--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
Actually Jim has a long history of attacking me personally for saying things about Maharishi. Although he made that statement his many examples of going after me after I have said something he doesn't like pretty much cancels out your point. > > 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." Then you have missed a key ingredient of what makes a shot cheap, its unfairness. In this case we both have adequate documentation that this was precisely the behavior he did engage in. And my speculation that this may have been some of his rationalization is probably not far off. > > 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. It contributed to the context of my understanding of the term and how it might be employed by Gurus to justify behavior. It was not gratuitous to me and I was the writer. > > 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. My objection with Jim is that when I say something about Maharishi, he takes a personal cheap shot at me. Aligning yourself with this behavior does not speak well of you. Maharishi is a dead guy. There is not "shot" to take that affects him. When people here take opinions of him personally it reveals poor intellectual boundaries. Your posturing of virtue would be much more effective if you spoke out against Jim's cheap shots at actual living people here. But you don't. So I can only conclude that when he ridicules people for their lack of the self realization he believes he is so full of, you are down with that. >
