--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 27, 2006, at 11:19 AM, authfriend wrote:
> > 
> > > That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.  If
> > > Barry, for example, has said that MMY has lost it,
> > > and then quoted MMY as saying the world is going
> > > to end if TM-Sidhas don't all go to the domes,
> > > would you assume Barry believes the world is about
> > > to end if TM-Sidhas don't all go to the domes?  Or
> > > would you assume that Barry is quoting MMY to back
> > > up his point that MMY has lost it?
> > 
> > The latter, which is exactly *my* point.  Barry quotes
> > some goofy quote to show the goofiness.  You guys (pro-TMers)
> > quote some invariably goofy thing and then try to rationalize
> > it, no matter how absurd it may be on its face. As you say,
> > it's all in the context.
> Yeah, except that we don't always do that, Sal.
> Sometimes we do what Barry does (as I just did
> in the case of MMY's dictum about women staying
> home and raising the children).
> Sometimes we're just correcting somebody who
> was misrepresenting MMY--eliminating a straw
> man, in other words.
> Sometimes we play devil's advocate because the
> "goofy" interpretation is so, well, goofy.
> I just realized who you keep reminding me of.
> It's the fundie Christian who used to hang out
> on alt.m.t.
> I once got into an argument with him about a fine
> point of Christian theology concerning baptism.
> He was arguing the fundie view, naturally (that
> only adult baptism is biblical), and I was arguing
> the mainstream Protestant view, that infant baptism
> is also biblical.
> He knew I wasn't a believer, and he couldn't figure
> out for the *life* of him why I'd be defending infant
> baptism as having biblical support when baptism in
> general wasn't something I believed in.  He simply
> couldn't grasp the notion of my playing devil's
> advocate against his extreme views.
There was excellent advice given in one of the early posts of this
thread. It is: "I am suggesting, in fact I am asking, that you
consider NOT READING the
posts of those who upset you, like Judy."
The underlying theme of her posts is usually the same. "You can't
follow my superior logic. Let me try again to explain it to you,
little feller." Her point is only to "win" and be as condescending as
possible doing it. Ever hear her say "hey, thanks. I was wrong"?
Ignore her pointless posts as I shall do from now on.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to