--- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > When someone takes that many words to say something, > > especially on an Internet forum, you can pretty much > > rest assured that your life will not be negatively > > affected by pressing the Next key without reading it. > > You probably also don't read books or magazine articles.
Books and magazine articles tend to be written by real authors, not just some guy on an ego rant. I tend to prefer to spend the limited time of my life reading the former and not the latter. Is that not Ok in your world? :-) [Did you notice that you are attacking ME personally, rather than my concepts?] > > The last three 'scores' were my immediate reaction to > > a short skim. I just thought that, because of the > > near-hbakti reverence folks here have for the scientific, > > I should supplement my subjective analysis with a little > > objective analysis from Microsoft. :-) > > > > I repeat my theorem. Real bhaktis just live their > > lifestyle, quietly. Fake or mood-maker bhaktis tend > > to feel that they need to defend it. > > Sure, anyone who speaks for bhakti (and disagrees with you) > should just keep their mouth shut. Barry says: I don't choose > Bhakti, but I can distinguish a moodmaker from a 'real' one. > By definition, the ones who disagree with me are 'moodmakers'. I repeat my theorem. Real bhaktis just live their lifestyle, quietly. Fake or mood-maker bhaktis tend to feel that they need to defend it. [Did you notice that you are attacking ME personally, rather than my concepts?] > Bhakti shouldn't be defended. The POV of Bhakti should > be ignored. That's just your self-importance speaking. NO ONE said that the POV of bhakti should be ignored, or that it shouldn't be presented. It just seems to me that if someone is presenting it, they could do so positively, on the basis of its supposed benefits, and not on the basis of cult paranoia that interprets anyone questioning it as a personal attack. To his credit, MDG *did* present what he felt were the positive benefits of bhakti. You, on the other hand, did not. What you did was attack me. Above I repeated my theorem. I now present its corollary. Those who tend to consistently see any intellectual criticism of their path as a personal attack and overreact to it with a need to "defend" that path don't really believe in it that strongly. If they did, what *other people* believe wouldn't really affect what they believe, let alone leave them threatened, panicky, and abusive. They're just theories, dude. If you've got different theories, present them. But don't tell me not to present mine. That's not "defending your path," it's spiritual fascism. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
