I think you could have saved some time by saying, "I respectfully decline to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me", or, even shorter,
"I take the 5th" No biggie. You can slink back into the shadows now. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jamesalan735@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Hard to really get a feel of where you're coming from James, as you post so infrequently. I'd be inclined to put your comments in the category of "sour grapes". Perhaps you can reveal more of yourself here, so we can get a better idea of where you are coming from. My comments are based on the content of your responses, and only on their content. All that is needed to assess my comments are the two sets of responses I was commenting on. Who I am, how often I post, where I'm coming from, why I posted my comments, how I feel, how you feel, who you are, how often you post, where you're coming from - none of these has any relevance to my assessment of your responses or to your judgment of this assessment. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jamesalan735@...> wrote : The responses below are some of the least rational, internally most contradictory responses that I have come across here. How the writer (apparently) considers these to constitute even a remotely coherent argument (and fails to see his responses as a complete surrender of moral principle to "I choose to believe and do whatever suits my desired ends") is beyond me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : Me: Whenever I lurked in the last few months I would see you responding to Barry. You spent time doing this. It was your choice. What you wrote about someone putting a the bum's rush on ideas is a weird statement that hands the power of your own mind and intellectual boundaries over to someone else here. S:Curtis, my buttons can get pushed, and do get pushed every day. I venture to say that this is no different than anyone. Set aside for a moment the more technical definition of a "bully" and go with the definition of a "bully" we grew up with. I will take a stand against a bully whether it is a physical bully, or an intellectual bully. And when the bully states that he does what he does to make people uncomfortable, then I am not able to stand by and tolerate that. If this means I have lost my intellecual integrity, then I have done so. I have taken as much fire from as many people as anyone here Steve. I was able to choose whose criticism I would respond to. I am curious why you feel unable to make this choice yourself and why you would let anyone's other opinion on a topic give your ideas the bum's rush? When you and I disagree, we have a civil discussion like this one. If Barry didn't treat you that way then why did you respond to him so much? I think I know. Same reason I interact with people I don't agree with, because it is a great writing prompt for uncovering our own ideas in writing to people we disagree with. I didn't do this with the last R because he was not capable of discussion. But with the other two I did for the same reasons you did with Barry I'll bet. S: Of course there was not discussion with Barry, as I was on his DNR list. It was strictly an antagonistic one way relationship, with me finding fault with what I felt were his lies and misrepresentations and trolling for reactions. All three R's rode my jock for legions of posts. None of them deserved to get booted because they went after everything I wrote with their idiotic personal attacks. None of them gave any of my ideas the bums' rush. They mostly just proved my point with their behavior. Buck has violated the trust of this place by being dishonest and if you were being honest you would just admit that your personal position on Barry has distorted your sense of right and wrong on this issue. Moderators need to give reasons for booting people, not lie about it and blame it on other people. And if as a group we don't buy the reason, Rick should be informed that his moderator is not running the site as the free though forum it was intended to be. S: Yes, I own up to the fact that I am happy to see him go. And if Doug booted him for less than a bootable reason, I will compromise my standards in this regard for what I think is a greater good. But the reality is that I think, the means justify the ends in this case. In other words, there are exceptions for every rule, and I embrace this exception. And when what goes around, comes around in this regard, I hope I'll be ready. Barry didn't need to be a weatherman to see which way the wind was blowing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : snip And the people who didn't like the person look the other way and say,"let's move along and not be negative." And the people who have seen this all before and know where it leads stand up and speak out. Then one of two things happen. Maharishi visits the course and kicks out the power-grabbing guru wanna-be for abusing his power, or the other voices get quelled one by one. Time will tell. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote : And I notice that Dougy is still not responding to Curtis' request for an explanation to Turq's getting the boot - ignoring what needs to be addressed and blabbering about a bunch of other stuff is spot on TMO behavior. From: "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 8:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Time to come clean Doug ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : This is not a place for someone who has a stated agenda to prove his point that an organization is a cult, and to label anyone who may defend the organization as cult apologist. According to the spiel on the Fairfield Life home page, this is the perfect place to discuss whether the TM Org is a cult. If what you say is true, then you feel this place has a stated agenda to prove the point that the TM Org is not a cult. This is a blatant statement showing you wish to suppress opposing points of view, as do many others here. Remember the first quotation on that page: "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." ~ Bertrand Russell
