Oooops. What was supposed to be a "paste in the right version and delete the wrong version" turned out to be "paste in multiple versions of the post." My bad. Here's the only one that should have been posted:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> 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.
