--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq, Turq, Turq, > that is a totally excellent understanding of the > roadrunner as metaphor. I might have to dedicate my > next poem to you for that one. > > When I just now saw Judy's first post of the week, I > thought "What do you bet it's a put-down of Turq?" > Too bad I didn't have millions to bet or some wiling > fool to bet with cause the odds were astronomically in > my favor. > > While settling into my ring-side seat, I'd like to > suggest that she's right with some, though by no means > all, of her objections.
Actually I made only one objection, Angela. But why don't you expand a bit and tell us what you all my objections were, along with your considered opinion about which were right and which weren't, and why? > And even when she's right, she's missing your intention. Er, no, I was confirming that his intention was correct while pointing out that it was entirely in line with what Lawson was saying. Barry thought he was *criticizing* Lawson, because Barry does not understand either what Lawson was saying, or how the TM researchers study samadhi. If you disagree, why don't you tell us what you think Barry's intention was? Even so, of course, > there was absolutely no need for her final paragraph > in which she indulges in an unwarranted personal > attack by means of a generalization about your > supposed inability to understand research. I've been telling Barry for some time that he needs to pay some attention to what the research actually involves before sounding off on it, because he virtually always gets it all fouled up. Oh, and don't bother to hold onto your ringside seat, because Barry won't be responding to my post (at least not substantively).
