--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > 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.
Another way you can tell a real liar is that they eagerly agree with lies told by others, as Vaj does here with Sal, and expand on them, as Vaj does below. They are especially good at snipping inconvenient context, as Sal did with Curtis's post when she carefully deleted what he had said to me just before what she quotes: "You have plenty of legitimate challenges to both of our POVs here." Note in Vaj's compendium of lies below, he uses the tactic I just mentioned, the vague, nonspecific charge with no documentation: > 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. Vaj is well aware that this isn't true. The *fact* is that while I do make some personal comments, I don't make them *instead* of legitimate challenges (as Curtis observed). Vaj thinks it's to his advantage to focus on the personal comments and pretend I substitute them for substantive ones. Goodness knows he's been on the receiving end of many, many substantive challenges from me. Typically he can't respond to them, of course. > 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. More of the same. Just flatly untrue. Again, Vaj's attempt at misdirection here is obvious. It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
