--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: <snip> > In all compassion -- really -- I think > that Judy's stance is as old as the "con > game" and as understandable. It's how the > "con game" WORKS, and why it's *always* > worked. > > PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CONNED > DON'T WANT TO ADMIT IT, TO > THEMSELVES, OR TO ANYONE ELSE. > > The more self-importance the conned person > has, the more vehemently they resist admit- > ting that they have been conned. They will > become "apologists" for the con men, will > "defend" them the way that people *who > were conned by Je-Ru* defended him, and > will go to their graves doing so, because > their sense of self-importance is stronger > than their sense of integrity and honesty. > > For such people, it is better to be thought > a fool than to admit to having been one. > > Judy MUST know how ridiculous her stance > in all of this makes her look. But she > continues that stance nonetheless. I think > that my explanation is the only one that > "fits" her behavior.
That's right, it's the only possible explanation. Because we know that there has never been *anybody* who has stuck to their guns in the face of mockery from others unless he or she was WRONG and merely suffering from an exaggerated sense of his/her own self-importance. It just never happens. If other people think the person looks ridiculous for holding a particular stance, it can ONLY be because that person's stance is WRONG, even if it's just a matter of opinion. And the only *possible* reason a person doesn't ADMIT to being wrong when others disagree with him or her is that s/he doesn't have the integrity to acknowledge s/he's been conned. It has never, EVER, in the entire history of the human race, been the case that a person whose views were considered ridiculous by others *has not been WRONG*. It has never, EVER been the case that those cheerleading the ridicule were playing a con game of their own. Whose opinion on an issue is WRONG, after all, is determined *by majority vote*, so there's no room for uncertainty, and certainly no need to examine arguments in favor of anything the majority disagrees with. That would be a waste of time, because the majority view is correct simply by virtue of being the majority view. > Have you EVER known Judy Stein to admit > to having been WRONG, except to a tiny > fact or typo? > > I haven't, either. None of us have. > > Do you think that a person with that level > of self-importance is going to admit to > having been WRONG about the very nature > of the practice she has been doing every > day for 30+ years? ----- "I do not admit the possibility that any point of view can be 'right.' "What I would acknowledge is that your point of view is just as valid as mine." --Barry Wright, less than an hour ago ----- Barry's logic here is unassailable. It's not necessary for him or anyone else to *demonstrate* I've been wrong about anything substantial by engaging me in debate. Merely the fact that I haven't *admitted* to being wrong means not only that I *must* have been wrong about whatever it is that Barry doesn't agree with, but that there's something wrong with *me*. Anybody here remember any of Barry's endless diatribes about how no opinion is better than any other opinion? Anybody remember him explaining to Ruth that not even *science* is to be considered authoritative? Anybody remember his complaints about TBs claiming that there's something WRONG with TM critics because they don't agree with the TBs? Jeez, talk about a con game! And most here will happily go along with it, because it means they don't have to examine their own views, don't have to worry about the possibility that there are any valid objections to those views. I mean, goodness gracious, doing so would mean taking the risk of being *ridiculed*. And that would be a fate worse than death.
