--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > <snip> > > > > 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. > > > > That stretch does not work. > > It isn't a stretch at all, Curtis. Good grief! Do you > not define behavior to include what people write on an > Internet forum??
I knew Maharishi a lot better than I know Barry or Vaj, neither of whom I have met in person. That distinction would be clear to you if it were not inconvenient to your point. > > > > > 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. > > > > I wouldn't have any way of knowing that. > > You woudn't have any way of knowing that I haven't > challenged a lot of your impressions of MMY? I have no idea which ones you thought were challengable other than the ones you have which has been plenty. > > But somehow you seemed to think you had a way of > knowing that I had never given any of them any > credibility. No. Please refer to the Rumsfeld list. Known unknowns etc. > > How does that work, again? You imagined in your > head that when I didn't challenge one of your > observations, secretly I was not giving it any > credibility? I can't make you get my point here so carry on. > > > > > > 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. > > > > That was not the point I was making. I was objecting to > > your over dramatic term vicious as if Maharishi was an > > innocent and I was somehow hurting him. > > The issue, Curtis, is whether the term "TM hater" can > be applied to anyone here, remember? Not whether you, > Curtis, are capable of hurting a dead guy. Oh yes the real point. You are making a case that name calling which paints people in a one dimensional way is justified and I am appealing for a more nuanced view of people here beyond the labels. I think you of anyone should get what I am about here and would join me rather than try to defend the one dimensional name calling. But they REALLY REALLY ARE A POOPY PANTS! > > <snip> > > > > 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. > > > > I get it. You love using that word to describe my > > writing here. I object. > > You keep personalizing this as if the way I've been > characterizing Barry's and Vaj's posts was directed > exclusively to you. It isn't, of course. You're not > 100 percent excluded, but it's your view of Barry's > and Vaj's posts that is my main focus (as I made > clear to start with). > > And you neatly avoided addressing my point. Most of > my points, in fact. And as far as I can see you are working on the side of justifying name calling here and against a more nuanced view that we all have a complex relationship with Maharishi and his knowledge and that includes Barry, Vaj and you. I am going to continue to work on the side of label dropping and you can continue to justify it. We all get the FFL we deserve, right? You and I communicate fine together as long as the words Barry or Vaj don't enter the post. As soon as they do, we stop communicating well. So lets summarize. I think Doug should drop the label "TM-hater" as if they are a force of evil in the world. I think the term is not only misleading, it misses the very nuances in our beliefs that FFL can be so good at bringing out. You can state your own agenda revolving around how useful a description of certain people the term is. > > <snip> >
