--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > You enjoy laughing at people who argue about topics > > > > > > you raise that you don't care about? > > > > > > > > > > You may have a hope of getting it after all. :-) > > > > > > > > [Researching how to implement a troll filter in the > > > > Safari browse] > > > > > > Reminds me of a lowlife I went to school with who used to enjoy > > > starting fights over CB radio... > > > > The topics themselves do not invite argument. > > Some people bring argument to the topics because > > they like to argue, that's all. Who could *not* > > laugh at them? > > > > Look at the topic above, in the header to this > > post. I posted it, inviting people to participate. > > So far, the only person to post to it as if it > > were a real topic was Rick. He posted a balanced, > > reasonable "middle way" view of the question. > > > > On the other hand, look at what you (Jim), sparaig, > > and Judy brought to the topic. All you could possibly > > see in it was some kind of setup for a putdown, so > > you turned it *into* a series of putdowns and argu- > > ments. Again, who could *not* laugh at such people? > > To reiterate the point, have a look at the other > topic I started recently, the one with "Why would > you believe that..." in the Subject line. There > have been 58 responses so far. From my point of > view, the *only* responses in that thread that are > the least bit argumentative came from you three. > The other people just presented their ideas and > *discussed*. You guys argued. > > Was the cause of that effect the post itself, or > its subject, or could you three possibly have > brought something of your selves along and tried > to impose them on the thread? > > The first line of the "starter" post was, "A new > topic, hopefully bias- and argumentation-free." > That's how it turned out, as far as I can tell, for > all of the participants in the thread except for > you three. Do you honestly believe that the fault > for that lies in the thread itself?
Every time you've brought up criteria for believing someone is enlightened before, here and on alt.m.t, you've used the topic as a vehicle for putting people (mostly TMers) down. In fact, you do that with *most* of the "discussion questions" you pose. This time, I mentioned this fact right at the start, suggesting that you planned to find a way to dump on others' criteria. So you couldn't do that without fulfilling my prediction. Instead, you did a little dance step and made the target of your putdowns people who didn't *have* any criteria: "If I were to offer any feedback on the responses so far on other groups, it's that the people who react angrily to the topic don't actually *have* any criteria for deeming someone enlightened, although they do just that all the time. They didn't like that fact pointed out. I suspect we'll see some of that here as well." My "argumentative" response--in a reply to Curtis--addressed that putdown of yours: not having criteria isn't a bug--such that one "wouldn't like that fact pointed out"-- it's a feature. You didn't respond to that, of course. Yes, you got interesting responses from others, and the discussion didn't turn into a slugfest because you had to be careful not to fulfill my prediction. So you had to try something else, and came up with the even more transparent "life in Fairfield" vehicle for putdowns, the idea being to dump on anyone who suggested that Fairfield was "one of the first incursions of Heaven On Earth into kaliyuga." You came close to giving your game away on that one: "That is to say, *I* think it sounds like fun, but by now you've all got a pretty clear idea of what my idea of fun is like, so be warned." I called you on that as well. And so far, the responses you've gotten have all pointed out, in one way or another, that it wasn't a very meaningful question to start with, so you've been short-circuited again. You really need to figure out what this compulsive need is of yours to put down TMers is about, and get it under control, because it's getting worse and worse.
