--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > > You really aren't qualified to have an opinion on which > > of us gets or doesn't get the other *because* you "gloss > > over" the material in question. Not knowing what's > > actually going on enables you to comfortably set up in > > your mind an equivalency between Barry and me that is > > simply false. > > That is pretty misleading. I didn't say I have always > from day one glossed over your cross-fire and never read > it. Anyone who posts here regularly has plenty of > material to judge you guys on even if they mostly avoid it.
Not if they "mostly avoid it," they don't. <snip> > > > But I am not ever going to be convinced to move to some > > > position that sees either of your as awful people because > > > that is not my way of seeing you guys. > > > > Awful *behavior* is the issue. > > That is just awful and he should stop it immediately! > (Reference to Albert Ellis's Rational Emotive therapy) He > is writing on a board with a small group of readers with > an even smaller group of readers who follows your cross > posts. That is my perspective on it all. So it's OK for one person to lie about another as long as it's in a small group on an electronic forum? <snip> > > Yes, you and I have very different ethical standards. > > With what we believe is important concerning what we are > doing here, probably. In real life unlikely. I don't have two sets of standards, one for this group and a different one for "real life." > > > > If Jim were to respond to one of my posts with what I > > > > knew to be lies about you, I wouldn't hesitate for a > > > > split-second to call him on them. > > > > > > No you don't and I can't expect you to. But you don't and > > > haven't. > > > > Don't what?? If you mean I haven't called Jim on lies > > about you, that's because he hasn't told any. > > Then we are going to have to agree to disagree. Let's have an example of the lies (deliberately factually false statements) that Jim has told about you. > > > > Frankly, I wouldn't want to *have* an "ally" who was > > > > a liar. > > > > > > You love this word too much. I am sick of it. > > > > That was your word, toots. That's why I keep putting > > quotes around it. You referred to Jim as my "ally." > > The word I was referring to was "liar". > > > > > Just for kicks, here's a list of the specific lies > > > > (i.e., deliberate untruths), which you knew were lies, > > > > in those two posts Barry addressed to you: > > > > > > > > --I'm a "TB." > > > > > > I will be abbreviating point of view as POV to indicate > > > where I think you are taking Barry's opinion and claiming > > > it is a lie. > > > > And I'll be pointing out why these examples aren't just > > opinion but deliberate misrepresentations of fact, and > > how you *know* that's what they are. > > > > > This may be the reason you overuse the word so much here. > > > I hope you will consider this because I am being completely > > > serious. > > > > I don't overuse it in Barry's case. I don't use it to > > mean "different opinion" or "different belief." You've > > bought into Barry's premise, which is itself knowingly > > factually false, an attempt to justify his lies. > > So you DID know which word I was referring to. That was weird. Oh, nice try, Curtis. Here it was clear "lie" was the word you were referring to; above it wasn't. I'd highlighted "ally" by putting it in quotes, so I thought that's what you were referring to. <snip> > > It isn't just a "decent case." To make a remotely legitimate > > case for the contrary, one would have to redefine the way > > "TB" is used here to mean anyone who has anything at all > > positive to say about TM/MMY, regardless of what they've > > said that's negative. But in that sense, both you and Barry > > would be TBs. > > I don't think this is the case. There is a core level of > your buy-in with Maharishi's teaching that may not be able > to changed even with counter-evidence. That is my > perspective on the term. You don't have as many beliefs > as a fulltime movement person does in that protected > status. I don't have *nearly* as many beliefs as some of the people here. > But I really don't know for sure. Yes, you do. > > An example would be what I've said about MMY's philandering. > > Not only do I believe it occurred, I've condemned it in very > > strong terms. You're very much aware of that, and so is Barry. > > That is not part of the protected status belief web for you. Oh, I see. You get to define a "protected status belief web" for me so as to exclude from consideration any troubling non-TB stances I take and thus make the "TB" label acceptable when your friend applies it. Very neat. > And even when I was all in with the movement I had the > ability