--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > I think one's ability to evaluate behavior is pretty > > much the same whether it's evaluating posting behavior > > or "live" behavior. If one isn't very good at the > > former, one isn't likely to be very good at the latter > > either. > > We are going down the rabbit hole on this one but I > have a way out for us both. I will give specific > examples below. But the largest point is that you > are making a big deal about not trusting my > impressions of Maharishi.
Actually it was a minor point as far as I was concerned, just a consequence of my amazement at how inadequate your analyses of Barry's and Vaj's posts seemed to me. You took great umbrage, which resulted in its becoming a much bigger deal than it should have. > I realize how little this matters. My issues with > Maharishi don't have to do with things I saw or > experienced (darshon or tantrums) but *how he treated > people* and what he promoted as beliefs which I think > are wrong. [my emphasis] It's not totally clear to me what distinction you're making here, or what it has to do with what we've been talking about. But to bring it back to *my* main point, your evaluation of Barry's and Vaj's posts: one of the major things you left out was *how they treat people*, specifically the TMers here, in those posts. <snip> > > > > But somehow you seemed to think you had a way of > > > > knowing that I had never given any of them any > > > > credibility. > > You are losing me here. I accept the correction > that my brush was too broad because I have only > shared a few personal experiences of Maharishi > here, darshon and his temper tantrums that I can > recall. Everything else is just my opinion of > his actions that we both have access to. Yes, I'm talking about any and all of your impressions/opinions. > So since you started this whole line of thinking, I > would like to know specifically what I have said > about my experience of Maharishi or my impressions > of him that my lack of applying the term "TM hater" > to Vaj and Barry causes you to doubt? Oh, gee, Curtis, it's your impressions of his behavior in general, and that was just a side point anyway. <snip> > I suspect on reflection that you probably accepted > my glowing descriptions of darshon. We have to get > more specific here. No, some of your negative ones as well. (See the quote at the end from an earlier discussion for an example.) <snip> > > > 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. > > > > But that "more nuanced view" of the two people whose > > posts you profiled somehow managed to omit the > > characteristics that have led Doug to use the term > > "TM haters" in the first place. > > So again you are championing the idea that name > calling is a positive step in communications here. > I am not. As I've said, I don't think it *is* name calling. And I'm not saying it's a "positive step," simply that it isn't the abusive approach you're portraying it as. > > I mean, it's as if you were trying to defend Charlie > > Sheen from the charge that he was a nutcase by citing > > his acting ability. > > We are obviously focusing on different aspects of their > posts Yes indeed. But remember what I said was not that you were wrong in your descriptions of what you were focusing on, but rather that you were *leaving out* a whole lot. > and they relate very differently to me than they do > to you. Right. Charlie Sheen probably relates very differently to journalists interviewing him about his latest film than he does to his wife. But the journalist writing a profile of Sheen would be fully justified in asserting that Sheen is a lovely, cooperative guy, a real gentleman and a fine actor, and leaving it at that. Nobody could complain about that, right? <snip> > Yes of course. I am not blaming you for bringing > them in but am noticing that we get our worst posts > in discussing them. At least I find them the least > satisfying. Probably because there seems to be very > little middle ground with you about them and vice > versa BTW. I don't take pleasure in looking at > either of you through the other's eyes, I prefer my > own. See above about Charlie Sheen, the journalists, and his wife. (Or girlfriend; I'm not sure which it was he threatened with a knife.) <snip> > > And when the verbal expression of that belief is heavily > > freighted with viciousness and vengefulness- > > We are not going to see eye to eye with these terms, > sorry. How could we when you don't see the behavior I'm describing?? You fastidiously refrain from reading those posts, as you've pointed out many times. > > Even more so when those expressions frequently involve > > dishonesty, which suggests the emotional response is so > > intense and extreme that being straightforward just isn't > > adequate to convey it <snip> > > or when those who offer a less-than-completely- > > negative view of MMY are described as "fanatics." > > I am against the label "fanatic" for people who post > here. I would reserve this term for guys like Bevan. Thank you. Do you have any idea how often that term has been used to describe