--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Impeccable timeline, Judy. How *do* you do it? > > > > > > Well, when Yahoo Advanced Search is working, it isn't that > > > difficult. Sure couldn't do it just from memory. Does take > > > a bit of back and forth, and it does require familiarity > > > with the search options. > > > > Well, I do it from memory. I will naturally notice more > > my inclusion in any of his lists then others here, and > > Ravi was also absent (overposting) for more than a week. > > AFAIK he started being degaratory to me only when putting > > my video in the subject line. And that was long, long time > > after Emily had posted her rant. > > That's right. But *before* I'd responded to any of your > attacks on me that you made after your break.
Nope, after. You came back first, and you also responded first. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > > > > In any case, if he had really just been taking cues > > > > > from others, he might well have taken his anti-zarzari > > > > > cue from *Emily's* post. > > > > > > > > > > Oh, but Emily took her cue from me, right? > > > > Well, that's not what I said, you are making it up now. > > That's why I said, "Right?" I was anticipating, > sarcastically, that that's what you'd say. I get the sarcastic tone, but if I make a sarcastic remark, you demand an answer, like in the case when I said I find it funny you cite me. It is quite obvious that I say this because we are at odds, so, if you need me as a giver of arguments, and take an argument of mine (that I had explicitly given as a background information, with the note that it is not applicaple, then it is funny, right? You don't have arguments of your own) > What > I was doing in this post was eliminating every > possibility that Ravi had attacked you because he > was taking cues from me. The timeline of the > posts just doesn't support that notion. That's not how I remember it and you haven't shown. > > > > > Ooops, no, wait. My first response to your exchange > > > > > with Barry was very mild, hardly denunciatory. > > > > Correct. > > > > > > > It > > > > > wasn't until Robin took after you big-time that I used > > > > > the term "slimy" to refer to your post to Barry. And > > > > > by that time Emily had already given the two of you a > > > > > very thorough tongue-lashing, completely of her own > > > > > accord. > > > > At the time I had to take an announced break, but the basis > > of this was your very unfortunate snipping of my original > > post, you know the one, where you started to lash out after > > my two word 'of course' with the rest of the quote being > > Barry's, and being entirely out of context, and also being > > misinterpreted by you and consequently by Emily, and which > > resulted into a series of mis-attributions of quotes by > > Barry. > > Emily didn't misinterpret, She did, as I did not even mention NPD. > and that's not why Robin > misattributed the quotes. No, that was because of the way you had snipped the posts. You are the first one to complain if people snip stuff away from your posts, right, you do it all the time. Therefore it was hard for me to believe what I saw. I claim that the snipping was deliberate and mean. > Plus which, you just agreed > that that post of mine was very mild. If it was > "lashing out," it was very restrained in that regard. It wasn't directly aggressive yet. But the snipping was not justified, it was misleading, and you justify it as something irrelevant, which is again total rubbish. > You misunderstood the basis for my response to your > "Of course." I tried to explain it to you when you > emailed me privately to object, but you didn't get it. It's not that I didn't get it. You email was from the start aggressive, which surprised me. You admitted being very angry (which you don't do here on board) It's not that I 'didn't get' it, it is just that we disagree about its validity. The whole mis-attribution started because of it, you just were winding with extremely sophistic arguments, that were no explanations at all. It should be self evident, that in any dialoque the correct quoting matters. So if people get to thing that I said something that I didn't say this way, than this is obviously wrong, dishonest if you want. Your only arguments, which are extremely sophistic were, that what I had said before would amount to the same, but that is already your judgment which you mistake for evidence. I couldn't believe you make such insidious argumentation. When people attributed wrong quotes to me, addressed ME about it and started to judge ME about it, you thought you could get away with it by claiming that their arguments where only about the subject, and would therefore relate in this case to Barry. That's really, really very wrong, because if you cannot make proper attributions to quotes, and WHAT was actually said, then any discussion becomes meaningless. Furthermore you substituted the evidence (what I actually said), with your conclusion (that it doesn't matter, as it would amount to the same). That's a very devious way of argumentation. Your whole line of argument is throughout mixed with moralistic qualitative statements, with mindreadings, also here in this dialog and constant speculation of 'why' (motives) I would do or say something. One more thing, please take note of it, as this is the last mail I am going to write to you: Your tactics is, as others have already pointed out, others like Curtis and Barry, but Curtis even better, but again before you lash out on me, IT IS MY OWN OBSERVATION as well, you tactics is to go with your opponent into one of these endless discussions, where you literally split up the discussion to go into small issues, very often issues not important to the WHOLE. With this you try to wear down the