Judy:"I don't tend to argue about the first two things, actually. And the last wasn't so much about the dictionary definition of road rage as it was Curtis's intellectual dishonesty."
Judy's evidence: "And in every single last case, there is no justification whatsoever for their anger. There are no nails, no unskilled drivers on the road. Right, Curtis?" Me: The original post is at the bottom of this post. As far as your claim about me being "intellectually dishonest"... You are so addicted to arguing that you tried to manufacture one out of my post. Since I didn't take the bait, you sling phrases like "intellectual dishonesty. You are just an angry chick who loves to argue Judy, even if it is about nothing. Re: "Defender of the faith" as addiction I come across a lot of "angry wisdom" drivers on the Capital Beltway. They pound on their dashes and point to other drivers as if every lane change is a personal attack on them. I have heard that road rage is a way to feel powerful behind the wheel of a car when the person feels powerless in their personal life. Or maybe "angry wisdom" people are like a person carrying a hammer, so everything looks like a nail to pound on. Feeling as if they are the only skilled drivers on the road and everyone else must be corrected to their "bad driving." "Angry wisdom", man that is a great phrase! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 15, 2006, at 9:46 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > "The alarming fact is that any realization of depth > > carries a terrible burden: Those who are allowed to > > see are simultaneously saddled with the obligation > > to communicate that vision in no uncertain terms.... > > If you have seen, you simply must speak out. Speak out > > with compassion, or speak out with angry wisdom, or > > speak out with skillful means, but speak out you must." > > > > --Ken Wilber > > > > Wow, what a terrible burden it must be to have all that realization of > > depth. I'm just glad you are spewing your angry wisdom to fulfull > > your obligation to communicate that vision in no uncertain terms. If > > you have seen, you simply must speak out! > > > > Your posting that quote made my day. > > > Esp. since Tmer's almost always lack both skillful means and a path > of transformation (i.e. a way to transform negative emotions like > anger, into virtue/"angry Wisdom"). > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > <reavismarek@> wrote: > > > > Responses interleaved: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > > > <reavismarek@> wrote: > <snip> > > > But you've acknowledged that you don't read the > > > exchanges you're complaining about, which > > > necessarily limits your understanding of what's > > > involved. > > ** > > RESPONSE: > > > > No, that contention is absurd. > > It may be wrong, Marek, but it isn't absurd. If > you'll go back to your original post, I think you'll > see how I got that impression. > > <snip> > > In my experience, (and I have read scores, if not hundreds of > > exchanges between you and other, former a.m.t. posters), the > > threads follow the same pattern. My "sampling" method may not be > > 100% accurate but I am satisfied that it is substantially so. > > OK. > > > > > it's been my policy for several months to pass over yours, and > > > > Barry's, and Sparaig's, and Shemp's, as well as a few others. > > > > You all are part of a group that had previously traded barbs > > > > and tirades on a.m.t. for a long while and then started doing > > > > the same here. > > > > > > Yeah, just for the record, it was not I who started > > > the trend here. I was being demonized by the alt.m.t > > > TM critics on FFL well before I arrived, as I discovered > > > when I was reading some of the back traffic to orient > > > myself to the group. > > > > > > I'm curious to know if you're aware of the extent to > > > which TM supporters on this forum are harassed and > > > attacked and viciously mocked by these people when > > > we say anything positive about TM or MMY, or our > > > views are dismissed without consideration simply > > > because we *are* TM supporters. Once in a blue moon > > > someone will speak up in our defense, but it's the > > > exception rather than the rule. > > > > > ** > > RESPONSE: > > > > It doesn't matter who started it, for the record or for any other > > reason. It never matters who started it, no matter what "it" is. > > That is the reasoning of a child. > > I'll disagree with you on that. Sometimes it > matters a great deal who started it. To say it > never matters, IMHO, is a thought-stopper. > > But my point was that I didn't come to this forum > with the intention of continuing the alt.m.t > conflicts, to the contrary. > > <snip> > > People all > > come to their own conclusions and oftentimes reach those > > conclusions for erroneous reasons. And oftentimes people > > will persist in their conclusions even if someone else has > > pointed out to them how wrong they are. That's just life. > > Sure. But there are plenty of folks who read their > posts who may not be in a position to know they're > wrong. > > Nor is it always a matter of "wrong" versus "right." > Sometimes there's no good way to make a determination, > but there is a range of possibilities given what is > known, some more positive than others. If all a > person reads about are the more negative