--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > What I'm suggesting is that *very often* sparaig takes > > the intellectually LAZY route in his writings here, as > > do you. You *assume* that the things told to you by > > Maharishi or his representatives are true, and do not > > challenge them. > > > > I do. > > The problem with your "challenges," Barry, is > that they engage only with carefully selected > bits of the evidence. That's pretty standard > with self-styled skeptics, who tend to be so > convinced of their mental acuity that they > never challenge their *own* thinking. > > The other problem is that you create straw men > to "challenge." As I've pointed out before, you > have terrible difficulty telling the difference > between "Maharishi sez..." and "What MMY sez is > true." > > You just aren't what one would call a rigorous > thinker. You're the last person who should be > accusing anyone else of being intellectually > lazy.
I would say that we each have the right to define "intellectually lazy" the way we want. For example, my definition of such a term might include someone who intrudes into a discussion about whether the effect of mantras and chanting is due to some intrinsic characteristic of the words or whether any "effect" can be attributed to the placebo effect, and who then IGNORES the entire topic under discussion and uses the intrusion as Just Another Excuse To Trash Someone She Hates. That *IS* what you just did, right? :-) :-) :-)