opponent, attacking him with moralistic and emotional subjectives,in order to provoke him, and in the hope that he will give up, so that you can declare 'victory'. This is of course ridiculous, because, who is there to decide who has won? Right, nobody, with the exception of your fan-base, who keeps ready for such interceptions. It is like Barry says, you don't see the WHOLE any more just small details, you don't see the forest for the trees, as the proverb goes. And in your case, you even chop up the trees, and toss them around, to but them out of context, and finally concentrate on a minor detail, and finally try to find something, to declare that the other person 'lied'. Then in your vocabulary, he becomes a *notorious liar* Now, I do not want to be unfair, you can see the whole, you can have insights, but that is more likely the case regarding subjects you are favorable disposed to, and persons, you like, who didn't yet make it to your enemy list. I am also not saying that these persons couldn't oppose your views, but for whatever reasons, due to the *wrong association* (for example with Barry), or due to some verbiage, he comes on your enemy list, then you start out to get on him no matter what, and then deception and tricks are allowed. You will of course not admit it and ask me to 'prove' it, but see, Judy, I am not forced to do that. I am only giving you the reason why I react as I do. I have found that out, because you were just mind-reading a little bit too much, and I know of course best what is in my mind, so to say, so I could figure fairly well what you are doing, I don't have to prove it to myself, I know it now, and that's why I don't give you any go. > I was calling your attention to the absurdity of > *Barry's* statement, of its logical structure, not > the content. Then I addressed the content by > pointing out that his premise was inaccurate as well. Again this is sophistry, as this was not the topic at all. We were not discussing Barry, there was no need to do so, no you just made a logic fallacy. > Emily was responding to both you and Barry, and what > she was objecting to was your *labeling*, whether > with NPD or BPD. I didn't use BPD either, this I only used now in the case of Ravi, and only as he himself brought it up. The only word that I had used carefully, with all the necessary caution that I don't know, that I am not a psychiatrist, was the term 'borderline'. I looked it up again and there are indeed definitions about it that vary, but the way I had thought about it was very much what the linguistic suggest, as of the border of something. Maybe you have the opinion that it amounts to the same, but I disagree. As borderline (I am sorry if I have to use it here now again) is NOT the same as NPD. > She used NPD--which Barry had used-- > as an example, but she found both labels unacceptable. She didn't speak of other labels. It is simply in now way acceptable, make all this confusion that you did, and then say it amounts to the same. This is only the matter of a judgment, possibly the result of a discussion, and it doesn't follow on its own. Yet you deprive me of the right that my words are addressed in their proper context. And that is insidious. > It was the fact of the labeling, not the specific > label, that she was objecting to. Yet the context always matters. I have already pointed out that we all use labels all the time. Emily only spoke of labels in general, next when addressed you said it is only about 'medical' labels, a condition you didn't make before, nor Emily did, only she introduced it AFTER, possibly being informed by you. Now we can quarrel if borderline is a proper medical term or not. Crazy is not a medical term either, one has to define it and see it in the context. But it is the context you snipped away, and Emily addressed exactly those points, that I had anticipated, like that I am not a psychologist, that I can not be sure of it, that it is simply an opinion and that I may be wrong. Her questions were exactly that: how I could say this with certainty, how can I know it (I cannot), if I am a psychologist (I am not) etc. > The part I snipped from your post would not have > made any difference to her objection (or to mine). I just explained why it makes a difference. If words do not make a difference, we do not have to discuss anymore. If our care full explanation that something is only a private opinion, doesn't make a difference, I don't know what does? You are just using a conclusion which you make, and use it as an argument. I do not agree. > Again, I tried to explain this to you privately, > but you didn't understand. Please note the difference between not understanding and not agreeing. You obviously don't understand that this is not the same. Given your exposure and experience at discussion boards I find that very strange. The, it is like at court, if a testimony is wrong, it is wrong and cannot be the basis for a sentence. So, if the basis is wrong everything is wrong. > > > > > And Ravi didn't start going after you until you'd > > > > > come back after your little vacation. That was *after* > > > > > you'd already made several posts attacking me, but > > > > > before I'd had a chance to respond. > > > > Well, I am not aware of those attacks, but I may have missed > > them. > > Which attacks? Ravi's? You just cited them above, > the ones about your video. And obviously you didn't > miss your own attacks on me. So you aren't making > any sense here. Are you provocating again, or why are you so aggressive. If we discuss anything about the time, which is also more or less a distractive discussion, then it is important to know which quote one relates to. I meant Ravi's attacks, but forget it. > > The ones I remember, where after you had gone ballistic. > > I went ballistic in our *private