--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> > wrote: > > > > Fallacy of quoting out of context > > Please note that the person who has been whining > about others "piling on" to posts critical of her
Um, I haven't been doing that. What I've been doing is *mocking* Barry's dittoheads do.rkflex and Sal. <snip> > As for the concept of "out of context" quotes, ALL quotes > are out of context. > > There is *no possibility* of providing the "full context" of > any quote, made by anyone, unless you provide the > "context" of every moment of their lives. Truism, and irrelevant. <snip> > For example, let's see these two find a "context" that > "explains away" the following quote, made by someone > who often writes 20 posts a day attempting to "nail" other > posters on this forum, and "prove" that their words reveal > something terrible about their *real-life* character and > actions and integrity or lack thereof. The above and the rest of Barry's post is based on what he knows is a false distinction in this context (unless he's REEEEELY REEEEELY STOOOOPID). Posting here *is* a part of one's "real life." It doesn't somehow occur in a vacuum. But it may or may not reveal anything about how posters behave *elsewhere than on this forum*. I've made that point before, including about Barry. The correct distinction, as noted, is between how people behave here and how they behave elsewhere (including, possibly, on other forums, as well as how they behave when they aren't posting, i.e., with their friends, associates, etc.). That's what I was referring to in what he goes on to quote. He knows that; he's hoping readers won't be able to figure it out because of the deceptive way he's framed it. As Barry knows--and *unlike* him--I rarely attempt to characterize how FFL posters behave elsewhere than here. > It is not unfair to say that doing this is this person's > "life work." Um, yes, it is unfair (unless Barry's willing to turn it around and apply it to himself as well). She has been doing this by making 50 to 300 posts > *per week* on Fairfield Life and alt.meditation.transcendental > for over 15 years now. She has announced in the past that she > sees her whole *purpose* One of my purposes. on these forums as revealing the > lies and intellectual dishonesty of those she considers liars > and dishonest. She has said that she considers Andrew > Skolnick's "tribute" site to her, which is nothing *but* a > compilation of her quotes designed to show that the person > she's trying to "nail" is deficient in some way *in real life* to > be a "badge of honor." > > And yet a little over a month ago, she said, in response to > Ruth's suggestion Actually it was Edg's suggestion. that all such attempts at demonization > over the Internet are projection: > > "Anybody who assumes how people behave here > reflects how they behave in real life is deluded." > -- Judy Stein, FFL, 2 June 2009 > > Having said *that*, she then went on to claim that "char- > acterizing how people behave here is no more likely to be > projection than characterizing how they behave in real > life if one *knows* them in real life." In context, I was (as Barry knows) using "real life" to mean *elsewhere than on this forum*. I stand by both statements. > Judy knows NO ONE HERE in real life. That is, elsewhere than on this forum. I do know the part of posters' real lives that is represented by their posts here. The part Barry doesn't want anybody to think about is the second part of the quote--that characterizations of how people behave when they're posting to this forum are as likely to be accurate as characterizing how they behave elsewhere if one knows how they behave elsewhere. > Therefore, *in context*, do we have any choice but to > believe that *by her own definition* Judy understands > that she is deluded, but keeps not only perpetuating > but attempting to *glorify* her delusion anyway? Yes, we have the choice to believe Barry's trying to pull a fast one. I've said before--including about Barry--that people's behavior when they aren't posting to this forum may be entirely different from what it is when they *are* posting here. And unlike Barry, as noted, I rarely attempt to characterize how posters behave when they're not posting here. > Sure seems that way to me...in context. > > If she disagrees, and attempts to make the case that > *she* is somehow an *exception* to her own statement > above, and that her characterizations of others really > **DO** reflect accurately on how they behave in real life, > then I think we are all equally "exceptions," and are > entitled to characterize *her* continued posting habits > on this forum and extrapolate from them what that > means about who and what she is in real life. You're entitled to say anything you choose here. The issue is whether you realize your extrapolations are no more than *speculation*, subject to error. That's what I was pointing out in the post you quoted above. I usually *don't* speculate about what a poster is like when they aren't posting here. Barry does, frequently; but unlike me, he's never, to my knowledge, acknowledged that whoever he's attacking in his extrapolations might behave very differently elsewhere. One can point out factual errors in such extrapolations, although no one who doesn't know the person whose behavior is being extrapolated knows for sure whether they're really errors. One can also, however, point out extrapolations that are errors *on their face*: > "My analysis of this person's posting habits -- especially > the fact that the only indication of pleasure we ever see > in her posts is when she believes that she has "nailed" > one of her enemies This is inaccurate on its face. Anyone who reads my posts knows it isn't true. -- indicates to me that in real life > she is a lonely, bitter old woman who is in such a state > of cognitive dissonance over having devoted her life to > the practice and "defense" of a philosophy and technique This is inaccurate. I'm not "lonely" or "bitter" about anything (and Barry's only seven years younger than I am, so he'd best be careful about how he uses the adjective "old"). Also inaccurate on its face is that I've "devoted my life" to the practice and defense of TM. I didn't even start TM until I was 34 years old; and it would be very difficult to believe on the basis of my posts that I'm a full-time TMO person. I devote about two hours a day to TM, plus maybe another hour (often less) to my hobby of posting here; and a large percentage of my posts aren't even *about* anything TMish. > that have done nothing for her that she has to take that > anger out on others, and daily. If she doesn't get her > "I sure nailed him/her that time" fix, she's terrified that > she'll have to turn her anger where it belongs -- towards > herself -- and *admit* that she's wasted her life pursuing > a spiritual path that has left her a bitter 70-year-old > woman That would be 67, not 70, as Barry knows (he keeps very close track of exactly how old I am). > with zero enlightenment, With enough progress in the direction of enlightenment to keep me meditating regularly. And obviously there's been a lot more to my life than what I've spent on TM, so "wasted her life" is another on-its-face error. > zero friends, Many friends. > and zero accomplishments in life, Depends on whether you consider my having supported myself working *for* myself for 33 years and having established an excellent reputation as an editor an accomplishment. only the ongoing "pleasure" of > tormenting others on a regular basis and convincing > herself that she has 'nailed' them so that she can declare > inwardly, 'I win.'" So sorry if I've "tormented" you, Barry. But how could that be if you Don't Give a Shit what other people think of you? And what I declare to myself, inwardly *and* outwardly, is that those I've nailed, like Barry, *lose*. They do it to themselves; all I do is point it out. > There. That's how I would characterize one poster's > "real life" based on their posting history. > > It remains to be seen whether Judy will uphold her > original quote and thus claim that my analysis of her > based on "how she behaves here" truly "reflects how > she behaves in real life" is "deluded," or valid. Well, it's certainly deluded in the aspects I noted where it's invalid *on its face*. And Barry's deluded if he thinks any of the rest of it is anything more than speculation--i.e., if he thinks I *must* be as he describes. No cigar, Barry. Not even a very good try, sorry. You lose. But a fun exercise for me.
