--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote: > > O.K. then. Show us one post where Judy has ever pointed > out an unintended irony, a lie or a wiggle from owning > up to an error because and only because the person she > confronted is a TM critic. Bet you a buck you can't and > I'll bet you another buck Judy would be the first to dig > up such a post if it existed.
Raunchy, I think that what zarzari and others have perceived (and rightly, IMO) is that the *particular* nitpicks that Judy comes up with to criticize someone very often have nothing whatsoever to do with her real reasons *for* criticizing them. One of the troika will post something less than worshipful about Maharishi or TM or TMers and within a few hours Judy will be all over that person *for some unrelated, made-up reason*. It's like a teacher who only criticizes the black students in the class. The individual criticisms may actually be valid. But if a case can be made that the *vast majority* of the criticisms are of black students, and in fact the *vast majority* of things that teacher says *period* are negative comments about the black students, that teacher is going to get fired for being a racist. Judy has been trying to "get" the same three people on this forum for well over a decade now, one for over 17 years. I think it's justified to question whether the reasons she comes up with *for* consistently trying to "get" them are her real reasons, or whether that's just the "cover story" she trots out to hide the fact that she considers them the TM TB counterpart of niggers. It's the TRENDS, Raunchy, not the particulars.
