[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: OK, that makes it official for me. Judy has achieved what I had thought was unachievableshe actually IS crazier than Tex! Wowwho-da-thunk it! I used to really think she was a genuine crusader for the truth and mistakenly backed her self-superior game - as others have done who've since seen that folly. Yoiks!... that was a painful and humiliating lesson for me as I began to see how she continuously tore people down just for her entertainment. She uses her editorial verbal skills as a sadistic exercise of self-aggrandisement. I vaguely recall her having said it was like an exhilarating tennis match for her. But I learned from it and had the benefit of having closely observed her methods, and have come to recognize how she operates as a pathological self-superior and self appointed arbiter of how everyone else should think and behave by HER standards. Like I said, I've never seen anything like it. Question: ever been married Judy? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip OK so you are saying that saying it was interesting that it was ONLY TM people who gave is not a statement at all about non TM people not giving. *You* said ONLY. I said all. This is not a reasonable distinction. Obviously it is in this context, because your reading--reflected in your term ONLY--caused you to think it was a slight on non-TMers. ONLY is, as you said, the flip side, the side you focused on, the negative side, the assumption of a slight, so you could pick a fight. All--the word I used--focused on the positive side, the fact that TMers were eager to help, contrary to Barry's vicious slur, which bothers you not at all. You're focused only on slights on non-TMers from TMers. Hypocrite. snip Obviously you didn't ask why TMers gave because what you had in mind was that they felt sorry for the poor Haitians. If that was not a part of it they are not human. It was not a bad guess. I assumed they give a shit. Remember my view of TMers is that they are just ordinary people. Not the point. Disingenuous. snip That was *my* point. It didn't make any sense to say I'm glad you got to donate as if I might *not* have gotten to donate. If you miswrote, fine, just say so. It makes perfect sense and I didn't miswrite anything. It was a turn of phrase Which didn't make sense. We are not getting anywhere here. It sure makes sense to me that TM people might care about Haitians. Not the point. Disingenuous. snip Because its flip side of your interesting point was that non TMers had not contributed to this specific fund. That was *your* flip side, not one I was pointing to. OK but I felt like making sure my own point got made. One more time: *I* made that point before you did. That should have clued you in right away that you had misinterpreted my point. But then you'd have had to give up on the fight you chose to pick, so you managed not to notice. I'm pretty sure that is how it works here. I didn't accuse you of anything I asked you a question. I didn't say you accused me of anything. And your question was obviously rhetorical; you had an answer in mind, you weren't looking for one from me. Interestingly enough, you *still* haven't been willing to state what that answer was. Then you demonstrated why non TM people might not want to get involved in your agenda with Barry. And I don't give a shit who started it because there is no real start. Yeah, there is. You just don't want to acknowledge it. snip OK. So now we both made the points interesting to us. Except that yours had nothing to do with mine. Yeah that's because I don't live in your head, I am outside here in another body with another perspective. You mistakenly assumed it had something to do with mine because you were looking for a fight. snip We all had other channels to give, of course. But since you raised the issue of non-TMers not donating to the FFL fund, the question arises as to why they didn't join in, why there wasn't group solidarity in helping Haiti. As I pointed out, none of those who donated waved the TM flag; we were waving the *FFL* flag. You'd think that would be one issue we could come together on, wouldn't you? Let's make FFL's contribution as big as possible. Even if all the non-TMers had already given through other channels, you'd think they could make
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: snip But I learned from it and had the benefit of having closely observed her methods, and have come to recognize how she operates as a pathological self-superior and self appointed arbiter of how everyone else should think and behave by HER standards. Hooboy, he's challenging Barry for the title Master of Inadvertent Irony here. The reason I fell from the do.rk's favor was my unwillingness to fall in line with his worship of Obama.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
Yeah Joe don't you get it? If I don't understand what she has written it is my inability to understand her perfect writing. If she doesn't understand me it is because I am a bad writer. It is the Las Vegas of shame,heads she wins tails I lose! She did declare you not stupid. But before you break out the champagne I gotta warn you, that means that now if you disagree you are lying. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: For someone who prides themselves on understanding the written word so well and the intentions of the writer, I have to say...I have never met anyone with less ability to understand what I write. Every interaction is a struggle. That would be *so* much more impressive if it hadn't been *your* misunderstanding of what *I* wrote--which you've even acknowledged--that led you to start this fight. It would also be more impressive if you were able to point to anything that I misunderstood of what you wrote, other than the fact that I didn't immediately realize how completely you'd misunderstood what I had said. Classic. You know something, Geeze? I don't expect you to ever have the guts to do this, but if you were to follow one of these exchanges you leave your little yapyapyap turds on, actually follow it closely from one post to another, from the beginning to the end, so you understood what was going on, you would be so embarrassed. You aren't stupid. You just have a habit of making snap judgments and insisting on sticking with them no matter what. Curtis *did* misunderstand the point I was making. He admitted it. Because he isn't the world's clearest writer when he's dealing with a challenge (and not just from me), I didn't realize what his problem was for several go-rounds. And that wasn't his only misunderstanding in this exchange. He's also not real clear on how rhetorical questions work, even when he asks them, and even more so when somebody else does. That's what makes his comment at the top so ironic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?(oi vei!)
