--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > This post has some interesting insight. I think Judy's > > description of her own motives seem accurate. > > For the record, Curtis, I do not.
I really can't argue with your POV in this context, although it goes farther than I would in ascribing sinister motives. I went back and actually read the posts in question. (What a concept!) I was jumping in with a meta-position of my own invention with no connection to the posts. Anyone who wants to declare "bullshit" on my POV definitely have a case! The way this place works for me best is to keep pretty tight blinders on when I focus on each person. I am choosing what aspect to relate to. Trying to sell this POV to anyone else is probably misguided. Who the F do I think I am giving advice to two other adults about their communications with each other? Especially not having read the posts they were responding to? I'll focus on that charming part of myself a bit as the gift of this whole exchange! > > If what she really wanted was to provide a > more "positive interpretation that's at least > somewhat plausible," that would be one thing. > But that is NOT what she limits herself to > doing. She has a long history of attempting > to demonize and destroy the reputations of > the people who provided the "less positive > view." > > Several here do not. I try to never give them > any shit when they provide a more positive spin > on things TM or TMO *when they limit themselves > to doing that*. But when they feel the need to > *follow* their "positive interpretation" with > comments such as the one Judy "finished up" > her post with about how Vaj has no scruples or > honesty, *in a conversation with someone who > was not even Vaj*, I'm sorry but there is no > need for that *except* vindictiveness and spite. > > That's over the line. My contention is that > that vindictiveness and spite is what Judy is > really interested in presenting, NOT the "more > positive interpretation." The "more positive > interpretation" is merely a smokescreen, a > prelude, a pretext so that she can let loose > with the personal invective against the person > who presented the "more negative interpretation." > > To balance this, Vaj sometimes does the same thing. > > But for her to claim that she does what she does > on this forum out of a sense of *caring* for the > poor TMers being "misled" by "dishonest" people > like Vaj is laughable -- bullshit so deep one > needs hip boots to wade through it. > > I don't think that there is a single person on > this forum -- *yourself included* -- who believes > that. The history of Judy's personal invective > and personal abuse of others -- *including fellow > TMers* -- is just too long and too established > for you to actually buy the line of crap she was > spouting in this P.R. post to boo_lives. > > I'm pretty sure *he* didn't buy it, and I don't > think you did, either. You were just trying, as > you often do, to provide some balance and some > mediation here. And good on you for that. > > But the bottom line is the bottom line, for *both* > Judy and Vaj. > > In this exchange, as I see it, *all that Vaj did* > originally was to post an *opinion* by the Dalai > Lama. Dawn (and you know as well as I do who that > really is) replied stupidly, trying to push Vaj's > buttons. He succeeded only in that Vaj suggested in > reply, before addressing ED's claims specifically, > that he...uh...she had a "skewed sense of reality." > Given that we are talking about a man posing here > as a woman, I somehow think that you might not > disagree with that assessment. :-) > > Enter Judy, claws bared, defending the man posing > as a woman because he's a **TM** man posing as a > woman. > > First she called Vaj a snob. Then she "played editor" > and corrected him in a putdown way on a typo. Next > she suggested that he implied that Maharishi lusted > after young boys and not just young girls, which Vaj > never did. She then mocked his use of the word "palace" > to describe Vlodrop (which *she has never seen*), > calling it instead a "monastery." I presume that is > the "providing a more positive interpretation" thang > she talked about in her P.R. speech to boo_lives. :-) > > Curtis, go back and *read the actual posts*. Then reread > your sentence above, "I think Judy's description of her > own motives seem accurate." > > Do you really believe that, or were you just taken out > by Judy's backpedaling, smarmy, self-congratulatory > "explanation" of her motives that she tried to pull on > someone else she was trying to wrap and get him to see > her the way that she sees herself? > > I understand to some extent what you were trying to do, > but don't be taken in by this bullshit, Curtis. Judy's > behavior in this exchange speaks for itself, as does > Vaj's. > > When Vaj spends more time in a post "going for the > throat" and putting down the people he's talking to > *personally*, as opposed to challenging their ideas, > bust him on it. > > But when Judy does the same thing, bust her, too. > > My contention is that even given Vaj's overexuberance > in terms of "pushing TB buttons" on this forum, he > does not have the history of mean-spirited, hateful > personal attacks that Judy does. He is *perceived* > that way by people who have their emotional buttons > pushed by him presenting views of spirituality that > conflict with their long-held and rarely-challenged > beliefs. They IMO *cannot tell the difference* > between those emotional buttons being pushed and > actually being attacked. > > But Judy's history in terms of personally attacking > others was already well-established LONG BEFORE > Vaj ever entered her life. > > Vaj, after all, does not have an entire website devoted > to describing him as the "junkyard dog." Judy does. > There is a reason for this. > > I think they're *both* crazy as loons for being such > prosyletutes and trying to convince others to believe > the things that they believe. But there's overexuberent > prosyletute crazy, and then there is over-the-top, > would-be-sued-for-libel-if-this-were-a-newspaper, > hate-driven prosyletute crazy. I'm sorry, but the > latter does not describe Vaj, and it does describe > Judy. >
