XPost: alt.meditation.shabda   
   From: gruendemann@worldnet.att.net   
      
   Please take your flame war back to your repsective newsgroups! Thank   
   you.   
      
   Laura wrote:   
   >   
   > lackpurity wrote:   
   > > Laura wrote:   
   > > > As I'm sure you must know, "to smell a rat" is a metaphor for   
   > > detecting   
   > > > dubious motives in someone, and not at all anything to do with the   
   > > > sense of smell. I'm sure you know that full well, and still you   
   > > decided   
   > > > to take it litterally in a pitiful attempt to make it look like I'm   
   > > the   
   > > > stupid one, while handily avoiding the argument altogether.   
   > >   
   > > MM:   
   > > You brought it up, not me.  I didn't avoid anything.  Your allegation   
   > > about dubious motives is still that.  Allegations are a dime a dozen.   
   > > That is why I mentioned using intellect.  If we have some evidence,   
   > > then we can use the intellect to present it in a convincing manner.   
   > > Instead you reverted to you sense of smell.   
   >   
   > No, for the umpteenth time, it was a metaphor.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > Laura:   
   > > Can you not   
   > > > see what a cowardly, not to mention childish and ineffective,   
   > tactic   
   > > > that is?   
   > >   
   > > MM:   
   > > No, you brought up the silliness, and I put it in its place.   
   >   
   > I see nothing silly in questioning someone's motives.   
   > Especially not when they are potentially in a position to harm others,   
   > and any teacher is in that position.   
   >   
   > >  That is   
   > > neither cowardly, childish, nor ineffective, in my opinion.  If you   
   > > need a crutch, the present some evidence.  I don't have much sympathy   
   > > for whiners.   
   > >   
   > > Laura:   
   > > Of course I detected it with my intellect. It doesn't really   
   > > > take much of an intellect, either.   
   > >   
   > > MM:   
   > > Would you please specify what exactly it was that you detected with   
   > > your intellect.   
   >   
   > Certainly. You do not make proper arguments, but circular ones instead.   
   > You make one nonsensical claim after another, and require your readers   
   > to believe them based only on the claim that you represent God, and   
   > that is a nonsensical claim itself.   
   > Your claim to authority is justified through a claim to authority.   
   > Circular. Invalid.   
   >   
   > >  I'm getting tired of you tiptoeing through the tulips.   
   >   
   > LOL!  You're the one who is consistently dodging argument after   
   > argument, not I.   
   >   
   > >  If you have something, lay it on the line.  I don't have time to   
   > play   
   > > games.   
   >   
   > You have plenty of time, and I'm not playing games,   
   >   
   > >   
   > > Laura:   
   > > You see, you think you're a fountain   
   > > > of wisdom, but in reality you're just endlessly regurgitating the   
   > > same   
   > > > tired old phrases.   
   > >   
   > > MM:   
   > > Repetition doesn't negate wisdom in the phrases.   
   >   
   > That's all well and good, but your use of them often does not suggest   
   > that you yourself fully comprehend their meaning.   
   >   
   > >  Saints have had to be   
   > > repetitive, since time immemorial.   
   >   
   > There's one of your unfounded and indirect claims.   
   > Saints are repetitive.   
   > You are repetitive.   
   > Ergo, you are a saint.   
   > This is poor reasoning.   
   > One might just as well say:   
   > Saints are repetitive.   
   > Broken records are repetitive.   
   > Ergo, saints are broken records.   
   >   
   > Besides, I don't know that saints are necessarily repetitive. I've   
   > never met one.   
   >   
   > You ask me for evidence that your motives are suspect.   
   > I ask you for evidence that you are a saint.   
   >   
   > >  It's nothing new.  If we don't   
   > > learn the lessons, then we are at fault, not the Saints.   
   >   
   > A wise teacher will, if teaching using a certain phrase does not seem   
   > to work, try another way of putting it, again and again until the   
   > student understands.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > Laura:   
   > > There is nothing *alive* in your words. It is as if   
   > > > most of them are not your own, and the few that are suffer from   
   > > serious   
   > > > wear.   
   > >   
   > > MM:   
   > > I'm not going to worry about it.  Some seeds always fall on barren   
   > > ground.   
   >   
   > True enough. Judging by the amount of discussion we have gone through,   
   > you seem to be the barren ground that my seeds fall on.   
   >   
   > >  Some people thought Christ was just a son of a carpenter, and   
   > > wanted to stone him.  Nothing much has changed, 2000 years later.   
   >   
   > Nobody wants to stone you. I certainly don't.   
   > Wanting to stone somebody implies importance.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > Laura:   
   > > > I consider it odd that most of your references are biblical when   
   > you   
   > > > try to appear as a Guru of the Radhasoami tradition.   
   > >   
   > > MM:   
   > > You can consider it whatever you want.  Anyone who has reached the   
   > > Supreme Being, has traveled the same path, to get to HIM/HER/IT.   
   >   
   > I do not accept that you have reached the Supreme Being. You give me no   
   > compelling reason to accept it.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > Laura:   
   > > One would   
   > > > logically expect that you'd go to the Vedas for quotes, not the   
   > > Bible.   
   > >   
   > > MM:   
   > > I would expect a Master to know what to write about, rather than try   
   > to   
   > > tell him his business.  That seems a bit arrogant to me.   
   >   
   > I consider you on equal footing with everyone else, not a Master.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > Laura:   
   > > > No, the Vedas are not a part of western culture, but they really do   
   > > > have a lot of things to say that apply just fine to any culture -   
   > > more   
   > > > so than the Bible, in my opinion.   
   > >   
   > > MM:   
   > > There are so many Holy Books, not just one, or two.  I've quoted many   
   > > of them, both eastern and western.   
   >   
   > I know there are more than one or two, but it would still make sense to   
   > use the ones that are part of your religious tradition rather than ones   
   > that aren't.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > Laura:   
   > > > Your understanding of what ad hominems are is somewhat lacking. You   
   > > > think it is simply synonymous with personal attacks or statements   
   > > which   
   > > > offend your sensibilities. That is, in fact, not what an ad hominem   
   > > is.   
   > > > If I were to say "You claim to be equivalent to Jesus Christ,   
   > > therefore   
   > > > you must be insane.", that would not be an ad hominem, even if it   
   > did   
   > > > offend you.   
   > >   
   > > MM:   
   > > Well, if I have something to learn regarding ad hominems, then I'm   
   > > willing to learn.   
   >   
   > We shall see...   
   >   
   > >  What you wrote does seem like an ad hominem to me.   
   >   
   > Yes, it would, based on your lack of proper understanding of what an ad   
   > hominem is.   
   >   
   > > If you say that someone is insane, that is an ad hominem.  It is not   
   > > about any extraneous issue, but about a person.   
   >   
   > If I just say "You are insane" that *can't* be an ad hominem, as that   
   > sentence isn't trying to make an argument.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > Laura:   
   > > > On the other hand, if I were to say "You are insane, and therefore   
   > > you   
   > > > are wrong.", that *would* be an ad hominem.   
   > >   
   > > MM:   
   > > They would both be ad hominems.  Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a   
   > > right.  Keep trying.   
   >   
   > You seem to be forgetting about your claim to be willing to learn.   
   > I'm not just inventing the definition I'm presenting. This is the way   
   > ad hominem is understood and applied.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)