pray for peae.. peace peace peace
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: Yeah Joe don't you get it? If I don't understand what she has written it is my inability to understand her perfect writing. Well, let's correct the record here. I never suggested my writing was perfect, as Curtis knows. In fact, his misunderstanding was quite reasonable given that he was looking for something from me to be offended about. What I had written wasn't explicit enough to keep him from taking it the wrong way, and I never said or implied that it was. I *did* point out, however, that my response to his initial sally, in which I acknowledged that many non- TMers had surely donated on their own hook rather than to the FFL fund, should have cleared up for him that I hadn't been trying to suggest that non-TMers were heartless tightwads, as he had at first thought and wanted to rebut (understandably). It isn't a matter of perfect writing. It's simply a matter of paying attention and being willing to let go of a mistaken idea when it becomes obvious that it's wrong. Once it was clear what his misunderstanding had been, I stopped accusing him of trying to suggest that TMers had contributed to the fund for purposes of one- upsmanship. Eventually he reciprocated. But it *was* ironic that he declared himself to be the only one who was misunderstood, when it was his misunderstanding that started the whole brouhaha. If she doesn't understand me it is because I am a bad writer. Actually, Curtis is usually a pretty good writer. It's when he gets upset that his writing becomes unclear. It is the Las Vegas of shame,heads she wins tails I lose! Or so Curtis enjoys telling himself. The game is rigged! That's why I made such a mess of it! And BTW, in general, it isn't a matter of winning, just a matter of *losing*. One person being a loser does not make the other person a winner. She did declare you not stupid. But before you break out the champagne I gotta warn you, that means that now if you disagree you are lying. Only if he asserts factual falsehoods that there's reason to believe he knows are false. I've never seen him do that here; that doesn't seem to be how he rolls. As I said, his problem is his tendency to make snap judgments and stick with them without ever examining the actual evidence.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
Joe: Judy has achieved what I had thought was unachievableshe actually IS crazier than Tex! Wowwho-da-thunk it! Having a little trouble focusing, Joe? Question: ever been married Judy? So, you don't have all the answers.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
On Mar 3, 2010, at 12:14 PM, WillyTex wrote: Joe: Judy has achieved what I had thought was unachievableshe actually IS crazier than Tex! Wowwho-da-thunk it! Having a little trouble focusing, Joe? Question: ever been married Judy? So, you don't have all the answers. No, but I've often thought you two would make a great couple, as long as you promise not to have children.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
do.rks: I used to really think she was a genuine crusader for the truth and mistakenly backed her self-superior game - as others have done who've since seen that folly... You're just holding a grudge because Judy wouldn't drink the Obama kool-aid. You're like that. To you, politics is more important than TM and the mechanics of consciousness. Face it, John, Judy beat you fair and square in a honest debate. That's why you've kept your pie hole shut, until today, when you managed to key in a whole paragraph, trying to defend yourself. Judy is way out of your league - better for your to stick to posting diatribes on the Mormon Religion discussion group.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Joe: Judy has achieved what I had thought was unachievableshe actually IS crazier than Tex! Wowwho-da-thunk it! Having a little trouble focusing, Joe? Question: ever been married Judy? So, you don't have all the answers. No Tex, I don't have all the answers. Do you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
It's back to pie holes today, eh Tex? What is this fascination you have with pie holes? Have you been doing naughty things with pies Tex? What's up with that? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: do.rks: I used to really think she was a genuine crusader for the truth and mistakenly backed her self-superior game - as others have done who've since seen that folly... You're just holding a grudge because Judy wouldn't drink the Obama kool-aid. You're like that. To you, politics is more important than TM and the mechanics of consciousness. Face it, John, Judy beat you fair and square in a honest debate. That's why you've kept your pie hole shut, until today, when you managed to key in a whole paragraph, trying to defend yourself. Judy is way out of your league - better for your to stick to posting diatribes on the Mormon Religion discussion group.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
Joe: It's back to pie holes today, eh Tex? What is this fascination you have with pie holes? You seem to be very interested, Joe. Have you been doing naughty things with pies Tex? Why do you want to know? What's up with that? I already told you I'm not gay, Joe.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
