--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > (snip) > > > > > > No, I haven't read Life Divine. > > > > > > > > > > I thought so. > > > > > > > > > > > I'm going by your description > > > > > > of it, which, for anyone who understands Robin's POV, > > > > > > rules out any possible interest on Robin's part. > > > > > > > > > > Translation: I have nothing constructive to contribute, > > > > > > > > Translation: Letting navashok know he's wrong about something > > > > is not anything he considers constructive. > > > > > > So how exactly would you know he is wrong, not having read > > > the book? > > > > I already told you how. Go back and read what I wrote again, > > see if you can find it. > > You are not saying anything constructive. If you want, why > don't you just try again?
First you show me you were able to find where I told you how I knew you were wrong. > > > Navashok thinks that this book, or one of the other books by > > > Aurobindo, could be useful/interesting to Robin. Why not let > > > Robin decide, if he follows this suggestion or not? > > > > What makes you think I can somehow keep him from deciding > > whether he wants to read it? > > Didn't say this, did I? You sure did. "Why not let Robin decide?" > > I haven't been addressing him, > > I've been addressing you. Robin reads what he wants to > > read. > > Exactly, you are not even in the picture. (guffaw) Non sequitur. > > > Since you don't even know about what the book is. > > > > See above. > > Non sequitur Not. Lack of reading comprehension on your part. > > > Almost none of your posts is constructive. Because you are > > > always so guarded to not actually say something concrete, > > > so you always have a back-door and can twist it later, to > > > 'win' your arguments. > > > > That's a bullshit excuse for your inability to "win" the > > arguments you start with me. Don't blame me for your > > problems comprehending English. > > > I think you are a little out of sync. This post wasn't addressed > to you at all, it was to Share, (Who hasn't a clue whether Robin would have an interest in reading Aurobindo.) and mentioned Robin. You weren't > in the picture at all. So how exactly would I have started an > argument with you? I told you Robin wouldn't be interested, and you started arguing with me--obviously.
