Xeno, both Barry and Judy are equally at fault regarding this highly dysfunctional relationship. Barry teases, taunts, insults and acts as the baiter. Judy is rude, abrasive, undiplomatic and acts as the avenger.
Barry and Judy are like the electron and proton in the hydrogen atom. In a certain dark way, they complete each other. Barry often talks about the "motives" others rather than comment on the substance of the post. Judy often talks about the "stupidity" others rather than gently point out the post. Barry often calls people 'stalkers'. Judy often calls people 'liars'. > --- "anartaxius" <anartaxius@..> wrote: > > It is kind of a habit from reading scientific papers. > Because scientists are uncertain, they always use language > that waffles, using words like 'may', or 'perhaps', or > 'if'. You may notice I do that rather frequently. When I > listen to politicians, I generally assume something is > going to be lying, for example Obama's recent 'red line' > backtracking. When it comes to politicians in the U.S., > Democrats and Republicans alike are pretty much equal > opportunity liars. Maureen Murphy, an American politician > said the reason there were so few femaile politicians was > it was too much trouble to put makeup on two faces. > > > Frankly, just as you seem to find my comments > disingenuous, I find the way you generally respond to > people also disingenuous, mostly combative. Presumably you > are interested in spirituality. Who or what is being > 'insulted'? It is just that inbred pest called the ego. > The ego always has an axe to grind and swing. The ego > thinks it is a 'person', that it has rights, this is our > biggest problem in spirituality. It is more of a process > than a thing, it is not an entity. If a person's identity > is pure consciousness, there is no one to be insulted. I > am not saying I cannot take offense or be annoyed etc., > but those who repeated take offense at what the world > throws at them are spiritual cretins, and I hope you are > not one of those, but to me you do not speak like a person > who is interested in the spiritual nature of life, and > yet, you are apparently reading about it a lot, and in > various kinds of discussions, but I simply do not see much > spiritual depth in what you say (but it is a relief that > you are not constantly saying what a great life you are > leading and how many famous people have crossed your > path). > > > Your method of argumentation does not build, it takes > down, much in the same way Barry's comments in reference > to you are a take down. You two are a strange marriage > made in heaven. I say heaven because if heaven makes > people such snipers, it is certainly not such a great > place to be. > > > From my perspective, you basically engage in the same > tactics as those you oppose. You shift context under the > pretense of maintaining context; you snip relevant parts > of arguments declaring them to be irrelevant. That is how > it appears to me. Maybe you do not experience that you are > doing these things at all. When I shift context, it is > more inadvertent, because I really do not care that much > about narrowly defined context. You might try spreading > you wings and go off on tangents once in a while to see > what comes up. I find it interesting to watch moths in > flight - they never go in a straight line, in a world of > predators, they deviate from directness. So it is on this > thing we call the Internet, where trolls lie in wait. > > > I am here being critical of you, whatever that 'you' is > for you. If you would only apply your skills in a more > uplifting way, and not be so critical of people's > ineptness, minor mistakes, their opacity, and have if you > had a more relaxed agenda, you would be a brilliant poster > here, but for now, I think you use your skills in a rather > dark way, so that brilliance has a tarnish to it. Your > argument style has a strong polemical element, which is > better suited to the political arena, where lairs lie, > than in forums discussing knowledge. It is only when you > are kissing up to someone like Robin that you go a bit > squishy. A certain softness is required when dealing with > people except in extreme circumstances. > > > Perhaps both are perspectives are distorted. What do > others think of this exchange? We are not always the best > judge of our own behaviour. >
