If we're going to discuss intellectual dishonesty, let's start with the fact that Barry has *no clue* about the nature of my personal relationship to Robin. Which means that when he attempts to characterize it as if he knows something about it, he is being intellectually dishonest.
Not a good start, is it? Doesn't get any better, unfortunately. The next significant fact is that with regard to his FFL posts, Barry is a chronic liar--not just intellectually dishonest but factually dishonest, having made many, many seemingly factual statements that he knows to be false. The irony of the task Barry has undertaken here is immense. Now let's examine the dishonesty in what he goes on to say: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Now that we've managed to tweak the Judy Wind-Up Doll to the > point that she's already pissed away a quarter of her posts > for this coming week in the first four hours of the "posting > week" :-), Actually only four of my posts so far this posting week had to do with this topic, and only two of those were in response to Barry (in both cases correcting knowingly false statements of his). Pretty pathetic tweaking, if you ask me. What's got him so hysterical is that he's been unable to get away with any of his own false statements (some of which have been flat-out lies, others due to ignorance and/or carelessness). Bottom line, he's been a flop at portraying Robin as a villain. That's because it's an intellectually dishonest concept. He knows Robin *isn't* a villain. > let's put her whole > performance this past week into some perspective, shall we? > > What wound her up was me posting some FACTS -- in his own > words -- about her fantasy boyfriend Robin Carlsen in > response to Card's post of Clinton looking into the camera > and telling the American public, "I did NOT have sex with > that woman." That struck me as a *perfect* parallel to > what Robin did with the "I did NOT strike my students" > routine that backfired on him so badly. No, sorry, you posted some false statements and some quotes that were out of context. I corrected you and provided the context you carefully left out, an intellectually dishonest omission. And as you know, from the start I characterized Robin's move as "Clintonesque," so you can stop your dishonest pretense that somehow I objected to that comparison. > Robin, trying to make Vaj's claims "go away," homed in on a > Judy Steinian nitpick and took advantage of the phrase > "during a seminar" to deny that he had ever struck his > students. He did not deny that he had ever struck his students. A lie from Barry. To Robin, there was a significant distinction between smacking confrontees on stage in front of an audience during a public seminar--which would have been exceptionally stupid just from a business perspective, let alone any others--and doing so in a private setting with a residential community of people he had been working closely and intensely with for some time. That is not a difficult distinction to understand. It's intellectually dishonest to claim it's of no significance. If you read his Open Letter, he explains why he felt trying to convey on FFL what went on in the private setting--which was highly esoteric, to say the least-- would have been futile. After all, Vaj was still carrying on a prolonged and sadistic jihad against him on a number of different fronts. Not a good environment, to say the least, for communicating something as complex and mysterious as what he detailed in his Open Letter. > In the course of doing this, > he used phrases like, "this is not something I would have > done" and "I never once struck someone on stage." > > He was clearly using the nitpick of "during a seminar" to > LIE, and claim he had *never* struck his students, No, that isn't clear at all, sorry. That's your malign interpretation, and it's intellectually dishonest. As he said in the Open Letter, he knew it would have to come out eventually. He just didn't think it was the appropriate context at that point. using > the same equivocal trick that Clinton was trying to use > by relying on a subjective, self-serving definition of > "sex" that did not include blowjobs to LIE about Monica > Lewinsky. Similar tactic, different situation, different motivation. > Judy Stein, self-appointed "hall monitor of honesty" on > Fairfield Life, sees nothing wrong with this. Not true. I understood why he had done it, but I wasn't comfortable with the "Clintonesque" aspect. > And the thing is, Robin was even lying about THAT, the > nitpick, as Judy herself admits in a later post. And that's another lie from Barry. I never "admitted" that Robin lied, because I don't think he did lie. I don't know what happened onstage, and neither does Barry. Neither does Ann, for that matter. As I pointed out in another post, it's highly unlikely he would have lied about an incident he knew Ann would have witnessed. He isn't *stupid*. There has to be some other explanation. > She says that Ann did not join Robin's cult until after > the public seminars had started, but then says that > *even she* witnessed Robin striking someone during one > of them. She thought that must have been what happened, but she didn't see it happen. She saw the guy's glasses falling to the floor and breaking. She didn't see him being hit. It's so interesting that Barry, as a writer, more often than not uses his technical ability with words to obscure and conflate rather than to clarify and distinguish. > So there is no *question* about it -- Robin was LYING. There actually *is* a question as to whether he was lying. If Barry were to pull something like that, we would have excellent reason to think he was lying, because he lies all the time without compunction. Robin, however, has no such history here. Lying would be highly uncharacteristic of his behavior on FFL. > And to Judy Stein, that's just FINE. Au contraire, Pierre. I wasn't there. I don't know what happened, and neither do you. I don't know why Robin never addressed what Ann said (and what LordKnows later appears to have confirmed), and neither do you. I'm not prepared to judge that incident or Robin's failure to address it one way or the other, unless and until we hear more about it from Robin himself. That seems to me to be the intellectually honest approach. > The only problem that she sees with > any of this is that a few people on this forum are > "persecuting" him by pointing out that he LIED. I see a BIG problem with people who are threatened by Robin assuming and vigorously promoting the worst possible view of him regarding events they know nothing about, as a way of cutting him down to a size they feel they can deal with. Especially when the instigator of this effort is himself a chronic and *entirely* unapologetic liar. Barry, you're an insecure, vicious, sadistic little twerp who abuses others constantly on this forum, including lying about them, to make yourself feel important without the tiniest twinge of conscience. Robin spent 25 years of his life in isolation repenting of his own misbehavior and doing his damndest to root out his deficiencies and become a better person. He's judged himself more harshly than anyone else. You are not fit to judge him at all. You're not fit to judge *anyone* with regard to honesty as long as you haven't done your utmost to reform yourself in that regard. As far as I can tell, you've done nothing whatsoever along those lines. In fact, your dishonesty has been growing steadily worse. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Barry Loses. > It seems to me that this exercise in making excuses for someone she's > got a crush on has demonstrated once and for all WHO it is on this forum > who exemplifies "intellectual dishonesty." It's JUDY STEIN. > > She -- the person who has hurled the epithet "LIAR!" more times than > anyone in the history of FFL -- is willing to defend someone who even > *she* has to admit was LYING, just because she's got a crush on him. > > If that's not intellectual dishonesty, I don't know what is. > > Now we know why she can "look into the camera" and say, "I did NOT > comment on a film I had never seen" and imply that if Barry says so, > he's LYING. > > Same phenomenon -- intellectual dishonesty. >
