--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Me: This is a difference we have had in the past. You seen > > > unable to distinguish a person's attack on an idea with a > > > personal attack. I have not made any statement about what I > > > think of you as a person if you decide you want to embrace the > > > idea that looking at your turds is harmful. I am saying that > > > this belief is misguided, wrong, nonsense,like much information > > > from pre-scientific societies. > > <snip> > > > Your characterization of my belief > > > as howling and barking, the vocalizations of dogs, is personally > > > insulting in every culture I know. > > > > So your characterization of Jim's belief as "misguided, > > wrong, and nonsense" isn't an attack on Jim; but Jim's > > characterization of your belief as "howling and barking" > > *is* an attack on you. > > > > How does that work, exactly? I sure don't know > > how I would make that distinction. > > I suspect that your last sentence is what we in > the writing business call "stating the obvious." > You *don't* know how to make that distinction. > Neither does Jim.
Oops, you should have read Curtis's response. As he recognized, I was commenting on his phrasing, and he agreed that it didn't make the distinction he had been aiming for. > *Both* of you reacted to my silly Aphorisms as if > I had attacked the *belief systems*, when what they > were really were a set of snarks about the common > actions of the *believers*. Yet you claimed: > > > The more spiritual aphorisms you come up with > > in an attempt to discredit spiritual paths, the > > angrier you are about your own inability to find > > one of your own. A "path" is whatever one is following, of course, even if one has made it up oneself. Your tortured attempt to squeeze out a distinction is hilariously bogus. > And Jim claimed: > > > Those that contnuously claim there is nowhere to go, > > go nowhere. > > I don't think that *either* of those claims is borne > out by the post being replied to. > > I think that what both of your replies represent is > a common cult technique called "Whenever the actions > or beliefs of the followers of a cult are called > into question, try to characterize the questioner > as attacking the cult (or religion or belief system) > itself." Naah. Your claim here is *your* common technique when you're made fun of for trashing other people's beliefs: blame it on the "cult" you fantasize the critics belong to, as if there could be no other motivation for mocking your compulsive putdowns. But oddly enough, just a few posts back you were claiming: "In my experience, I think I learned more from and benefited more from those moments in which I was able to laugh at my own assholiness than I ever did from all that talk about holiness." Now, *that's* funny!
