--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > Bottom line is their own words. I'm really tired of > collecting all the THINGS TMers BELEVE quotes; just > cutting and pasting them is an afront to the senses, > but here are the last of them. Lets' allow those > who are being talked about in these recent posts to > speak for themselves, in their own "defense," IN > THEIR OWN WORDS:
Actually many of the quotes here are from your previous compilations. Do you even realize that? It also appears it's getting harder and harder for you to find quotes that actually justify inclusion. You attempt to make up for this in many cases by providing false context. Lets' allow those > who are being talked about in these recent posts to > speak for themselves, in their own "defense," IN > THEIR OWN WORDS: Let's also see a few examples of how either the lack of context, or the deliberately distorted context Barry is pleased to provide, gives a thoroughly misleading impression of the nature of the posts from which they were taken. I'll focus primarily on mine because I'm most familiar with the context, and because Barry has had to subject them to the worst distortions to create the impression he intends: <snip> > "He's [TM critic, the compiler of this list of quotes] > never been able to handle challenges to his opinions; > his freakouts typically occur when he's been getting > more opposition than usual. This time I think there's > just been too much of it for him to deal with. Whether > alcohol is exacerbating things, who knows?" Out of context, this quote appears to indicate that I'm suggesting alcohol is a factor in Barry's behavior. In fact, I was responding to someone else's suggestion to this effect, merely acknowledging that it *could* be a factor (as it could be in anyone else's posts), but that there was no way to tell, so it was essentially irrelevant. > To a person he's never met, in *any* city, but who > compiled this list of quotes, many of which are his: > "Besides, I am pissed off that my post that said that > I saw you staggering along on the streets of Paris, > clutching an almost empty bottle of wine, and mumbling > over and over something about 'TM bastards'......that > post never made the list." Barry fails to acknowledge here, as he does in quite a few similar cases, that this quote was intended to be humorous, poking fun at Barry (Barry, who has always been an advocate of laughing at oneself, as long as it's not him who has to do it). <snip> > Same person: "Wanted to add that I'm pretty sure B > doesn't behave like this [that is, quoting *her* words > and those of others like her] in his everyday life. > Internet forums are an outlet so that he *doesn't* > behave like a monster otherwise." Here Barry provides deliberately false context. I was speaking generally of Barry's attacks on TM supporters, not referring specifically to his quoting exercise. > Same person, after writing dozens of lines 'analyzing' > the person who had done nothing more than quote her, > and other TMers like her, and who didn't respond to her > 'analysis' except to collect more of her quotes: "I'm > sure he'll 'intuit' some conclusions about me right back. > Y'all can decide which of us has the clearer mind..." Those who aren't acquainted with Barry, of course, will be unaware that he's already written thousands and thousands of lines "analyzing" me, so my expectation that this is how he'd respond to my analysis of him was entirely reasonable. <snip> > Responding to a person who had said: "No one has any higher > moral ground here." -- "Only someone who, like R [founder > of the TM-related forum on which criticism of TM is allowed], > is living in a moral vacuum could say such a thing. P.S. Sod > off." Here Barry carefully omits to mention that in context, "No one" meant "neither Judy nor Barry" and referred specifically to the *personal* disputes between us-- not, as the deliberately false context he supplies suggests, to the morality of criticism of TM on this forum in general. <snip> > After having made over a dozen posts on three different > Internet forums complaining about her words being supposedly > being quoted out of context here: Not just *my* words, and not "supposedly" but *demonstrably* out of context, or with deliberately *false* context. > Mr. Fully Self Realized: "In San Francisco the word is > among those working in the business district to not even > look at the pandhandlers, unless you want to be followed > down the street by someone cursing you for not paying up. > Before I knew that, I tried to talk to a homeless guy > around Union Square and ended up being called a 'mf' > because I wouldn't give him more than a buck. Cheery > bunch." Hard to know what point Barry wanted to make with this quote, but because he's included it in a compilation of other more apparently questionable quotes, Barry hopes readers will just assume there must be *something* wrong with it. As I say, he's getting hard up for quotes. > Asked to explain her quotes "Folks who abandon their animals > should be shot, BTW." and "I shoot the messenger when the > messenger deserves to be shot." -- "Those really all you > could find in a search for 'shot' in my posts? Here are some > more you might try: > hanged > decapitated > stabbed to death > nuked > drowned > wiped out > castrated > beaten to a bloody pulp > smashed into a little grease spot > torn limb from limb > I'm sure I can come up with some others. I'll let you know." Out of context--which was me making fun of Barry-- Barry intends this quote to suggest I've actually used the violent words and phrases I listed. Also note that although he characterizes what he quotes as my "explanation" of the two earlier quotes from my posts, in fact he *omits* the explanation--i.e., obviously, that one was hyperbole and the other metaphor (as if this actually required explanation)--leaving the impression that my "explanation" consisted of the list of words and phrases I was urging Barry to search for. I guess my jibe must have really stung him. > Repeated several times, as if it were a mantra: "Were you > under the impression that this refutes anything I've been > saying?" Only twice, in fact, and in somewhat different words each time, so the "mantra" characterization is quite deliberately false. As well, Barry neglects to note that the context was political--the same topic each time--and had nothing to do with TM. Moreover, both people I was addressing were TM supporters, not TM critics; and in both cases the comments they had made were non sequiturs to what I had said, so my question was a valid one. Incidentally, I stand by every word I wrote that Barry includes in his compilations; and if Barry were prepared to actually challenge them, rather than pretending they revealed something terrible about the effects of TM and attempting to reinforce that pretense by quoting them out of context or with deliberately false context supplied, I'd be delighted to defend them. But, of course, he isn't prepared to do that, because this entire exercise is a sham. As I've pointed out several times to no response from Barry, if his intentions with these compilations were as he has asserted, the *last* thing he'd want to do would be to boast about posting them to other forums, for fear he'd kill the goose that he perceives to have laid the golden egg. His real intention, once again, is to shut up his critics. How's that been working for you, Barry?