I didn't ask if you were gay Tex. But since you brought it up, do you have something against gay people? What's up with that? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Joe: It's back to pie holes today, eh Tex? What is this fascination you have with pie holes? You seem to be very interested, Joe. Have you been doing naughty things with pies Tex? Why do you want to know? What's up with that? I already told you I'm not gay, Joe.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: The TMO may not approve of this. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?em http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?em Good article, John. Especially: Mr. Stearns argues that evangelicals were often so focused on sexual morality and a personal relationship with God that they ignored the needy. He writes laceratingly about a Church that had the wealth to build great sanctuaries but lacked the will to build schools, hospitals, and clinics. In one striking passage, Mr. Stearns quotes the prophet Ezekiel as saying that the great sin of the people of Sodom wasn't so much that they were promiscuous or gay as that they were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49.) I guess my question is, Do *you* approve of this article, and this author's point? It's not a question of my approving the article or not. It is. THAT is what I asked about. You failed to answer. Have you been drinking bad Spanish wine? You need to sober up and read what I said.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: The TMO may not approve of this. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?em http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?em Good article, John. Especially: Mr. Stearns argues that evangelicals were often so focused on sexual morality and a personal relationship with God that they ignored the needy. He writes laceratingly about a Church that had the wealth to build great sanctuaries but lacked the will to build schools, hospitals, and clinics. In one striking passage, Mr. Stearns quotes the prophet Ezekiel as saying that the great sin of the people of Sodom wasn't so much that they were promiscuous or gay as that they were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49.) I guess my question is, Do *you* approve of this article, and this author's point? It's not a question of my approving the article or not. It is. THAT is what I asked about. You failed to answer. It is my contention that you are *afraid* to. Being a Jyotish charlatan all this time has turned you into such a pussy that you *can't* make a stand one way or another on much of any- thing. You have to equivocate and cover your ass without stating what *you* actually believe. Remember when I challenged you to make just ONE falsifiable Jyotish prediction that we can track the supposed accuracy of? You bailed on that one, too. Pussy. :-) The intent of the author, it appears, is to wake up all of us as to how effective are our beliefs in actual practice. Not how effective. Whether those beliefs are self-serving bullshit or not. Sez Barry, completely missing the point. This article reminds me of the words in the Beatitudes, i.e. Blessed are those who hunger and mourn... At face value, I don't see how hunger and mourning can be considered virtues. Neither is wanting to be taken seriously, but some treat that as if it's a virtue. :-) But in a deeper sense the meaning of these words can take on a different perspective. Specifically, hunger can mean hunger for justice and fairness in the structure of society throughout the world, particularly in the distribution of wealth. And, mourning can mean our emphaty for people who are suffering, in particular those who are victims of natural disasters. In the final analysis, these virtues can only be validated with actions. Exactly. I asked you a simple question, and you failed to act. Instead, you spouted equivocation. Sez Barry, completely missing the point.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: snip It's not a question of my approving the article or not. The intent of the author, it appears, is to wake up all of us as to how effective are our beliefs in actual practice. This article reminds me of the words in the Beatitudes, i.e. Blessed are those who hunger and mourn... At face value, I don't see how hunger and mourning can be considered virtues. But in a deeper sense the meaning of these words can take on a different perspective. Specifically, hunger can mean hunger for justice and fairness in the structure of society throughout the world, particularly in the distribution of wealth. And, mourning can mean our emphaty for people who are suffering, in particular those who are victims of natural disasters. In the final analysis, these virtues can only be validated with actions. It occurs to me that in this particular attempt to slime all TMers, Barry has tried to set up a false dichotomy: *either* one pursues enlightenment, *or* one helps others in an active, material sense. For some TMers, the dichotomy may be valid--those who have chosen to devote their entire lives to the pursuit of enlightenment (Purusha and Mother Divine). For others who have remained householders, there's no earthly reason why we can't do *both*. And, in fact, we *do*. After the Haiti earthquake, just for example, we raised a couple thousand dollars here for Haiti relief. Interestingly, the donors were all TMers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. Very interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why that was? