--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > And so how does the person whose personal behavior has > been criticized respond? By trying to portray it as > criticism of (or an attack on) the *group*, not him. > > Thus suddenly you've got the person whose *personal* > behavior was questioned spouting phrases like "anti- > Buddhist" or "anti-TM" or "anti-Christian" or what- > ever. So what's the purpose of this dodge, and where > does it come from?
<snip> > I'm mentioning it here because this dodge has been > tried here a few times lately. A poster or posters > make some comments about how one or more of the other > posters at FFL handle themselves *personally*, and > their *first* response is to trot out the phrase, > "anti-TMer," and attempt to brand the critic with it. This whole rant, of course, is a thinly disguised personal attack on me. I'm the only person who has used the phrase "anti-TMer" here recently. <snip> > I'm mentioning it here because this dodge has been > tried here a few times lately. A poster or posters > make some comments about how one or more of the other > posters at FFL handle themselves *personally*, and > their *first* response is to trot out the phrase, > "anti-TMer," and attempt to brand the critic with it. Here's what Barry is referring to specifically (first Barry, then me): ------- > Personally, the thing that's astounded me in these > recent discussions is how tenaciously a couple of > people here have adopted the role of apologist, trying > to find some loophole, some way of analyzing the exact > wording, some shread of hope that enables them to > portray this presentation as something other than an > intentional attempt to mislead. Well, actually, what you're seeing is a couple of people here pointing out how far the anti-TMers will go to twist the facts in order to cobble together their accusations of fraud. ------- First, this *is* a very direct response to Barry's personal criticism of my behavior: the criticism is bogus. What Barry characterizes as "portray[ing] this presentation as something other than an intentional attempt to mislead" is, in fact, *my* personal criticism of those who have been attempting to portray the presentation as fraudulent. Second, of course, "anti-TMer" is an entirely legitimate label for those who, like Barry and Vaj and Curtis, routinely attack the TMO, MMY, and TMers (individually or as a group). In other words, what you're really seeing here in Barry's rant is *his* attempt to dodge *my* personal criticisms of him for inaccurately characterizing my comments about the anti-TMers' accusations of fraud, and of the behavior of the anti-TMers who have been making the accusations. Nowhere has Barry responded directly to my personal criticism of his mischaracterizations of my behavior, nor to what I've been pointing out about the accusations of fraud. Instead, he's attempting to deflect that criticism back onto me--exactly what he claims *I* have been doing, in reverse. Pretty standard from Barry. <snip> > I might suggest a strategy when this next happens. > I've seen it work, and work well, on other forums > on which it has been suggested. Whenever anyone tries > to label another poster who has criticized *them* > *personally* as an "anti-<fill in group here>-er," > notice whether the person doing the name-calling > has actually dealt with or attempted to refute the > behavior of theirs that was questioned in the first > place. I think you'll find that they rarely do. Minor point here, but notice that Barry doesn't deliver on the "strategy" he claims he's going to suggest. As so frequently is the case with Barry, he's gotten so carried away with his rhetoric he forgets what he was talking about. > It's like they believe that if they use the olde > tried-and-true "Call the critic an 'anti-whatever-er'" > trick, the other people on the forum (who still, after > all, feel some allegiance to the group in question) > will abandon their critical faculties and become so > emotionally upset that someone has attacked *them* > (which no one has done, of course...they criticized > the name-caller, not them, not the group) that they'll > ignore the fact that the name-caller has never denied > the original criticism. Notice that I *did* deny the original criticism. As to having criticized "the name-caller...not the group," notice Barry's parting shot-- > So I'm just posting this rap to see whether this tactic > works as well after someone has exposed it for what it is: > cult-think. --which, in fact, is a criticism of "the group." ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/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/
