--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kenny H" <kennyhassman@> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > Thanks for the honest apraisal. It's not something > > > we've come to expect from anyone with a TM history. > > > > You know, Barry, I believe you say these kinds of things to see > > just how many people you can involve in lengthy argumentative > > diatribes. > > Point taken about the above comment; it was uncalled > for and I apologize for it. > > But to your point, if you had been paying attention I > think you would have noticed that I *don't* argue here > on FFL (or on any other Internet forum) any more. I > just post what I have to say and then allow people to > post what they have to say in reply. If they respond > to a single post of mine with five or six replies of > their own,
I can't remember anybody ever doing that, actually. Twice, maybe, or even three times once in a while, but Barry has done that himself in response to something that has pushed *his* buttons. and I allow them to without either defend- > ing my original point or commenting further, that > doesn't quite constitute getting involved in lengthy > argumentative diatribes in my book. Your mileage may > vary. From my point of view, It's usually more like > one diatribe, followed by people who got their buttons > pushed posting multiple times *trying* to get me to > argue with them. :-) <snip> > I *will* admit to having a weakness for pushing the > buttons of a few people, but that's now down to very > few (three, to be exact). Every so often I slip into > old habits and say something provocative to them, because > they really *can't* let it go past; they are compelled > to jump into the fray and act like cultists. Just want to point out the tactic here of labeling TMers' rebuttals to Barry's off-the-wall assertions as (1) trying to draw Barry into an argument, and (2) acting like a cultist. The point of the tactic is to dismiss in advance any TMer's disagreement with whatever Barry says. That way he gets to say whatever damn fool thing he wants without having to take responsibility for it. Under Barry's Rules, it's a priori impossible that a TMer is simply correcting one of his misrepresentation or pointing out the illogic of one of his assertions. And these rules apply *only* to TMers. It's never the case with Barry himself, or anyone whose views Barry shares. <moved from above> > In the past that was more true. Now I really do try > to content myself with saying my piece and then allow- > ing others to say theirs. I really have no point of > view to sell or try to convince people of. Given the tactic I just deconstructed, this claim becomes quite hollow. If one has no point of view to sell or try to convince people of, why would one feel the need to frame disagreements so as to invalidate them in advance? And here's the third "leg" of the tactic: Plus, for > good or bad, there is really no percentage in me > trying to "defend" something I say here, because by > the time someone replies trying to sucker me *into* > defending it, I've changed points of view entirely. > What's to "defend" if your point of view changes > every few hours? :-) By characterizing self-contradiction as perfectly valid, Barry manages to expand the range of accepetability of his off-the-wall assertions; they don't even have to agree with *each other*. 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/
