I love this woman! Alpha female of FFL! I bow!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon <mdixon.6569@> wrote:
> >
> > Looks like you *did* get something out of TM... Let it go
> > and take it as it comes. But then, maybe you've always
> > lived that. I don't read enough Barry posts to know
>
> I have, I do, and he hasn't. He used to be as argumentative
> as anyone else here. He was on alt.meditation.transcendental
> too.
>
> Thing is, he isn't *good* at arguing. His grasp of logic is
> poor, to say the least, and his memory stinks. The only way
> he knew (and still knows) how to argue is by using exaggeration,
> distortion, and outright falsehood.
>
> He kept getting called on his failures to make a solid case,
> and some years back he finally realized he'd be better off
> pretending he was so egoless he didn't *need* to argue or
> defend his opinions. Not long after that he started
> proclaiming his "Do Not Read List," which enabled him to
> pretend he wasn't responding to the posts of certain people
> because he didn't read their posts, when actually his Do
> Not Read List was composed of people whom he knew he couldn't
> out-argue.
>
> At one point a week or so ago, he announced that he had
> *started* reading all the posts again, and he began to
> respond to those on his Do Not Read List.
>
> But his replies were insane, ridiculously over the top,
> out of control, completely out of touch with reality.
>
> He has apparently realized he was making himself look
> terrible, so he's gone back to his earlier stance and
> is pretending it's one he's always taken, seemingly
> hoping everyone has already forgotten his brief departure
> from it and how disastrous that was.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> , but I have a feeling that post is going to generate a lot of arguing, LOL!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 12:31 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Does the size of one's ego equate to their "need
> > to argue?"
> >
> > Â
> >
> > I find myself pondering this in my writing cafe this evening, because as
> > far as I can tell, given the extent of my "eavesdropping French," no one
> > at this cafe is arguing about *anything*. The closest anyone came to it
> > was to have a minor dispute about which wine to order with their dinner,
> > and that was resolved amicably by appealing to the gods of chance
> > (flipping a coin) rather than by an "appeal to authority" or an
> > assertion of "My opinion about this is better than yours, and that's
> > that."
> >
> > Yet on this forum (judging from the posts I skip these days but can grok
> > the essence of just from their first words in Message View), some people
> > not *only* seem to have a constant need to argue, they *also* seem to
> > have a corollary need to portray anyone who *won't* argue with them as
> > "broken" or "defective" or "bad" in some way.
> >
> > Go figure.
> >
> > From my point of view, the desire to argue indicates attachment. Period.
> > Full stop.
> >
> > Those who are SO attached to their point of view that they feel the need
> > to argue it and assert its dominance over other points of view are
> > *attached* to that point of view. They *identify* with that point of
> > view, and confuse it with "who they are."
> >
> > But, to carry the rap one step further, the *need* to argue indicates a
> > horribly corpulent ego, and narcissism...and one steaming shovelful of
> > both.
> >
> > The *ultimate* expression of ego -- and the neediness that drives such
> > people to assert their ego's supremacy over all others -- is IMO those
> > who argue (literally) that anyone who isn't willing *to* argue with them
> > *has something wrong with them*.
> >
> > From my point of view, that's completely backasswards. It's those who
> > continually feel the need to assert their ego's silly ideas and beliefs
> > as "better" or "more valid" than other people's who just might have
> > something wrong with them.
> >
> > Such people really don't "get" it when they encounter someone who is
> > able to put their opinion on a subject into one post, and then is
> > *through*. If someone wants to reply to it and present a contrary
> > opinion, that's just fine with them, but they don't feel any need to
> > respond, or to "defend" their opinion. It *IS*, after all, just opinion.
> >
> > But some get SO attached to their ego's opinions that they come to
> > believe that if any of them are challenged, that is somehow almost a
> > challenge to their ego's existence. Can't have that. :-) Gotta try to
> > badger such people into an argument, or insult them into an argument, or
> > actually slander them into an argument, as some here have done.
> >
> > Seems kinda silly to me. Stopping my writing and eavesdropping again for
> > a few minutes, I can tell that it seems kinda silly to the Parisians in
> > this cafe with me, too.
> >
> > Compare and contrast to those whose words to St. Peter, when asked to
> > relate their achievements back on Earth as an "entrance exam" to qualify
> > for admission to Heaven, will probably have to be, "I never once lost an
> > argument on the Internet." Is that SAD, or what? If he's really
> > compassionate, St. Peter will resist the urge to dispatch such people
> > immediately to "the other place," realizing that they've already spent
> > their entire lives there.
> >
>
