On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 7:47 PM, authfriend <jst...@panix.com> wrote:
> > No, Judy, you missed it. > > No, Tom, I saw it. > > > Alex said the first time, and hist post hasn't > > changed, that he'd be inclined to let RC slide this week > > as he's a newbie, but that Rick is the owner. > > He always says that when he proposes some ruling before > he's checked with Rick. > > > Rick has software running such that any > > mention of the word Rick get's his attention and he zooms in > > on the post. He did not rule against RC. I didn't expect him > > to. > > Neither did I. Why should he have? It's a reasonable > exemption for a newbie. > > If it slams Maharishi, Rick's tacitly all for it. I > > agree with Nabby here. Rick's tacit aggressive when it comes > > to Maharishi. > > That's nonsense. (I think you mean "passive aggressive," no?) > And why should you care anyway? > > > No, I meant tacit aggressive. If you look at the letters to the owner he chooses to post, you'll notice that if they're a slam on Maharishi or a slam on the TMO, no matter how far out it might be, Rick will decide to post it, anonymous to the author, but claim he's being fair and, well, it's not his writing. Like, for example, that ?psychologist? who launched an incoherent tirade against Maharishi and the TMO some months ago. People asked why it is Rick chose to post /that/ but Rick just said something like he posted it "because it was available for posting" or some such inane excuse. Why does it bother me? Because I've seen Rick play this very subtle but after a while very obvious and IMO pretty damn inconsiderate and nasty game of saying he's not getting involved, that he's at most acting as facilitator to get all sides of an argument out. But his bias and agenda become obvious. That rankles me because 1) It's very dishonest and 2) His hidden agenda becomes first obvious then insulting. Rick does this not only on FFL but in real life as well. I like to hear both sides. I'd prefer, of course, two sides to post an approximately equal number of words. If you are enlightened or were and decided you're better than that now, it appears it's part of your enlightenment to throw in at least a thousand extra big, florid words which don't move your story along because, well, rambling and confusing people with your meaning appears to be part and parcel of enlightenment. Maharishi spoke for hours at a tim, but crystallized his main points into pithy epigrams. Rory, Ravi and now RC, OTOH, figure the more words they throw at you the more you'll lap it up.
