--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know that Judy won't understand this, because
> she's too far gone, but the above comment is
> *exactly* why she and new_morning_blank_slate
> are consigned to my "Pissant Bin."
> It's not that they have nothing to say. They
> don't, but that's beside the point. :-) It's that
> they are compelled to react to positions they don't
> BAD. *That* is what they are trying to achieve
> in their posts. I suspect that anyone here with
> any psychic sensibilities has felt this.

You are correct in that I crossed my own line in personally attacking
Bhairitu. I strongly disagreed with his post, but should have focussed
on ideas not persons. I have long held that as the standard of good
conduct, and at times have encouraged others to also follow it.
For my transgression, I apologize.

> In this thread, when new_morning first jumped on
> Bhairitu for what he posted, his *first reaction*
> was to imply that there was something *wrong*
> with him for stating that opinion. He tried to
> portray Bhairitu as somehow "bad" and not caring
> about vets just because he made the points that
> he'd made. His *first reaction* was to try to make
> the person who disagreed with him the "bad guy"
> and (IMO) to try to make him feel bad about
> himself. It didn't work. Bhairitu laughed at him.

> Above, Judy expresses (not for the first time)
> her fantasy and her main reason for posting on
> the Internet. She has said many times that she
> *delights* in trying to make her opponents in
> a debate feel bad. That's *why* she debates them.
> Her *first reaction* in this thread was the same
> as new_morning's; she was interested only in finding
> someone she could put down, and hopefully make feel
> bad.

I am curious. Are you attempting to make Judy feel bad? While not
trying to make you feel bad, but perhaps to reflect a bit, my
impression is that you quite regularly and agressively attack people,
often by (mistakenly, IMO)characterizing their inner motives.
Sometimes out and out name calling. For example, when you call people
Pissants, are you attempting to make them feel good?

I know that saying a poster is projecting their own inner issues is
sometimes used without much  basis. But here, it appears to me to have
a strong foundation. Its something you might ponder. With your strong
propensity for, and regular habit of attacking others, do you think it
odd, perhaps indicative of something trying to resolve itself,  that
you so strongly attack "attackers".

> It didn't work. It rarely does. It's sad, but
> as I and a number of others have said in the past,
> it's really Not Our Problem. Just because these
> two people get their jollies by trying to suck
> people into extended arguments with them so that
> they can put them down doesn't mean that we have
> to fall for it.

While not trying to make you feel bad, the breadth of your sweeping
genealizations still astonished me. I have made perhaps 100 posts in
the past month. Only one that I can recall had a personal attack. And
none were provokatively argumentative that I recall, they stated a
POV. Some were  even quite complimetary of the poster. Your hypothesis
appears quite weak and devoid of much empirical support.

Again, you might consider the possibility of projection here. You
strongly attack provokation, yet appear to regularly engage in it.
Even in this post, can you honestly say you are not trying to provoke
Judy into anargument?

In some of those 100 posts, still a minority, I did disagree with
posters ideas. Quite a legitmate domain. It would be quite boring here
if we all agreed with everything. That is quite distinct from
disrespecting and trashing the poster. Perhaps that is a distinction
that you appear to be blurring in your mind -- by seeing disagreements
with ideas as personal attacks.

As an observation, not intended to make you  feel bad, but as
something to reflect on and consider, the above appears to be a
trigger for your personal attacks. When you disagree with a poster,
far more often than not, you disregard the content and ideas of the
post, and attack the poster, often by suggeting some (quite weak imo)
hypotheses (stated as fact) regarding their motives and basic
character. As you have done in this post.

So again thank you for pointing out my stepping over the line and
personally attacking Bhairitu. Focussing on ideas and a posts'
content, and not sinking to personal attacks and speculations on inner
motives (which are rarely complimentary and are usually a venue for
pesonal attack), is a good standard that I try to maintain. I
recommend and encourage it in all posts.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to:
and click 'Join This Group!'

Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi


Reply via email to