--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: <snip> > > > I would like to challenge the Glenn Beckiness of this > > > idea of TM haters. > > > > Curtis, I know you don't read my comments on Barry's > > posts, but you need to see this one, so I'm copying it > > into my response to you: > > > > ----- > > The term "hater," in fact, has been used *far* more > > often by TM critics (primarily Barry) in reference > > to TM supporters than TM supporters have used it in > > reference to TM critics. > > > > Actually, the only folks here to have used the term > > "TM-hater" are Doug/Buck and Nabby, and feste (once, > > over four years ago). > > > > Isn't that interesting? > > I was really only interested in Doug's use. That is what > prompted me to write.
You said "this *idea of* TM=haters," which made it sound more general (and indeed, that's how Barry took it as well, hence my response to him quoted above). > > > Who are you talking about? Let's go down the list > > > on this board. > > > > Gotta say, Curtis, reading this makes me very > > dubious indeed about your analyses of MMY, it's > > so far from my own observations of Barry and Vaj. > > I was never around MMY, so I was inclined to > > give your reports some credence. > > You are comparing my direct observations about Maharishi's > behavior to what I have written about what Vaj and Barry > have written here? I don't get the connection Both are direct observations of people's behavior. Seems to me that shouldn't be such a hard connection to get. > but I don't believe that you have ever given my impressions > of MMY any credibility Nonsense, Curtis. I've challenged you about some of them, but a lot of them I haven't. <snip> > > They're both not just contemptuous, they're > > *viciously* contemptuous of MMY and the TMO (you > > are too in many cases). > > Your spin which I have never agreed with. When you write > satire it can get wicked. The vicious spin is all you. A lot of it isn't satire, first off; and satire can be exceedingly vicious, more so even than straightforward insults and contempt. The notion that if it's intended to be funny it's somehow automatically benign is a crock. Have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh? He can be very funny while delivering his falsehood-laced invective, but it's pretty hard to make the case that he isn't as vicious as they come. > And BTW the satire is about a guy who actually hurt real > people directly with his actions. Right. Believe it or not, it's not necessary to be vicious to make that case. And that's not to mention that the two people you're defending use satire with the intention of actually hurting real people directly with their words. > So focusing on people saying that it sucked is lame. I'm not focusing on people saying it sucked. I'm focusing on people who are vicious when they say it. And again, it's not just the viciousness directed against Maharishi. It's the viciousness directed against anybody who doesn't see him the way they do. > That's pretty hard to > > distinguish from hatred, IMHO, > > Not for me. Obviously not. <snip> > > I don't use it myself, but I don't think "TM- > > haters" is an overly "dramatic" term to describe > > Barry and Vaj, and on at least some occasions, > > yourself. > > I practice TM Judy. So it is not only over dramatic > it is factually incorrect. Doesn't matter, some of your posts have been distinctly Maharishi-hating. But I'm more focused on your attempts to defend Barry and Vaj from the "TM hater" characterization. <snip>
