--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: <snip> > Combined with holding Maharishi as a teacher so special > we should never goof on him or point out his failings > with us
That isn't what he said. Here's what he said: "I think you could write about MMY as far less than perfect, as many on here do, without the cheap shots." Ooopsie. That pretty much cancels out a good portion of your indictment of Jim. I might as well stick in my response to your demand for an example of one of your cheap shots: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > So what do you consider a cheap shot that I > have taken at Maharishi? I can't think of > anything I have said about him that I didn't > sincerely mean. My shots are carefully > considered and not cheap at all. Well, those are some interesting definitions of "cheap shot," especially the first. I've not encountered "cheap shot" used in either of those senses, i.e., not sincerely meant or carefully considered. Here's a recent remark of yours that qualifies as a cheap shot in my book: "Then after Unity you have leisha vidya which I suspect was one of his personal excuses for banging groupies." One of the hallmarks of the cheap shot is that it's a gratuitously nasty remark that makes no contribution to the context into which it's been shoehorned, as was the case here. Do yourself a favor and don't try to "justify" that one. Just know that when we say you take cheap shots at MMY, that's the kind of thing we mean.