exchange*, so > obviously that couldn't have influenced Ravi. I > didn't go after you in public until *after* Ravi > did, after your break, in response to the attacks > you'd made on me. Nope, you clearly made remarks which were derogatory in tone about me, before he came back. > The single harsh post I made about you before your > break was my post to Robin correcting his attributions, > the one in which I called what you'd said in your > exchange with Barry "slimy." And that was *after* > Emily had posted her rant. That I noticed, but is not what I meant. > > But, anyway he is gone, he also took cues from you in > > his whole line of argumentation, like you saying, that > > enlightened ones can't be judged by their behavior, > > He had been making that point all along by > contrasting his behavior with what he claimed > about his inner state. It didn't come from me. Yeah, yeah yeah.. > > a very unwholesome argument for him to use. > > Maybe, maybe not. We have no way of knowing whether > it was "unwholesome." In any case, it's idiotic for > you to blame it on me. See, you say idiotic. I understand, that you mean the argument. It is obvious right? Incidentally I read an exchange we had in my previous incarnation here, where I tried very much to keep friendly relations to you. So I was quite astonished, to see that you suddenly lashed out on me that I used the word not idiotic, but a much softer 'ridiculous' in the same way as you just did here. Now, idiotic is much stronger, and you keep making those ad hominems in our 'dialog' throughout, you do not distinguish, like I do, between irony, or satire, and 'normal' discussion. And to conclude this, I didn't *blame* it on you. I just said he took cues. This is within the larger context I and also Barry had pointed out, that we have a responsibility to not strengthen his delusional states. I think it is very valid. And it was actually one the two arguments Rick gave, why he finally removed him. > You just made the point *yourself* in another post > that MMY had said enlightenment can't be determined > from behavior, so why are you even objecting to it? Typically you take things out of context. I just had spend a whole post to you explaining the difference. > You know, you express yourself in English quite well > considering it isn't your native language. But more > and more I have the sense that your understanding of > what you read isn't adequate to follow what's said > in the kinds of conversations that take place here. > > That's not really your fault; the structure and > semantics and implications and nuances of what's > said in the discussions are in a sort of specialized > style that isn't easy for a nonnative speaker to > interpret, unless the speaker is extremely fluent > and has a lot of experience reading it. It is indeed a problem I am aware off, well, I brought it up to Obba, and I had brought it up many times in the past, so yes, some of the things I say, I have a hard time to express it with the right emotional ring, but listen, I am here around a little longer, so this for me does not explain the whole story. The bottom line for me is, in our discussion, that I had a direct exposure of how exactly you treat people you are angry with. And I see exactly which means you employ, I know it for myself, others here, for example Curtis have seen this as well, and have a much better ability to point it out to you than I have. The main disadvantage that I have is not the misunderstanding, as words can be looked up, and I can also take cues from the context. The main problem is that it is more difficult to get subtle points across. For example if you say, that my argument is idiotic, I can gauge it fairly well, what kind of tone you employ, as we have the same word in our language. Or if you say I am a coward, I can also understand what you mean, and I can determine the emotional content quite well. > E.g., with my sarcastic question above, "But Emily > took her cue from me, right?" a native English > speaker wouldn't have responded as you did, because > they'd have picked up on the sarcasm. No response > was called for, because I went on to answer my own > question: No, Emily couldn't have been taking her > cue from me. At most they might have responded with > something like, "No, that isn't what I was thinking." > > So I suspect you may be missing more than you realize. > It might be a good idea for you not to be so quick > to jump to conclusions about what people are saying. > When something someone says strikes you as wrong or > peculiar, you might try asking, "You said such-and-such. > Did you mean [insert your interpretation], or have I > misunderstood?" I will certainly not ask you about it. I clearly can see you insulting and patronizing tone here as well. There is no way, that we can come to any common basis or conclusion. Forget it. Even though I might sometimes get details not quite right with the emotional tone, I can still see your whole performance here. There are others here to judge as well, and they have already given their conclusions. I'll add mine here. I can now understand Curtis and Barry so much better. One has to really go to the other side to see this. (Yes, really go, not just pretend to go). I don't fit in your box anymore, I would feel very, very uncomfortable. And maybe you take cues from someone you like a little more than me, MZ had a very good advice, to try to see a post as a WHOLE, and try to understand the origin of it, try to understand were the person is really coming from, and what he wants to really express. Go to the depth of it. (This actually being the advise of Maharishi to the lecturers) Maybe you could try it. Now, as I have planed long before, and independent of this particular events, I will unsubscribe. No need for you to answer this.
