--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > You are trying to make a case that you can make a low > > level vetting decision and I am not buying it. > > Yes, I know. You're using your "epistemic humility" to > relieve you of the necessity to do any due diligence, > because that way you can continue to hint darkly that > it's all a big scam.
Ahem. If this were true, wouldn't YOU be using your "epistemic hubris" to claim that something *you know nothing about* is *not* a scam? That, after all, is your default position in all of this -- blindly defending a TM paragon who in your opinion has been "unjustly accused." I'm mentioning this because you seem to be -- again -- unable to discern your own *posting trends*. It's as if in your mind you only leap into these frays to "defend someone" when they need defending out of some noble sense of "outraged fairness." But that's not how it really happens. The *trend* that you fail to discern, especially when someone calls you on being a TB, is *what* you choose to defend. Nine times out of ten it's TM, the TMO, Maharishi, or some piece of TM dogma or lore. Seems to me that your *reason* for leaping in to defend David OJ can be argued to have nothing to do with some outraged reaction to "unfairness" on Curtis' part. That's just your "cover story." It seems to me, *based on your posting trends*, that the more likely rationale for getting into shit like this as often as you do, and trying to "kill the messenger" as often as you do, is that what pushes your buttons is, in fact, the "hint" that it's all a scam. IMO you can't allow that suggestion to pass because if it were true YOU are the victim of a scam, and have been for decades. Defending some researcher out of a sense of "fairness" from Curtis' "unfair" suggestions doesn't, after all, explain why you're still up at 1:20 in the morning trying to perpetuate an argument about this. Compulsively defending the actions and/or "good name" of a major figure in the same cult you belong to from suggestions that his "science" is more scam than science does. I'm thinkin' that the thing that really has you still up arguing at 1:20 in the morning is -- besides an insane desire to "beat" Curtis, at *anything* -- is that you intuit that if you allow Curtis' "scam hints" to stand, YOU could be perceived as Just Another Stupid Victim of that scam. And for emotional and ego reasons you can't allow that to happen. Just my opinion. Now you get to present yours. Try to do so this time without declaring whose opinion "won." That's "epistemic hubris," too. The other posters here get to make up their own minds...you declaring what they've decided has nothing whatsoever to do with what they decide. :-)
