This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here (except Xeno) takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.
P.S.: Anyone with two synapses to rub together should be able to figure out Richard's fib here, even if they didn't read my refutation. Richard trolled: > Maybe I missed the documentation of how Judy created a macro in Neo, but it's > not important - what is interesting is Judy's statement below, which > contradicts her previous statement, that the TM mantras are not the names of > the personal gods. If Judy refuted her own statement, can someone post it > here so we can all read it. Thanks. "Richard is lying. I never said anything about "the technique," whatever it is, or was. Nor did I say the bijas weren't "nicknames" of the deities (whatever "nicknames" means in this context)." From: authfriend Subject: OMG: madhuauudana & definition of dhaaraNaa Forum: Yahoo! FairfiedLife Date: November 25, 2013 2:04 PM On 12/10/2013 10:43 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Interesting, but not at all unexpected. After I'd refuted Richard's accusation that I had "fibbed," with documentation, I asked explicitly if anyone could still detect any "fibs." Barry couldn't, of course, because there weren't any (duh). I had done exactly what I had promised to do. So there's Barry, hoist on his own petard, with egg dripping down his face, as usual. And as usual, he simply tells his own fibs and pretends his hopeful fantasy was the reality. Offer is still open, for anybody, including Barry (but not including Richard or Xeno) to find any fibs either in what I had said originally or in my refutation. But you need to specify what the purported fibs are rather than just declare you found some. While I'm at it, another REEEEEEELY STOOOOOPID fib Barry tells in the post I'm commenting on is that I claim to be able to document what I say but never do. Anyone who actually reads my posts knows that I do it frequently, most recently with Share (and not the only time I've done it with her either), and countless times with Barry. Neither of them is capable of admitting they've been caught telling falsehoods. Another offer: Anyone (except Richard and Xeno, but including Barry) who wants to go back to any of Richard's previous (or subsequent) posts that I've responded to with the macro I started using awhile back and demand to see the refutations I promised is welcome to do so. This current one wasn't all that detailed because Richard's fibs weren't that detailed. I use the macro because it's not possible to rationally engage with Richard, as many folks here have discovered. He isn't interested in rational engagement, only in trolling, and in extending an initial troll for as long as he can possibly keep it going. The only way to deal with him is simply to refuse to play his game and make him play it with himself. Barry fibbed:. I just thought it was funny, that's all. The crazy old coot does this all the time -- claim that she *could* document something to prove how RIGHT she is and how WRONG (or LYING) someone else is -- but never has any intention of actually doing it. So I figured I'd take advantage of her blanket offer to see if she'd actually be able to come up with the "detailed refutation" she claimed to be able to write. As I suspected, she wasn't. It was just more lame-o "He's lying" bullshit. More people should call her on this crap. Then as she floundered around trying to get her own petard out of her ass, *perhaps* there might be something about her interesting enough to at least laugh at. :-) >
