--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Was it Vaj recently who commented on Judy's tendency > to obfuscate? And Judy who denied she does it? And > was it Curtis who commented on her tendency to glom > onto some unimportant word or phrase and argue about > it endlessly in an attempt to derail the real sub- > stance of the discussion? I think she denied that > as well. > > For Judy, the only important thing in this thread > is how high the fences are. > > :-)
Turq, You are getting perilously close to the dreaded "intellectually dishonest" label. Here is how it works. Once a tangential point is chosen and evidence is provided, if you fail to adjust your own perspective, actually staying with your own point, you are being intellectually dishonest. An example of this would be choosing the part of the wikipedia description of intellectually dishonesty that describes how she uses it. Once it is framed as an attempt "to pretend this paragraph was the substance of the Wikipedia entry" (totally manufactured out of the air) then the label becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. It is a fascinating study in mindfuckery, all the more interesting because she seems to be completely oblivious to how it interferes with understanding another person's point of view. Only a few techniques are needed as long as they are relentlessly applied. This may be why I can never anticipate her reaction to what I write. The reaction is a content free process rather than a personal POV. The fence's effect is magical, Stapatya Veda mojo. The height is irrelevant to their magical effect. Rather then just claim that they have an aesthetic value, which is good enough for most people, and is probably valid from the homes I have seen, it has a magical effect on the people inside and that magic radiates out to the rest of the world. The fences are a perfect metaphor for the prison of specialness they represent. BTW this is not a comment on Alex's house which looked very cool from the pictures. I have no idea how he thinks about the value of Vastu other than its interesting cool design. I'm sure there at as many different relationships with the concepts of Vastu as with TM itself. > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Others may read the story and see no parallels > > > whatsoever to spiritual communities that seem > > > to close themselves off from the world. I do. > > > Call me an old populist, but in my book building > > > fences between yourself and the world -- no matter > > > what the supposedly laudable reasons for doing > > > so may be -- is still building fences between > > > yourself and the world. > > > > Ooh, Barry still doesn't get it. As both I and > > Alex have pointed out, the SUV fences are > > obviously not designed to close the world out. > > > > In fact, the fences around most non-SUV homes > > are more protective than these are; they usually > > have a gate at the front (and are frequently > > higher and less easily penetrated). > > > > Fences around homes generally are very common > > in the West. They're by no means unique to SUV > > or even to spiritual communities. > > > > You may not like fences on general principles, > > and that's OK, but it's really, *really* silly > > to make believe your distaste has any special > > relevance to SUV/spiritual communities. >
