--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear curtis, I know what blues is. But hearing what you > > > > manage to shriek about MMM, the latest him being worse > > > > than Mao, > > > > > > Ah Nabbie, what a gift you have bestowed. Usually I would > > > correct you concerning this vicious lie pointing out that > > > my point about Mao had to do with the unreliability of > > > people's subjective darshon experiences since he had so > > > many more millions who attributed God-like status on him > > > and commented on his powerful presence filling Tienanmen > > > Square. > > > > This was one of your points. Another, however, had to > > do with how both MMY and Mao "staged" their appearances > > before their followers specifically to evoke this > > subjective darshan experience that led their followers > > to confer God-like status on them. > > > > Other points involved personality traits the two of > > them had in common, such as hypocrisy (concerning their > > sexual dalliances, for example). > > > > So in fact it wasn't just about the unreliability of > > darshan experiences; you were comparing MMY and Mao as > > human beings. > > > > But you're quite right, Nabby is "lying" in one respect: > > You never said MMY was *worse* than Mao. Rather, you > > said MMY was "a rather dim bulb compared to Mao." > > > > Actually, in context, maybe that *does* qualify as > > "worse," and Nabby isn't "lying" after all. > > > > (You tried this sort of approach once before, Curtis, > > with regard to a different issue, and you fouled it up > > then too. You just aren't very good at it. You have > > trouble picking *parallels*, among other things.) > > So I never said that Maharishi was worse than Mao despite > your attempt to twist it into that with a clumsy two step. > It is obvious how Nabbie meant it and your attempts at > obfuscation have failed.
Sheesh, Curtis, that was a jocular throwaway afterthought. > And the upshot is for you to attempt to correct me about what > point I was making I *did* correct your claim about the point you had been making. You attempted to limit it to the darshan experiences of followers, whereas in fact you also compared Mao and MMY as men. That is, of course, what Nabby was referring to. So if he was being dishonest about the comparison, so were you to claim you weren't comparing them. rather than show some ethical disapproval > for this blatant and offensive lie. Remember what I said about the kind of gun Nabby uses? Please read the parenthetical above again. > Thanks for being predictable. Now you can drop the superior > ethical facade because you have just proven how fake and self- > serving the act was. Nice try, no cigar. As I said, you aren't very good at this sort of approach. And you know what? I've been pondering what Robin has said about your appropriation of context. I think this is an example. You have terrible difficulty perceiving any context but your own. Not that we all aren't limited to some degree in perceiving another person's context, but most of us do take a stab at it, if only so that we can more effectively argue our own perspective. You rarely even try.
