--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 27, 2007, at 10:47 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > I see. The only possible reason that someone > > could read something and interpret it differently > > than you do is that they haven't read the context. > > > > Or, that they've read it "incorrectly." > > > > Or, that they have read it but they're "wrong," > > whereas you're "right." > > > > Or, that they *know* that they are "wrong" but > > are intentionally lying because they have > > malevolent intent towards Maharishi, TM, the > > TMO, or towards you personally. > > > > Have I covered all the bases of the ways in > > which you tend to respond to posts you don't > > agree with? > > This would make a good start for an FAQ.
Except, of course, that FAQs are supposed to have accurate and relevant answers. > I'm sure there are others, but that pretty much covers our wind-up > doll's typical answers. > > Another fav is deconstructing sentence structure to mean something > other than the writers intention or contextually different > comments from old posts or simply deliberately misconstruing > context. When that doesn't work there's always arguing from > ignorance. Just pro forma, I'll ask Vaj to quote examples. Let the record show that he won't, because he can't.
