But I think at least once before, and maybe twice, MJ said that Dr. Oz didn't
want to or was afraid to disagree with Oprah. As for issues or traumas, I
saying that if someone can't move on from some circumstance or event in their
past, it means the trauma is still present in them and that will affect their
communications. It's not meant as a put down. It's meant as an honest
response to someone, trying to explain why I might take what they say with a
grain of salt.
It's something I'm trying to learn too. How to work around my issues and
communicate in an effective way. I didn't intend to upset Michael. I think
turq is the only person I consciously try to bother. Mainly by bringing up
jyotish on a regular basis.
________________________________
From: authfriend <authfri...@yahoo.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:13 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
>
> Hey Judy, thanks for the article on Dr. Oz. Totally
fascinating. So much ambition for so much of his life. Ooo, I
would LOVE to see his jyotish chart. I would guess Sun either
in Aries or Leo. Very strong Sun. Big ego. It's always
fascinating to see ambition and idealism combined in one
person. It's like a balancing act. Which aspect will win on
any given day? He is definitely on a mission to help people.
Most importantly to help Dr. Oz.
> When I was talking about issues with reference to MJ, race
> was farthest from my mind. I tend to be very psychological
> in my outlook and those were the kind of issues I was
> referring to. Traumas from childhood, etc.
Traumas from childhood. Hmm. Michael said Oz was afraid to
go against Oprah because Michael had a childhood trauma?
What could that have been, do you think, and how would
that have led him to such a conclusion? I mean, the point
he actually made--that Oz owes Oprah for having given him
his own show--seemed entirely reasonable on its own terms.
Have you ever asked yourself whether it might be a good
idea not to suggest that someone you're disagreeing with
has "deeper issues" without specifying what you thought
the "deeper issues" were?
If you ever did, I can see why you'd have decided against
it. After all, "deeper issues" implies that the person is
fucked up in some way, and if you leave it at that, you
don't have to risk being wrong by proposing anything
specific. You don't even have to have anything specific
in mind; it's just an all-purpose putdown.
But you *do* run the risk of folks thinking you were
implying something really nasty, like, in this case,
an accusation of racism.
All things considered, I'd advise being straightforward
and specific rather than vague and insinuating. It avoids
misunderstandings and bad feelings.
You didn't intend to create bad feelings, now, did you?
> ________________________________
> From: authfriend
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:40 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
> (snip)
> > Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who
> > seems pretty savvy to me, stop being deluded about TMO.
> > This was in addition to saying that Dr. Oz is afraid to
> > disagree with Oprah. This latter statement especially
> > indicates to me that there's a deeper issue present. I've
> > got my issues too so I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But
> > I give less weight to what someone says if it seems to me
> > that there are other deeper issues present.
>
> Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
> a racist.
>
> {snip)
> > I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
> > endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
>
> As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
> questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
> this profile in The New Yorker:
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter
>
