jeez, what is wrong with you? telling someone they don't have the *right* to respond to you in a particular way? if that isn't a rigid and fundamentalist view, i don't know what is. when you express your thoughts like that, you come across as someone with a bigger stick up the bum than anyone in the TMO.
your rigidity and close-mindedness makes you one of the biggest pussies on this board. you insist this and insist that, all the while telling others how they should interpret experience. yeah, you're a real out of the box thinker alright, TB. what a joke. just keep arguing for your limitations, and swinging blindly at your straw men. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > How 'bout it. It's a VERY simple question. Are > > > you willing to agree with Geezerfreak's state- > > > ment above, in the converse? Are you willing to > > > state categorically in public, "There is a > > > possibility that the TM critics here are right > > > and I am wrong?" > > > > > > Any of the above-listed posters who fail to > > > answer are IMO pussies. > > > > > > They can answer "Yes" or they can answer "No, > > > but failure to answer in this case can and IMO > > > should be interpreted as a big, fat "No." And > > > IMO *that* should be interpreted as fundament- > > > alism and the non-response of the "cultwhipped." > > > > What's the criticism? > > > > Judy and most other "TBers" on this forum agree with the > > TM critics on certain points already. On others, they disagree > > vehemently. SO, here's the converse question: > > > > could it be that the TBers are right afterall? > > You didn't answer, pussy. > > When you answer my question with a "Yes" > or "No" answer, then you have the right > to pose a diversionary question of your > own. Not until. >
