--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Irmeli Mattsson" > <Irmeli.Mattsson@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > <snip> > > > One more time: You might want to ask yourself why you > > > feel the need to attack me personally when my previous > > > posts were entirely polite and made no personal remarks > > > about you. > > > > > > Could it be because you have the sense that a challenge > > > to your views, no matter how rational, is equivalent to > > > a personal attack? > > > > > > > **** > > I have observed that you have not much criticized my posts. Why not, > > if you don't like them ? > > Where did I say I didn't like your posts?? > > I usually find your posts pretty interesting. I > happened to disagree with you on this one point > about MMY being senile. How do you transform > that into my not liking your posts in general? > > If you'll recall, Irmeli, this exchange started > when I agreed with Jim's comment to you that he > didn't think MMY was senile. You responded to > my post by saying you didn't see how anyone with > their full mental faculties could take MMY > seriously but that you supposed it was possible if > the person saw MMY as their guru. > > In other words, your very first response to me was > a none-too-subtle ad hominem, implying that the only > reason I said I didn't think he was senile was > because, as a devotee, I was blind to his faults. > > Of course, I'm *not* a devotee, and I see plenty > of MMY's faults; I just don't happen to think he's > senile. > > But you couldn't deal with my comment by simply > taking it as another point of view; you had to > dismiss it as invalid by suggesting I was blind > to his purported senility because I was a TB. > > I ignored this attack and responded by addressing > your one substantive point, which seemed to be > that the fact that he says nutty things meant his > mental capacities were in decline. I pointed out > that people who are obviously in full possession > of their mental capacities can say nutty things > too; the latter isn't necessarily an indication > of the former. > > You replied by saying that the way he grouped > things together in his remarks on caste showed > he was either an "uncivilized Hindu fundamentalist" > or "mildly retarded." And you *again* leveled the > ad hominem at me, saying I'd perceive these > "fallacies" if it was someone other than MMY who > had come up with them. > > You really need to review the exchange. I > repeatedly addressed your *substantive* points-- > your reasons for thinking MMY is senile--and > you did attempt to defend those points, but then > you issued your rant on how I was "nitpicking" > and that I must be doing so because I couldn't > address your conclusion, as if addressing your > reasons for your conclusion somehow wasn't kosher, > and that I was only doing that because I didn't > want to confront that conclusion. > > That makes no sense, Irmeli. > > > I have only occasionally read your posts and felt them to be quite > > weary, because of your style of diverting attention away by picking > > up some minor unessential details. > > I was addressing the reasons you were giving for > your conclusion that MMY was senile, for goodness' > sake! Why on earth would you consider them "minor > inessential details" and "diverting attention away"? > > > When I observed you did the same to me in a quite gross and > > transparent way, by taking one sentence from MMY's talk, that only > > vaguely possibly was not in line with the overall theme of the talk > > and you started bombarding me with it, quoting only that sentence > > and starting to claim that I misinterpreted MMY. > > I did not "bombard" you with it. I pointed it out > once in a different thread some time back. You didn't > respond at that time. Then I mentioned it once in this > exchange, and again you didn't respond, so I repeated > it once. > > But I mentioned it only as a side point; it was > really a different discussion than the one about > whether he's senile or not that went back to things > he'd said much earlier about caste. > > I didn't "start to claim" that you had misinterpreted > MMY. To the contrary, I said you might very well be > right in your interpretation of that one remark of his. > I just suggested that there was another possible > interpretation. > > > This is no challenge to my views. > > Right, it was a different discussion entirely. > The views I was challenging were your views on > MMY being senile. > > > I just feel angry, when people > > use these kinds of tricks in communication. Maybe I don't get > > angry, when a person does this just once, but when she does it > > repeatedly, I do. > > No tricks, Irmeli, sorry. You didn't like being > challenged on your view that MMY is senile. If > there's a "trick" here, it's *your* trick of trying > to divert the discussion of MMY's mental faculties > into one about my purported faults. > > > And my reasoning does not > > go like, if you don't criticize me, I don't criticize you. > > You *attacked* me, Irmeli, as a way of distracting > attention from the substance of the discussion and > attempting to invalidate my views on the grounds that > I was incapable of seeing MMY's faults because I was > a devotee. You did it in your very first response to > me and continued to do it, even though I pointed out > repeatedly that your characterization of me was > inaccurate. > > > My criticism is more based on issues, styles of communication etc. > > Although I may not criticize somebody's writing because, I judge > > that person to be a hopeless case, meaning she cannot benefit from > > the criticism. > > > And I don't understand criticism to be a harmful attack. > > You were using your criticism as a way of invalidating > my views. > > If you see a > > person to behave in less constructive ways, and out of indifference > > don't tell her about it, I consider that to be harmful behaviour. > > Well, I've just told you about what I see as your > less-than-constructive behavior. > > > And I would appreciate it, if you could really challenge my views. I > > understand, that I have my blind spots, and I can only start to > > perceive them by the help of others. > > That's exactly what I was doing with your view that > MMY is senile. I was directly and logically addressing > your stated *reasons* for thinking he's senile. And > you called that "nitpicking"! How else can one > challenge a person's views than by addressing the > reasons they give for holding those views? > > > And I'm sorry that I cannot discuss with you more, because I'm just > > now very busy with my work. At the weekend I'm leaving for two weeks > > holiday abroad. Before it I have to finish many tasks and also find > > time to pack etc. > > Well, have a good trip. >
**** Post # 91477 was your first response on my analysis of MMY's talk. I didn't answer to you, because I felt your comment was stupid. You kept later on demanding answer on that. This was the main thing that pushed my buttons. Irmeli 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/
