" implies that the message is valid and that 
there's no legitimate objection to it (originally, the phrase meant that the 
messenger himself was not responsible for the content of the message, which is 
not the case with Barry's "messages," but leave that aside). 

 When the message is delivered in such a way as to deliberately and 
gratuitously insult the recipient(s), the messenger deserves to be shot. 
Likewise if the veracity of the message is patently not true, or its negativity 
significantly and misleadingly exaggerated. And finally, if the messenger has a 
history of delivering false or exaggerated messages, as Barry does, he does not 
get the benefit of the doubt; he needs to be able to document the truthfulness 
of the current message if he wants to escape being shot.
 

 Plus which, of course, Barry routinely shoots the messenger when the message 
is not to his liking. Just say something even vaguely positive about anything 
TM-related, and presto, you're a brainwashed "cult apologist," according to 
Barry. That goes double if you're offering your message as a rebuttal to 
Barry's.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote :

 Okay, I'm coming in late on this.  Rick, thank you for your comments. 

 Well, there we have a comment from an experienced teacher, who most likely had 
more face time with MMY, and cannot corroborate Barry's accounts, at least 
first hand, and has not said anything about a second hand  account.
 

 I will likely have more to opine about it, but I see Barry now doubling down 
on more accusations, that evidently only he was a witness to.
 

 Now, when you challenge Barry about this, he plays the "shoot the messenger" 
card, when likely, to the rest of world, it is called qualifying the witness.  
Attempting to establish if the witness has a history of objectivity regarding 
the subject he is claiming to be an expert about, or is even capable of 
offering an objective opinion.
 



 
        • Re... Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
          • ... dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
  • [FairfieldLife]... steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
    • RE: [Fairf... 'Rick Archer' r...@searchsummit.com [FairfieldLife]
      • Re: [F... TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
          • ... authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • ... TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]
          • ... authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • ... TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
          • ... fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • RE... 'Rick Archer' r...@searchsummit.com [FairfieldLife]
          • ... Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • ... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]
          • ... Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • ... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]
            • ... 'Rick Archer' r...@searchsummit.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Reply via email to