me and other TMers on FFL by Barry and Vaj? > > (Not to mention the flurry of brazen lies in response > > to my observation that the TM critics use the term > > "hater" more often to refer to TM supporters than the > > supporters use it to refer to the critics. Seems like > > that really struck a nerve.) > > I didn't follow that game closely enough to score it. > It looked like you were both having some fun. You think it's fun to be lied about? Really?? I wouldn't doubt Barry has fun lying, but that's because he thinks folks will believe his lies and see the person he's lying about in a very negative light. In this instance, he knowingly falsely accused *me* of lying and presented a bunch of utterly bogus "evidence" he knew nobody would bother to check up on. Whatever my other faults may be, I don't lie. I've *never* lied about Barry (or anybody else). He's incapable of making a case against me *without* lying. He's lied about others here whom he doesn't like as well, many times. I don't know whether Vaj has fun lying, but he does it often enough that it can't be too unpleasant for him. And what kind of person can somebody who enjoys lying be? What kind of person is it who lies about people he doesn't like because he can't make a legimate case against them? What does that say about such a person's character? <snip> > > IOW, "TM-hater" isn't per se pejorative, it's just > > descriptive. > > Here we disagree. It is the broad stroke reductionist > labeling itself that is pejorative to anyone who has > had a long complex relationship with the movement. Only if you think there's something wrong with having come to hate somebody. You said above that you agreed with me that there wasn't. > You have been shifting the target a bit here going > between TM hater to Maharishi hater. These for me > are different ideas. It was the TM hater that I was > first talking about. I have no idea what a "TM hater" would be if it didn't include MMY. I take it to be a general term encompassing anything and everything TM-related, just like "TM critic," except more extreme. What about "TMO hater"? Would you object to that term? I wouldn't object to it if it were applied to me. > And although Maharishi hater is also kind of a > simplistic summation, you might have more ammo to > justify those terms for Barry and Vaj who both have > expressed that they saw almost nothing in the guy. > My view has been consistently more charitable and > more tinged with my own nostalgia. My memories of > time with him were overwhelmingly positive. I can't help feeling that's the view of him that's convenient for you to hold up in this discussion. Not saying it's not authentic but that you have conflicting feelings, and here you're emphasizing the positive and downplaying the negative. > Since I practice TM, applying either term to me is > dishonest. I don't think *practicing* TM has anything to do with it. I don't know how anybody could "hate" the practice itself. <snip> > > It's interesting in this connection that while you're > > quick to jump on Doug for "name-calling" with regard to > > TM critics, it doesn't seem to bother you at all when > > certain TM critics indulge in far worse name-calling of > > TM supporters. > > Interesting that I would pick my own battles and choose > who I engage in a post? I think it is pretty common. > You are the one who seems to constantly keep a score > card about what is said to one person compared to what > is said to another. Not my thing. No, I know it's not. It's what I call having double standards, not a trait I find admirable. <snip> > > BTW, just out of curiosity, do you think I as much as > > called you a liar in this discussion over your opinions > > of MMY? > > You were challenging my credibility of unnamed stories > I have told about him. In terms of your ability to perceive, not in terms of saying things you knew weren't so. When Barry claimed I had "as much as" called you a liar, he meant the latter, as was clear from the context. > I would like to know specifically which ones we are > talking about. As I said, it's the effect of your impressions overall. We had a long discussion at one point, the bone of contention being whether my relatively positive view of him was as extreme as your highly negative view (the one you were promoting at the time). You claimed it was; I didn't agree. Not to reopen that argument; I'm just identifying an exchange in which we discussed a whole bunch of MMY's traits. FWIW, here's one quote from that exchange in which I conceded to your personal experience of MMY (me, then you, then me again): ----- > > I don't think that's what I said. What I said was that I > > thought *he believed* he was doing good, intended to do > > good, devoted his life to doing what he perceived to be > > good. > > I don't have a problem with that, he was super religious > and supernaturally confident in his historical role and > the supremacy of his teaching. I think it had some holes > and sometimes he was just a selfish exploiter and doing > "good" was a cover. Could well be. If you always put it that way, I wouldn't have any objection. -----
