--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > Just for the record, Michael has done his share of > > "picking on" in the past--big-time, in fact. I can't > > recall whether you were ever on TMNews or TMControversy, > > but he used to go ballistic on occasion on those forums > > when someone disagreed with him and blast them to > > kingdom come. > > I've been around at TMNews, thats where we actually met first,Judy.
You're right, it was. > And I had some exchange with Michael there. He wasn't getting > ballistic at that point, but was more or less like he is now. > (Maybe I was getting a bit ballistic at that time, eg with Joe > Kollet) (Joe Kellett had perfected the art of making people go ballistic...) At one point in one of Michael's diatribes at me for having questioned something he said, he declared that it was really Nature who was dumping on me; he was just passing on Nature's displeasure. <snip> > > It isn't a matter of maturity, it's a matter of keeping > > track. In many cases you forget what someone actually > > said or did, so when Barry lies about it, you're not > > necessarily going to spot the lies. > > Generally I think it's a matter of relation. What is the relation of > the amount of effort and time you put in to point out somebodies > shortcomings to the actual gain? Well, I don't know, actually. But I would hope that at least some who read my posts--whether I'm taking down Barry or some other person trying to get away with gross dishonesty--learn something about how to spot it, so they're less likely to be taken in by it in the future, whether on an Internet forum or in a newspaper opinion column or a State of the Union address. So there's more to it than pointing out the shortcomings of any one particular individual. Too many people simply accept what they read and hear without applying critical thinking. <snip> > > There's also an underlying sense--which may or may > > not be accurate but does have some influence on how > > people see things--that if one doesn't rebut something > > someone else has said, it's because one doesn't *have* > > a rebuttal, that silence constitutes acquiescence, and > > that what the person has said must be accurate. > > I disagree very strongly here. Silence simply means silence, no > agreement. How would you ever break the vicious circle of everybody > wanting to have the last word? I reserve for myself the right to > step out of an argument at any time without further comment, and > expect that anbody else may do the same. I think you may be unusual in this regard. ------------------------ 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/
