--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
[Curtis wrote:] > > > showing that for you this proved a point about TM people. > > > One that is bogus as I have pointed out. You just said you *accepted* it. Make up your mind. > > If the point I was making--that TMers contribute just like > > others--was bogus, then why *did* the TMers contribute? > > > > Come on, Curtis, spit it out. Have the balls to let us see > > how you really think. > > Because they felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti? That > would be my guess. Uh-huh. So it's only TMers who contributed because they "felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti"? What does that say about those who didn't contribute? What does that say about non-TMers who *did* contribute, if it's bogus that TMers contributed just like others? You're digging yourself into a hole, Curtis. <snip> > > And just how do you imagine I wouldn't have gotten to > > donate, such that you can be glad I did get to? Are you > > suggesting I wouldn't have had any motivation to do so > > if there hadn't been a TMers' effort here? > > No I think linking the charity to TM vs Non TM is bogus. > You are over focusing on words without getting my meaning. Sorry, I'm an editor, and I assume words are what have meaning in a words-only forum. You said, "I'm glad you got to donate," which implies that I might *not* have gotten to donate. > > You > > > didn't need to make the statement about non TMers and you > > > certainly didn't need to accuse me of nastiness for > > > calling you out on it. > > > > Wait *just* a minute. I didn't accuse you of nastiness for > > "calling me out" on non-TMers' nonparticipation in the > > donation drive. I accused you of nastiness for suggesting > > that the reason TMers donated was to "prove" something > > about TMers. > > I did not suggest this. Oh, right, I forgot, you suggested the TMers donated "because they felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti." Gee, what a profound thought. I bet nobody else ever attributed contributing to charity to feeling sorry for the folks the charity benefits. For pete's sake, Curtis, have some self-respect. > You have made this up to make me look bad for challenging > your making charity into a partition issue. Not what I was doing, as I've already explained and you've accepted. I was pointing out that the partition Barry tried to make was bogus. > And an anti-Barry issue at that by your own admission. > > Get the sequence straight before you get all > > self-righteous. > > That was funny. Look again. You got the sequence mixed up. > > It didn't occur to me to wonder why non-TMers hadn't > > participated until you suggested the TMers had ulterior > > motives for contributing. Seems I was late in realizing > > how the non-TMers here viewed the drive. Silly me. > > I did no such thing. I asked a question why you thought > it was that non TMers didn't contribute. I didn't say a word about non-TMers not contributing until you nastily asked why the TMers had contributed. > YOU > > Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. > > > > > > MEs> > > > Very interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess > > > why that was? > > You want to show me how this means I was accusing TMers > for having ulterior motives for contributing? Curtis, when you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING. > Think you might have jumped the gun a bit? Made some > stuff up to make me look bad? I don't have to. You make yourself look bad all on your own. > Judy > > There was no need to ask "why that was." The *only* point > > I was making was that TMers aren't slackers about doing > > their bit, contrary to the impression your pal Barry > > tried to create. > > That wasn't your ONLY point. You have neglected to mention > your other point which was : > > Judy > Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. Same point, of course. What did you imagine was different about it? > > > > Yup. I'm sure many of the TM critics gave money for > > > > Haiti relief as well; they just didn't want it to look as > > > > though they might have been inspired to do so by TMers. > > Speaking only for myself, your reason is bogus. As you know, I wouldn't trust you any further than I could throw you. You asked me why I thought it was only TMers who had contributed to the FFL drive. I told you what I thought. I stand by it. Live with it. (Although Barry thinks he should have been included, even though the money he donated hadn't been intended for Haiti relief and was given through an entirely different group. We could discuss his motivations for that if you like.) You're more than welcome, of course, to say why *you* think it was only TMers. Maybe because non-TMers didn't "feel sorry for the poor people of Haiti"? That's where your digging has taken you, Curtis. I made a simple, obvious, incontestable point, and you decided to challenge it just to pick a fight. That rarely works out well for you.
