--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote > 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. >
When it concerns a misrepresentation of my own POV I am not open to considering what point you think I was making. And if you are making a case for having a superior ability for understanding my context this would be a counterexample for that claim. You have attempted to reframe the discussion about whether or not I was "comparing" Maharishi and Mao, which was never in question, of course I was. But that comparison did not have the odious and practically insane suggestion that a pop guru was worse than the single greatest mass murder in history whose status in buttholery might only be challenged by Stalin. So no, I am not open to the bullshit context you are attempting and that is not evidence of my lack of ability to understand another person's POV. The question I have for you is why you thought you would get away with such a weak case while demonstrating the very lack of perceptiveness you are accusing me of? You haven't demonstrated that you get my context, quite the opposite. > > > > --- 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. >
