--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 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.
Busted. :-) I had actually believed that I posted the Poe quote because the mention of "prosperity fences" called into question for me the whole idea of fences being *able* to affect one's prosperity. And then, while still chuckling about that, I mentally sequed from 'prosperity' to 'Prospero,' and remembered Poe's story. So I posted a quote from the story, without comment of any kind. Little did I know that what I *really* had in mind was a discussion of the height of fences (not to mention an intent that is covered in more detail below), and that that how high the fences are was the most important point of the discussion. :-) > 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. I honestly believe that the mindfuckery is so complete that she may not be *aware* that she does this on a regular basis. I've never encountered anyone in any context who is as devoid of the ability to self-examine as Judy Stein. She just dashes off a putdown, because she tends to react to almost any idea that challenges her world view or her beliefs with the *need* to reply with a putdown. Then, later, when someone points out that the putdown was based on total projection on her part, she defends her original statements to the death. It's like watching a warped perversion of Advaita: "It *must* have been right, because *I* said it." Judy never has to reconsider anything because it was always right the first time. She *can't* have possibly read anything *into* the posts she's responding angrily to and to the poster's intent; she merely sees them "accurately." Uh huh. Remember how this particular set of putdowns started? I posted the quote from the Poe story. Judy had obviously never read the story (and my bet is that she *still* hasn't read it) and knew nothing about it, but she somehow "saw" in the post an attempt on my part to be "devastating" (her word). I posted the quote *without comment*. :-) > 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. Interesting point. Now that you mention it, that's true. The only thing I can count on in Judy's responses to what I post -- *whatever* I post -- is that it will be critical of me, and that it will have nothing to do with what I might have been thinking when I wrote the post, *if* it has anything to do with the post, period. (Often it doesn't; it's her using the post as an excuse to bring up some old grudge from ten years ago.) "Content free process" just nails it. Well done. > The fence's effect is magical, Stapatya Veda mojo. *THAT* was the point. Thank you for getting it. > The height is irrelevant to their magical effect. Exactly. It's a "prosperity fence." Building one, even if it's a two-foot-high symbolic fence, around your property will make you more prosperous. > 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. Exactly. Woo woo rays. From a fence. And Judy's hung up on how high the fences are. :-)
