--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Ahhh, thanks for clarifying. I guess Curtis just jumped > > > the gun a little and didn't realize you were unaware of > > > that post before he was. > > > > Curtis was commenting on the fact that over the many > > years that Nablus has been "Buddhist bashing" on this > > forum, we haven't heard a single word about it from > > Judy. And we wouldn't have this time unless Curtis > > had prodded her.
False, as I've already pointed out. > > It's *OK* in Judy's book for Nabby (and Jim, who used > > to do the same thing) to bash Buddhists, thinking > > that doing so will bother Vaj or I. She has established > > a long, long, many-year history of not feeling that this > > is out of place. Somehow it's only criticism of TMers > > that she feels is evil. Also false. > > Curtis was pointing out her hypocrisy. As usual, you > > didn't get it. > > If Judy disputes this, she can simply find and > repost any post she has made taking Nabby or Jim > to task over their consistent Tibet-bashing and > Buddhist-bashing over the years. I doubt she'll > be able to find and repost a single one, much > less more than one. Irrelevant, since (as Barry knows) neither Curtis's post nor my criticism of Nabby's post had anything to do with Buddhist- or Tibet-bashing. > The thing is, neither Nabby or I are Buddhists. > I have never taken refuge or joined any formal > Buddhist order, and never will, although I have > learned some techniques from Buddhist teachers. Barry has referred to himself as "Buddhistic," just for the record. > Both Nabby and Jim just take this approach > because they're still "stung" by things we've > said poking fun at TMers, and they hope that > bashing Buddhists and Buddhism will similarly > get under our skin. Somehow in Barry's mind it's perfectly OK for Barry and Vaj to "poke fun" at TMers (read: viciously attack and insult), but it's not OK for anybody to give them a taste of their own medicine. > History has proven that it doesn't. Neither of > us is *like* them -- or Judy -- so identified > with a *group* that anything said about that > group is perceived as a personal insult or > attack. That's *their* samskara, not ours. I won't speak for Nabby, but that sure as hell isn't *my* samskara, and Barry knows it. > I've studied with Yaqui shamans, too. I wonder > how long it'll take Nabby to start bashing them > now that I've pointed it out. And for Judy to > quietly sit back and allow him to do so. :-) Looks like Barry really *has* been stung by Nabby's bashing. > But if Curtis does a funny Tyler Perry riff on > someone that Judy identifies with as both a > woman and a <genuflect> TMer, he's evil and she > goes bat shit crazy over it. As Barry knows, my primary complaint about that riff was its fat-bashing, and secondarily that this was directed against a woman. Had nothing to do with Oprah being a TMer. If I or Vaj point > out how idiotic many of the TM beliefs and > practices are , in Judy's mind that is nigh > unto a hate crime. Or at least she'll "spin" > it that way, because that'll allow her to do > what she really wants to do -- bash one of her > perceived "enemies." False. > Nabby posting this photo didn't bother me in > the least, nor did his trying to associate it > with me. I didn't criticize Nabby on Barry's behalf, as Barry knows. > I just shrugged and moved on to the > next post. But Judy would have never said a > word about it if Curtis hadn't called her on > her silence. False. Plus which, as I've already noted, Curtis's post had nothing to do with Buddhist-bashing, and he had zero reason to think I'd have seen Nabby's post 20 minutes after he made it. It was dishonest for him to "call me on [my] silence" before I'd had the chance to read Nabby's post. Her claim to have not reacted > because she "hadn't seen it yet" is an absolute > lie, and her own past history on this forum > proves it. False, and false.