to see things that were bad about the movement > or even heaven forbid, weird about Maharishi. I justified > it as my karma. So the concept of being a TB is not > contingent on buying into everything at the same level. > A true believe could even justify Maharishi's > indiscretions as leish avidya as I said before. I couldn't. I might *characterize* them as lesh avidya, but that wouldn't *justify* them. > > > But there is a better one for me that doesn't see you that > > > way and I find it is a more useful perspective in > > > discussions with you to understand the nuances of your > > > beliefs or working hypothesis. So is Barry's POV on you, > > > it is not a lie. > > > > No, it doesn't have to do with nuances or my working > > hypotheses. It has to do with the *fact* that I don't fit > > the definition of True Believer. > > I don't think summing anyone up with a label like that > is very useful in conversations like the ones we have here. Especially when the definition is allowed to shift depending on who's using it, and one's friends are protected by giving them license to apply it much more loosely than anybody else does. <snip> > > > > --I told you I was in the room with MMY when he was > > > > lecturing. > > > > > > I would have to read the context, this sound untrue. I > > > can't imagine you saying this. > > > > Nor did I. Here's the context, my statement followed by > > Barry's: > > > > ----- > > > > His approach was holistic no matter who he was > > > > talking to. He'd emphasize either the physical or the > > > > metaphysical (although he hated that word) depending on the > > > > occasion, but never one to the exclusion of the other, at > > > > least that I ever heard, and I've been in both types of > > > > audience. > > > > Actually, you have not. You never sat in *any* audience > > with Maharishi. I point this out because you consistently > > attempt to imply otherwise on this forum, as you do above. > > ----- > > > > Note that I did not use the words "with Maharishi." > > That doesn't make sense in this context. What doesn't? > That is what caused the gap that Barry exploited. You > are clearly referencing how Maharishi adapted his talks to > different groups and are aware that a tape is only a moment > of the long hours he spent with groups. Think that could have been why I said "at least that I've ever heard"? You were not clear > to me either. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, he > didn't. Given that you're well aware I never spent time with MMY--because I've pointed that out so many times--it was perfectly clear, to both you and Barry. No doubt involved, hence no benefit of the doubt required. > > > > --I have consistently "attempted to imply" that I've > > > > sat in an audience with MMY. > > > > > > POV I don't share it but as I pointed out when it came up, > > > with an uncharitable interpretation what you wrote could > > > have been taken that way. He did, I didn't. > > > > No, here we're talking about the claim that I have > > consistently attempted to imply this over time. Not > > only have I *never* done so, I've consistently and > > explictly pointed out that I was never in MMY's > > presence, both here and on alt.m.t. That's how Barry > > knows it, for pete's sake! That's how *you* know it. > > > > Therefore it isn't a POV, it's simply a deliberate > > misstatement of fact, a lie. I didn't say what he > > claimed I said, so that was also a lie. Somebody who > > had never read my posts might legitimately > > misinterpret "audience" to mean "audience with MMY," > > but unless Barry's deep in the throes of senile > > dementia, he was deliberately lying. Does your lack of comment on this one mean you concede it, at least, or could you with a little more thought come up with a way to twist it into a "POV" too? > > > > --I'm "outrageously sensitive" about never having > > > > spent time with MMY. > > > > > > POV His opinion and evaluation on how you react to his > > > writing. > > > > If I were "outrageously sensitive" about it, why would I > > repeatedly point it out? Get real. > > It is an opinion he has. You are just so determined to > see his pants on fire it is really tedious. Can you not answer my question? Or is this part of the "protected status belief web" not subject to counter- evidence that you've established in your mind for Barry that makes it OK for him to say things you know not to be true? <snip> > > > > --I present myself as "the most knowledgeable about > > > > what MMY taught." > > > > > > Come on Judy this is just an opinion and a putdown. > > > > No, Curtis, it's a factually false claim. Note the > > quote marks. I never said that (nor anything even to > > that effect). Even without the quotes, it's a lie. As > > Barry knows, and