On Apr 5, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote:
On Apr 5, 2009, at 10:27 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
You have plenty of emotion that you express in your positions
here. Neither of us are summing up your objections as stemming
from a psychological problem you have. Is it too much to ask for
this courtesy in return?
In Judy's case, yes. That's apparently the only
way she wants to deal with legitimate objections--
villify the messenger--read their minds--use manipulation
and fake "concern" instead of responding rationally. And then
she accuses others of being "distraught." Which is
why I don't deal with her any more...there's no honor
amongst thieves, or, it would seem, manipulators and phonies.
Yes, you're right, these have been common tactics in the past--all
part and parcel of her overall dishonest approach. Another fave, and
if I'm grokking tidbits in others clippings correctly, is when nailed
on something or particularly when some TM dogmatic point she's VERY
attached to is rent asunder, rather than addressing the actual
intellectual or factual elements of the argument, she'll switch to
some unrelated element in the person: they don't understand stand TM
(as when they no longer use TM speak), their counseling practice,
faulty TM practice, etc. The varieties seem endless, but the pattern
is observable and repeated. It's interesting the person who seems so
fond of telling people they are guilty of non sequiturs is actually
the one who tries to craftily use them herself. Apparently
misdirection must be the only way she can respond when arguments stray
outside of TB/SCI/TM milieu. Sometimes it's better to just shuddup.
Of course she could have some strange vitamin deficiency related to
shoe leather. ;-)
