--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], t3rinity <no_reply@> 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.
So you allow those who decide whether a piece of writing is to be published determine your choice of reading material for you? > 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?] Actually, he's attacking your concepts. He's showing you what your statements of your concepts *imply*. The amusing thing is that this is one of your favorite techniques. But when somebody does it to you, it's a personal attack; when you do it to somebody else, they're being paranoid to interpret it as an attack. > > 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. So many unsupported assumptions and black-and-white oversimplifications. Let me just pick one of them, because it's a constant theme of your bashing of people with whom you disagree: the idea that anyone who defends their POV must not believe in it that strongly. Of course, that's by no means universally true, although it may be in some cases. The *purpose* of taking that position is to dismiss without consideration the arguments of those who don't agree with you. Since you frequently defend your positions, why should we not assume that you don't believe in them that strongly either? You'll respond that you *don't* believe in them that strongly. Fine, so why should we even pay any attention to your arguments? You'll respond that we don't *have* to. Also fine, except that when someone brushes off *your* arguments, you go ballistic and accuse them of trying to avoid the issues. In other words, it's a double standard: one for Barry, and a different one for everybody who disagrees with Barry. > 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. Nowhere did Michael even *begin* to suggest that you shouldn't present yours. You've just done exactly what you were accusing Michael of doing, interpreting his questioning of your positions as an attack, even to the point of fantasizing that he was telling you to shut up. And you're accusing *him* of paranoia? ------------------------ 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/
