--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Vaj, > > In arguments with you about meditation she takes the party > line on TM, so you get a high dose of that. But IMO it is > about the arguing, not the party line.
For what it's worth, I agree. However, a very common tactic as I see it is to argue the TM Party Line, and then later claim that she was just trying to "clarify" what that Party Line IS. Then, after several rounds of posts in which she *was* arguing the TM Party Line, and rather strongly, she then acts offended and says something along the lines of "I was just clari- fying what the Party Line really is, and trying to point out your intentional distortions of it. What made you think that's what *I* believe?" To me this is a lot like someone spending post after post after post "clarifying" the beliefs of White Supremicists and then flying into a rage when someone assumes that she's one, too. But the bottom line is that Curtis has nailed it. It's not about the dogma per se, merely about using it as an excuse to argue.
