When he wrote this post on Thursday, Barry was still smarting mightily from being caught in one mistake after another in a Tuesday post designed to show off his tech savvy (and, not incidentally, to demean mine).
So what does this paragon of spirituality, who lectures us all constantly on our bad behavior and negative emotions and delusions, do to relieve his own annoyance? Naturally, he makes up a load of horsesh*it to throw at me in retaliation for my *factual* post pointing out the howling errors in his post about the Salon redesign. When Barry posts horsesh*t (when doesn't he?), I usually refer to it as "fantasizing," to leave an element of doubt as to whether he believes what he's saying. In this case, though, he's just lying. He's posted this same rant probably a dozen times (although he's hoping Hugo never saw it, and its rebuttal), and each time I've corrected the falsehoods. The facts are amply documented in the record. Of all the statements he makes below, only two are factual: that I hadn't seen the film, and that it wasn't necessary to see the film to make the observation I made about Gibson. Everything else is false, and he knows it's false. (If anybody's interested, I'll be happy to repost the refutations thereof, with documentation.) And we don't laugh this person off the forum when he tells us how to be spiritual?? In a more recent post, he wrote: > People say that they dislike lying. They're lying. > Either that or they are fools who have never realized > the important part that lying plays in everyday life. We already know lying plays an *extremely* important part in Barry's life, at least on FFL (and before that on alt.m.t, and also on Knapp's TMFree blog). Notice the black-and-white formulation (wasn't he extolling shades of gray in a recent post?) that fails to account for the very obvious fact that there is a wide range of types of lies. One type *is* indispensable in everyday life; we all tell these types of lies. They grease the social skids and are generally quite benign. And then there are the types of lies Barry tells: the malicious ones, intended to do harm, like the ones he tells in the post I'm responding to: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: <snip> > As an example of how easily people with weak > minds can be programmed to believe they've had > an experience they have not, one might consider > the example of someone convincing themselves > that Mel Gibson's film "Apocalypto" reveals him > to be a "Christian bigot," based *solely* on > something she had read. The person who did this > "manufactured the experience" of "knowing" that > Gibson was a bigot and *continues to defend* that > she "knows" he is a "Christian bigot," even though > she has *still* never had the personal experience > ofseeing the movie. She has, in fact, hallucinated > seeing the movie based on the "roadmap" of an > article she read and chose to believe was > accurate. > > Furthermore, she will defend "knowing" that Mel > Gibson is a "Christian bigot" till her dying day > rather than *admit* that she was programmed by > something she read to believe that she had the > experience of "knowing the truth" about Gibson. > As she has said many times, she doesn't *need* > to ever see the movie to know the truth. She > already knows it...based *solely* on what she > was told to believe. > > I think that the metaphor she was searching for > above is that she believes in roadmaps that con- > vince you to believe what you already want to > believe. Given her clear example, it doesn't > *matter* whether you've ever "been there" or not, > as long as you can convince yourself that reading > about it is just as good as having been there. > > :-)