possibilities, > other potential explanations may not occur to them. > > (This kind of response is what Lawson and I do a > lot of, not because we're insisting on the positive > interpretation, but just to point out that there's > more than one way of looking at things.) > > <snip> > > > > And my question to you is: what do you want to achieve by > > > > fighting against the unfairness and dishonestly you find > > > > in the posts of the few individuals on FFL that you so often > > > > engage? For them to become less unfair and dishonest? > > > > > > What do you hope to achieve when you're defending > > > someone you're convinced is innocent and you cross- > > > examine a witness for the prosecution whom you know > > > is lying? > > > > > ** > > RESPONSE: > > > > The same thing that I hope to achieve for every client -- to win > > their freedom or to minimize their time in custody. Guilt and > > innocence is not really my issue. > > OK, strike the guilt or innocence part. But what > you hope to achieve is very similar to what I hope > to achieve, with TM and MMY parallel to the > defendant: to convince the "jury" that there's at > least a basis for reasonable doubt of the defendant's > "guilt" (that being the jury's province, if not > yours). > > And if you're cross-examining a witness whom you > know is lying, part of the process of convincing > the jury that there's reasonable doubt is to > impeach that witness's credibility, is it not? > > > > (Have you detected any progress on > > > > that front?) Do you want those of us who also monitor FFL to > > > > be aware of their dishonesty and unfairness? Do you think we > > > > can't make our own evaluations or come to our own conclusions? > > > > > > If you've come to conclusions similar to mine, you-- > > > or most of you--sure aren't acting like it. > > > > ** > > RESPONSE: > > > > This is, I feel, the crux of the issue for you. Do you wish that > > we express the same level moral outrage at Barry's and Shemp's and > > Vaj's and Curtis' and whomever else's dishonesty and unfairness and > > beat it down whenever it raises its ugly head? > > I think that would be appropriate, yes, but I'd > settle for an indication that folks realized they > weren't to be trusted. > > > Do you wish that Rick ban them from FFL for those transgressions? > > I don't. > > Good grief. No, I don't either. They all have > good things to contribute. > > > (And just hypothetically speaking, if Rick did ban these > > people, do you think that it would take care of the problems > > that you have here on FFL?) > > Actually, I don't view it as my "problems," but it > certainly would take care of most of the problems > others have with me. > > (It was observed here not long after Barry returned > after a "vacation" of several weeks--he had said he > was leaving for good but changed his mind--and had > promptly started fights with me and others that > things had been much more "mellow" while he was gone.) > > Most of the time, when I see something that I > > disagree with, I just pass it one by. Perhaps you see that as > > letting the Republicans win but there are (IMO) better battles to > > engage and with greater consequences than the disputes about which > > style of meditation is better, who is the most (or least) venal > > spiritual teacher, and what the dictionary definition of road rage > > really is. > > I don't tend to argue about the first two things, > actually. And the last wasn't so much about the > dictionary definition of road rage as it was Curtis's > intellectual dishonesty. > > It's not so much a matter of "letting the Republicans > win" as it is demonstrating the tools and approaches > of critical thinking so as to reduce the impact of > dishonesty generally. Too many people simply lack > the analytical skills to see through deception and > chop-logic. The Republicans are just a particularly > egregious current example. > > But those caveats aside, I do think there are points > about TM/the TMO/MMY/TMers that are definitely worth > fighting for, or at least discussing honestly. > > > > > Is your fight here on FFL against unfairness and dishonestly > > > > more of a reflexive reaction to the personalities that you > > > > have concluded are synonomous with unfairness and dishonesty? > > > > That is my candid conclusion. And I don't think that it is a > > > > misperception. It is confirmed by the many different remarks > > > > made by several others on this forum at different times when > > > > this same issue of the incessant bickering in which you are > > > > a major contributor has arisen. > > > > > > Most, if not all, of whom admit they don't actually > > > follow the exchanges. You'll forgive me, I hope, if > > > I don't accept their (and your) perceptions as > > > authoritative. In fact, I suspect it's those opinions > > > that are reflexive. > > > > > > It also seems exceedingly odd to me that with > > > very few exceptions, when these people complain, > > > they don't complain about those who are dishonest > > > and unfair, they complain about me, or at best > > > draw a moral equivalence between me and the > > > dishonest folks. > > > > ** > > RESPONSE: > > > > No, most people don't admit that they don't follow the exchanges. > > They generally state something along the lines of my opening > > response: that they grew tired of the endless bickering and at some > > point felt compelled to say something about it. > > Marek, that simply isn't the case. They *do* say > they don't follow the exchanges. > > > I believe most people address their criticisms to you because they > > feel, as I do, that you are the real provocateur. > > Sorry, but that's so off the wall I just have to > laugh. The evidence is to the contrary. Not that > I'm *never* the provocateur, but *far* less often than > others are. > > Actually, I may have miswritten above. I think > more of the complainers than not make their complaints > general and do not single me out as the only person > at fault. Many do not actually address anyone in > particular. But those who do, tend to address me > rather than any of the others involved. > > I have a suspicion as to why that's the case, but > I'll leave it aside for now. > > It's true that > > hornets may be the ones with the stingers, but my suggestion to the > > person who persists in stirring up the hornets' nest is to STOP. > > Stop complaining about the stinging and stop stirring up the nest. > > Bad analogy. More often than not, these people don't > require being stirred up before they sting. > > > In my life, when a whole lot of people keep pointing out the same > > thing about an issue, no matter how it appears to me, it's going to > > at least make me pause and consider the possibility that I might > > have gotten it wrong. > > Yes, I've considered the possibility. So far, > nobody has made the case in a manner I find > persuasive upon reflection. > > > I have not read every post you have ever written > > here on FFL, but I do not recall a single instance, and I may be > > wrong here, but again, I do not recall a single instance where you > > admitted that you were wrong or might even possibly be wrong about > > this issue, no matter who has raised it with you or how many > > times. > > There was a period during which I was making a serious > effort to reduce the fighting because it was clear that > it annoyed some people. But I was stabbed in the > back and ultimately blamed for having started a fight > that I had bent over backwards to avoid. Long story. > > But at that point I said the hell with it. > > I did largely quit arguing with Shemp over politics, > primarily because it had become obvious that most > others here shared my perception of him in that > area. > > (It's unfortunate, but Barry appears to have driven > him off with his vicious rants about posting > frequency. Shemp did have some very interesting > things to say when he wasn't doing his right-winger > thing. He's very eloquent on the subject of TM.) > > > It's a very George W. Bush-like, stay-the-course-regardless-of-what- > > anyone-says-or-what-the-facts-show type of attitude. > > Stay the course regardless of what anyone says is > not always a bad thing just because Bush does it. > > And as to "what the facts show," I submit that not > a whole lot of facts are in evidence on this issue, > and many that are are in dispute. > > > > > It's just a world. We're all just a bunch of naked monkeys > > trying > > > > to figure out why we're here and where we came from. Just give > > > > these guys some love. > > > > > > I can't sincerely give what I don't feel, and I > > > decline to be insincere, sorry. > > > > ** > > RESPONSE: > > > > Love is not only what everyone wants, it is All We Are. It's > > easy to love when it just happens. But like everything else, > > if you exercise love it grows and become stronger and more > > pervasive. > > I have not found that to be the case, actually. > I don't believe it's possible to "exercise love." > You can *behave* as if you love somebody, but for > me, if the genuine feeling isn't there, the pretense > is worse than open hostility. YMMV, and more power > to you, but it doesn't work that way for me. > > <snip> > > Just as an exercise, try praising Barry for a month. Look > > to what it is in his posts that you can find to praise and > > ignore what you see as his dishonesty and unfairness. You > > can take a month off without any real damage and you can > > continue the good fight later with no real harm done. > > > > If you want, I will make a deal with you that I will > > faithfully monitor every post of Barry's for the next > > month and call him on every mistatement, every dirty > > rhetorical trick, every point that he refuses to address. > > I will do my best to fill in for you and in return, you > > will try and see what might be positive and worthy of > > praise in his posts, even if it's just proper spelling. > > It's only an exercise, right? There won't be any dire > > consequences. > > I doubt there would be any positive ones, either. > Barry's no fool. > > I won't accept your challenge as stated, but perhaps > we can negotiate a compromise: I'll stop fighting with > Barry if you'll do what you describe. I won't commit > to a month, but I'll stick with it as long as you're > doing a good job. And you can quit at any time. > > There's one area you'll have trouble with, though, > which is if Barry tells falsehoods about me that > you have no way of knowing are falsehoods. I'll > have to step in in that case to correct the record. > > As far as my praising Barry is concerned, if I'm > moved to do so, I will. I've been known to do that > anyway. I'm not going to manufacture such occasions, > though. > > Is this do-able for you? >