as you also know, I'll often ask for > > someone more knowledgeable than I to correct anything > > I've gotten wrong about MMY's teaching. > > Judy in the years I have known you, you often do come off > as if you believe this. Counter-evidence, Curtis, counter-evidence. Or do you want to put this into your own "protected status belief web"? We had years of arguments about > what I was taught on TTC, with you challenging what I said > based on things other teacher said, blah blah blah. A lot of those alt.m.t challenges were on target, Curtis. You weren't as careful back then, on that forum, as you are now on this one. > > > > --Barry got me to "post out" in a single day with > > > > one sentence. > > > > > > Bravado and a tweak to you. > > > > Knowingly factually false claim. And you know it too, > > because my last post for the week was to you. > > Judy if you think I pay attention to that level of > posting nonsense... > > I was not only not aware of that I will never become > aware of that. Nevertheless, it was knowingly factually false. > This is ridiculous. He is getting your goat and you > are letting him. No, Curtis, it's you who is getting my goat. I'm used to Barry; I have no expectation that he'll behave ethically. > > > > --My assertions that I don't lie are "laughable." > > > > > > POV > > > > Nobody has ever been able to show that I've ever lied > > about anything, here or on alt.m.t. And goodness knows > > folks have tried. If my assertions were in fact > > "laughable," it could only be because there was good > > reason to think they were untrue. There isn't and > > never has been. > > Judy you have never conceded to this point and I don't > want to dig up the past because you and I have gotten > beyond this. "Dig up the past"? You're suggesting I've lied in the past? If so, you've just regressed us right back to the beginning. *Before* the beginning, in fact. > > > > --I've never displayed a sense of humor. > > > > > > You don't get my humor, he doesn't get yours. > > > > I get your humor, Curtis. I don't always find it funny > > myself, > > That is what I mean by not getting it. It is not funny > to you. It is quite a bit of the time, Curtis. > but that's a different issue. I don't have any > > trouble recognizing that you have a sense of humor. I > > don't have any trouble recognizing that Barry has a > > sense of humor. I've made plenty of wisecracks here > > that others have found amusing. It's knowingly false > > for him to say I've never displayed a sense of humor, > > regardless of whether he finds the wisecracks amusing. > > Hyperbole for effect. Calling it a lie doesn't work for > me. It is not being said as a factual statement with > no exceptions. That's *exactly* how it was said. Without even the cover of "in my opinion," but stated as if it were an established fact. <snip> > For all intents and purposes we do not have a comedic > relationship here. For Barry that is even more so I > suspect. So I can imagine why he thinks of you this way. No, see, the problem for Barry is that I frequently make fun of him for the idiotic things he says, and since he's totally unable to laugh at himself, he refuses to acknowledge the humor in what I've said about him. <snip> > > > > I'm sorry, but I think that really shows a profound > > > > lack of ethics on your part, a "sin of omission," as > > > > it were. > > > > > > You are more judgmental and quick to assume the worst > > > about me than I am comfortable with. > > > > Oh, I could assume lots worse about you, Curtis. I > > could assume you have no conscience, but I don't. > > And that assumption would be ridiculous. You don't > improve your situation of being uncomfortably (for me) > judgmental by telling me you could be more so. My point was that I wouldn't go through all this about Barry with you if I didn't think you had a conscience that could be appealed to. <snip> > > As I say, you and I have very different ethical standards. > > It is not the difference in ethical standards between us > that is the most significant thing for me. It is the > difference in how we approach people and what our goals > are while we are here. Yeah, my ethical standards don't vary depending on my goals and how I approach people in a particular situation. Lying is lying. Obviously YMV. Just as a footnote, what's also very interesting is how sensitive *you* are to any statements about you that you feel are wrong. It's very, very easy to "get your goat" in that regard, and you'll go on for days "defending your self-image," as Barry would put it. But if I object to someone you consider your friend doing it to me, well, that's just "tedious" and "nonsense" and "ridiculous," and you'll turn yourself inside out figuring out ways to defend him.
