--- In [email protected], scienceofabundance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], scienceofabundance > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], scienceofabundance > > > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > --snip-- > > > > > BTW, TM can *appear* to be > > > > > > addicting, but the dynamics don't quite fit in my > experience. > > > > > > > > > > Most non-recovering addicts of any thing will say the same > thing > > > > > you have said above. > > > > > > > > So therefore, anyone who says they're not an addict > > > > of something *is* an addict, right? > > > > > > > > Because those who really *aren't* addicts would not > > > > say they weren't addicts. Instead, they'd say... > > > > > > > > ...er... > > > > > > > > ....er indeed...so, the fallacy of your "logic" is .....er.... > > > > not evident to you... [Or put more simply -- neither of your > > > > statements follow from mine.] > > > > I don't think you quite got it. > > Yep, I got it. Neither of your statements above follow from > mine...same as before.
Ah, but you appear to have missed this part of my last post: > > Let's try it this way: Most nonrecovering addicts > > will say the same thing Lawson said above, and > > therefore... > > > > ...what? So tell us. Therefore what? What *does* follow from your statement? 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/