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: snip It's not a question of my approving the article or not. The intent of the author, it appears, is to wake up all of us as to how effective are our beliefs in actual practice. This article reminds me of the words in the Beatitudes, i.e. Blessed are those who hunger and mourn... At face value, I don't see how hunger and mourning can be considered virtues. But in a deeper sense the meaning of these words can take on a different perspective. Specifically, hunger can mean hunger for justice and fairness in the structure of society throughout the world, particularly in the distribution of wealth. And, mourning can mean our emphaty for people who are suffering, in particular those who are victims of natural disasters. In the final analysis, these virtues can only be validated with actions. It occurs to me that in this particular attempt to slime all TMers, Barry has tried to set up a false dichotomy: *either* one pursues enlightenment, *or* one helps others in an active, material sense. For some TMers, the dichotomy may be valid--those who have chosen to devote their entire lives to the pursuit of enlightenment (Purusha and Mother Divine). For others who have remained householders, there's no earthly reason why we can't do *both*. And, in fact, we *do*. After the Haiti earthquake, just for example, we raised a couple thousand dollars here for Haiti relief. Interestingly, the donors were all TMers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. Very interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why that was? Yup. I'm sure many of the TM critics gave money for Haiti relief as well; they just didn't want it to look as though they might have been inspired to do so by TMers. They should have started a TM Critics' Drive. Then we could have had a competition and probably raised even more... My point, of course--which Curtis attempts to distract attention from while nastily insinuating lowly motives-- is that householder TMers don't just sit back and assume their practice is all they need to contribute to the general welfare. Like most other decent human beings, they're moved to do whatever they can to help others in material ways as well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. Very interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why that was? Yup. I'm sure many of the TM critics gave money for Haiti relief as well; they just didn't want it to look as though they might have been inspired to do so by TMers. Nope, but nice swipe at the non TMers. For some of us donating to the cause had nothing to do with this agenda of proving something about TM or non TM. It was not a wedge issue that needed to be used to prove something else. They should have started a TM Critics' Drive. Then we could have had a competition and probably raised even more... If our world revolved around being anti-TM. The issues of giving are not associated with my views on TM although you have chosen to link them. We can conclude nothing about non TM people from their lack of participation in the FFL drive. Being individuals I suspect there were many reasons. My point, of course--which Curtis attempts to distract attention from while nastily insinuating lowly motives-- Lowly motives you ascribe to the non TMers. You are linking the concepts here Judy you don't get to shove your own connection on me for challenging it. I just asked why that was and true to form you assumed the worst about non TMers turning this into a wedge issue. You even suggest that it becomes a contest showing that for you this proved a point about TM people. One that is bogus as I have pointed out. is that householder TMers don't just sit back and assume their practice is all they need to contribute to the general welfare. Like most other decent human beings, they're moved to do whatever they can to help others in material ways as well. I couldn't agree more in your case. The fact that the movement believers tend to think their inner magic cures social problems is too documented to debate. It is part of the doctrine of beliefs. I'm glad you got to donate and feel good about it. You didn't need to make the statement about non TMers and you certainly didn't need to accuse me of nastiness for calling you out on it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. Very interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why that was? Just in case anyone has forgotten how this really went down, Curtis, possibly the first person to comment on contributing to Haiti relief on this forum was moi, a TM critic. I posted the story of how the Buddhist group in the Garraf mountains near Sitges had decided to take the entire amount they were raising for very necessary repairs to their temple and donated it to Medecins San Frontieres instead. I mentioned that I had con- tributed to it. Raunchy reacted to this (and admirably, on one level) by creating a fund-raising drive for FFL. During the *entirety* of that drive, when posting the amount of money contributed by FFL members, they did not once include the amount that I contributed before they even started their fund drive. Since it wound up being about half of what they raised as a group, I thought that an...uh...oversight. But I didn't say anything, because the money *was* raised, and went to a real-world cause. If fear of being perceived as care-nothing-about-the-world-me- first cheapskates could inspire them into a Gotta Beat Barry competition and raise money for a good cause, I for one was not going to stand in the way. The attempt to reinvent history at this point by one of the score-keepers seems an awful lot like what someone on this forum would call a LIE. The final figure I saw reported as raised by the recently-reinvented TM supporters, and that *they* made a Big Deal of how cool and noble that made them (and obviously still are), was $2,070, The amount that started the ball rolling, contributed by a single TM critic, was $750 Euros, or $1,076.78. Just sayin'... :-) I love the smell of frying poseurs in the morning. - Afuckalypse Now
