--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > My point, Lawson, is that you dodged > > the question, as did Judy. She said > > something completely different, and > > *claimed* that she had answered the > > question. > > Here's what I said to Geeze, before I had > even seen Barry's demand: > > > We all make our best guess on the basis of our > > intellect and experience. We may have somewhat similar > > experiences of the externals, but we may interpret > > those experiences differently. Maybe we're right, > > maybe we're wrong. But to suggest only *one* > > interpretation is a function of using one's noggin > > makes no sense. You don't have any more of a lock on > > The Truth than the TMers do. > > > > > I don't "believe" much of anything; that's why I refer > > to my support of TM and its teachings as working > > hypotheses. > > <snip> > > All that you would be doing is admitting > > the *possibility* that you could be > > wrong, and I don't think you can do it. > > > > That's my theory. > > > > Prove me wrong. > > Done.
NOT done. Type the words: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > My point, Lawson, is that you dodged > > the question, as did Judy. She said > > something completely different, and > > *claimed* that she had answered the > > question. > > Here's what I said to Geeze, before I had > even seen Barry's demand: > > > We all make our best guess on the basis of our > > intellect and experience. We may have somewhat similar > > experiences of the externals, but we may interpret > > those experiences differently. Maybe we're right, > > maybe we're wrong. But to suggest only *one* > > interpretation is a function of using one's noggin > > makes no sense. You don't have any more of a lock on > > The Truth than the TMers do. > > > > > I don't "believe" much of anything; that's why I refer > > to my support of TM and its teachings as working > > hypotheses. > > <snip> > > All that you would be doing is admitting > > the *possibility* that you could be > > wrong, and I don't think you can do it. > > > > That's my theory. > > > > Prove me wrong. > > Done. NOT done. Type the words: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > My point, Lawson, is that you dodged > > the question, as did Judy. She said > > something completely different, and > > *claimed* that she had answered the > > question. > > Here's what I said to Geeze, before I had > even seen Barry's demand: > > > We all make our best guess on the basis of our > > intellect and experience. We may have somewhat similar > > experiences of the externals, but we may interpret > > those experiences differently. Maybe we're right, > > maybe we're wrong. But to suggest only *one* > > interpretation is a function of using one's noggin > > makes no sense. You don't have any more of a lock on > > The Truth than the TMers do. > > > > > I don't "believe" much of anything; that's why I refer > > to my support of TM and its teachings as working > > hypotheses. > > <snip> > > All that you would be doing is admitting > > the *possibility* that you could be > > wrong, and I don't think you can do it. > > > > That's my theory. > > > > Prove me wrong. > > Done. NOT done. Type the words you so carefully snipped: "There is a possibility that the TM critics here are right and I am wrong." and press Send. THEN you'll be done. Until you do that, you have not replied to the test as stated; you have "talked around it" and evaded responding to it as stated. If you honestly consider what you wrote *equivalent* to "There is a possibility that the TM critics here are right and I am wrong," you should have no problem typing those words in and pressing Send. Right? We'll wait.
