--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 4, 2008, at 2:05 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > You'll see lots of dodges and techniques if > > you keep "discussing things" with Judy, Angela. > > Just keep one thing in mind...Judy always wins. > > Everyone on the forum doesn't. I don't like getting in > the middle of these silly things, but Judy pegged Angela-- > a thoroughly unpleasant character, or something like that. > And you're playing along doesn't say much, Barry. You're > better than that.
Read between the lines, Sal. I don't think much of Angela, either, and what I do think about her tends to EQUATE her with Judy, not distinguish herself from Judy. They're like clones in my eyes. BOTH are *heavily* attached to their own beliefs, to the point that they feel compelled to argue for them incessantly (as if beliefs could *ever* be "proved" either "right" or "wrong"). BOTH seem to feel equally compelled to "win" these endless arguments. BOTH tend to view their own self *in terms of* these beliefs that they argue about incessantly; their beliefs have become their "self-applied labels." Yes, there is a difference in the rigorous- ness *with which* these two compulsively argue and compulsively claim to "win." Judy thinks that if she appeals to authority enough times, people will believe that *she* has some. Angela tends to believe more in the "authority of self," meaning that if she believes it and says it enough times, people will believe it's true. My post was meant to tweak Judy, Sal, not to support Angela. It worked. She went from having a total of posts this week 20 or more under mine to being several posts over my total in a matter of hours. She's so easy. :-) Like you, I don't buy much of what Angela says just because she says it. I don't buy *any* of what Judy says just because she says it. IMO, she lies just as much as the people she calls "liars," only in her case she lies to herself. Bottom line is that I'm not a big fan of *either* compulsive arguer. I "cast my vote" on the whole Hamlet thang early on, by comparing it to the YouTube clip of the two dueling penises. That is still how I see it -- a total waste of time, except to laugh at. Wasting more time analyzing who is "winning" in such a colossal waste of time seems to me an even more egregious waste of time. One glow-in-the-dark penis uses this style of argument to prove herself "right" and (even more important) prove the other person "wrong." The *other* glow-int-the-dark penis uses a different style of argument to try to accomplish the same thing. But they're both just swingin' dicks in an ego contest in my book. The *only* thing that interests me in such situations is making fun of one or the other or both parties to see if any of the fun I can poke at them can get them to step back and see for *themselves* that all that's going on is a swingin' dickfest.
