--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > Barry, you're far and away the most consistently > > uptight person on this forum. You simply cannot > > tolerate disagreement with your views. > > Yeah, right, Judy. Like the "discussion over > wine" I had with Curtis the other day, the one > in which we held completely opposite viewpoints > on karma, but in which there was no uptightness > or intolerance. Or, at least there wasn't until > you tried to barge into the discussion and turn > it *into* an argument, calling my opinion "a > 'false reading' of what karma as determinism > implies. You probably noticed that we both > ignored you, because we were having a mutually > respectful discussion, and you wanted to turn > it into something else. :-)
Let's have a look at the comment of mine Barry refers to: ------ [Barry wrote:] > Someone > who believed in a (IMO) false reading of karma as > determinism would never even *try* to come up with > technologies to ease the suffering of those born > with birth defects; they'd think somehow that the > kids "deserved" them. FWIW, this is *by no means* a necessary consequence of a reading of karma as determinism. It's a "false reading" of what karma as determinism implies. ------ This is what Barry perceives to be "uptightness or intolerance" on my part. In fact, I was simply *making a correction* to Barry's misunderstanding of karma as determinism. No "argument" was involved or necessary, just acceptance of the correction by him. Barry appears to see the phrase "false reading" as somehow inflammatory, when in fact I was echoing the very same phrase *he* had used in the quote immediately preceding in (incorrectly) putting down the karma-as-determinism view. I couldn't possibly have made my own points more definitively than Barry just did for me: he cannot tolerate disagreement with (or correction of) his views; and no matter how mild a comment a TMer may make, he perceives the TMer to be "uptight." Notice also the fantasy element I mentioned in my earlier post: Barry imagines that I wanted to start an argument because he and Curtis were having a "mutually respectful discussion," even going on to suggest that I was "threatened" by his (incorrect) view. It's quite obvious from the foregoing who is *really* feeling "threatened" here. Thanks for playing, Barry! > > I've had similar on-opposite-sides-of-the- > philosophical-fence with many others here. > It's *you* who has to turn every disagreement > on *matters of opinion* into a head-to-head > argument, Judy. It's *you* who is threatened > when someone believes something different than > you do, and who feels compelled to argue over > it, often calling the other party a "coward" > or worse when they don't feel like arguing. > And it's *you* who usually claims to have "won" > those arguments, when you've managed to drag > the discussion down to the level of argument- > ation, or who even claims to have "won" when > the other person just ignores you. > > And again, I doubt that there are many here > who would disagree with this assessment of you. >