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. Very interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why that was? Yup. I'm sure many of the TM critics gave money for Haiti relief as well; they just didn't want it to look as though they might have been inspired to do so by TMers. Nope, but nice swipe at the non TMers. For some of us donating to the cause had nothing to do with this agenda of proving something about TM or non TM. It was not a wedge issue that needed to be used to prove something else. But you're suggesting it was on the TMers' part, right? I didn't even notice that the donors were all TMers until after it was over and done with. Nobody waved a TM banner. Raunchy waved an *FFL* banner. She and I were thinking of it as a group effort on the part of FFL participants. I doubt any of the other contributors thought of it as anything else either. They should have started a TM Critics' Drive. Then we could have had a competition and probably raised even more... If our world revolved around being anti-TM. The issues of giving are not associated with my views on TM although you have chosen to link them. We can conclude nothing about non TM people from their lack of participation in the FFL drive. But we can attribute lowly motives to TM people for having participated, right? Being individuals I suspect there were many reasons. My point, of course--which Curtis attempts to distract attention from while nastily insinuating lowly motives-- Lowly motives you ascribe to the non TMers. Right. You can ascribe lowly motives, but I can't. Hypocrite. You are linking the concepts here Judy you don't get to shove your own connection on me for challenging it. I just asked why that was There was no need to ask why that was. The *only* point I was making was that TMers aren't slackers about doing their bit, contrary to the impression your pal Barry tried to create. and true to form you assumed the worst about non TMers Hardly. I said I was sure many of them had donated as well. turning this into a wedge issue. You even suggest that it becomes a contest Sarcasm in response to your nasty insinuation. showing that for you this proved a point about TM people. One that is bogus as I have pointed out. If the point I was making--that TMers contribute just like others--was bogus, then why *did* the TMers contribute? Come on, Curtis, spit it out. Have the balls to let us see how you really think. is that householder TMers don't just sit back and assume their practice is all they need to contribute to the general welfare. Like most other decent human beings, they're moved to do whatever they can to help others in material ways as well. I couldn't agree more in your case. The fact that the movement believers tend to think their inner magic cures social problems is too documented to debate. It is part of the doctrine of beliefs. That doesn't mean they don't *also* help in material ways. I'm glad you got to donate and feel good about it. It's not about feeling good about it. It's about doing something helpful to others. And just how do you imagine I wouldn't have gotten to donate, such that you can be glad I did get to? Are you suggesting I wouldn't have had any motivation to do so if there hadn't been a TMers' effort here? You didn't need to make the statement about non TMers and you certainly didn't need to accuse me of nastiness for calling you out on it. Wait *just* a minute. I didn't accuse you of nastiness for calling me out on non-TMers' nonparticipation in the donation drive. I accused you of nastiness for suggesting that the reason TMers donated was to prove something about TMers. Get the sequence straight before you get all self-righteous. It didn't occur to me to wonder why non-TMers hadn't participated until you suggested the TMers had ulterior motives for contributing. Seems I was late in realizing how the non-TMers here viewed the drive. Silly me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: snip It's not a question of my approving the article or not. The intent of the author, it appears, is to wake up all of us as to how effective are our beliefs in actual practice. This article reminds me of the words in the Beatitudes, i.e. Blessed are those who hunger and mourn... At face value, I don't see how hunger and mourning can be considered virtues. But in a deeper sense the meaning of these words can take on a different perspective. Specifically, hunger can mean hunger for justice and fairness in the structure of society throughout the world, particularly in the distribution of wealth. And, mourning can mean our emphaty for people who are suffering, in particular those who are victims of natural disasters. In the final analysis, these virtues can only be validated with actions. It occurs to me that in this particular attempt to slime all TMers, Barry has tried to set up a false dichotomy: *either* one pursues enlightenment, *or* one helps others in an active, material sense. For some TMers, the dichotomy may be valid--those who have chosen to devote their entire lives to the pursuit of enlightenment (Purusha and Mother Divine). For others who have remained householders, there's no earthly reason why we can't do *both*. And, in fact, we *do*. After the Haiti earthquake, just for example, we raised a couple thousand dollars here for Haiti relief. Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. Judy, this is an excellent point. Barry should read this carefully for his own edification.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. Very interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why that was? Yup. I'm sure many of the TM critics gave money for Haiti relief as well; they just didn't want it to look as though they might have been inspired to do so by TMers. Nope, but nice swipe at the non TMers. For some of us donating to the cause had nothing to do with this agenda of proving something about TM or non TM. It was not a wedge issue that needed to be used to prove something else. But you're suggesting it was on the TMers' part, right? I didn't even notice that the donors were all TMers until after it was over and done with. Nobody waved a TM banner. Raunchy waved an *FFL* banner. She and I were thinking of it as a group effort on the part of FFL participants. I doubt any of the other contributors thought of it as anything else either. They should have started a TM Critics' Drive. Then we could have had a competition and probably raised even more... If our world revolved around being anti-TM. The issues of giving are not associated with my views on TM although you have chosen to link them. We can conclude nothing about non TM people from their lack of participation in the FFL drive. But we can attribute lowly motives to TM people for having participated, right? No I did not. Being individuals I suspect there were many reasons. My point, of course--which Curtis attempts to distract attention from while nastily insinuating lowly motives-- Lowly motives you ascribe to the non TMers. Right. You can ascribe lowly motives, but I can't. Hypocrite. You are linking the concepts here Judy you don't get to shove your own connection on me for challenging it. I just asked why that was There was no need to ask why that was. The *only* point I was making was that TMers aren't slackers about doing their bit, contrary to the impression your pal Barry tried to create. I accept that point. and true to form you assumed the worst about non TMers Hardly. I said I was sure many of them had donated as well. turning this into a wedge issue. You even suggest that it becomes a contest Sarcasm in response to your nasty insinuation. showing that for you this proved a point about TM people. One that is bogus as I have pointed out. If the point I was making--that TMers contribute just like others--was bogus, then why *did* the TMers contribute? Come on, Curtis, spit it out. Have the balls to let us see how you really think. Because they felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti? That would be my guess. And the drive here seemed like a good way to do it for them. (I don't think my balls need to be included in such a discussion.) is that householder TMers don't just sit back and assume their practice is all they need to contribute to the general welfare. Like most other decent human beings, they're moved to do whatever they can to help others in material ways as well. I couldn't agree more in your case. The fact that the movement believers tend to think their inner magic cures social problems is too documented to debate. It is part of the doctrine of beliefs. That doesn't mean they don't *also* help in material ways. I'm glad you got to donate and feel good about it. It's not about feeling good about it. It's about doing something helpful to others. It is whatever it is for you. I believe feeling good is a natural reaction to acts of altruism, it is hardwired. And just how do you imagine I wouldn't have gotten to donate, such that you can be glad I did get to? Are you suggesting I wouldn't have had any motivation to do so if there hadn't been a TMers' effort here? No I think linking the charity to TM vs Non TM is bogus. You are over focusing on words without getting my meaning. You didn't need to make the statement about non TMers and you certainly didn't need to accuse me of nastiness for calling you out on it. Wait *just* a minute. I didn't accuse you of nastiness for calling me out on non-TMers' nonparticipation in the donation drive. I accused you of nastiness for suggesting that the reason TMers donated was to prove something about TMers. I did not suggest this. You have made this up to make me look bad for challenging your making charity into a partition issue. And an anti-Barry issue at that by your own admission. Get the sequence straight before you get all self-righteous. That was funny. It didn't occur to me to wonder why non-TMers hadn't participated until you suggested the TMers had ulterior motives for contributing. Seems I was late in realizing how the non-TMers here viewed the drive. Silly me. I did no such thing. I asked a question why you thought it was that non TMers didn't contribute.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. Very interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why that was? Just in case anyone has forgotten how this really went down, Curtis, possibly the first person to comment on contributing to Haiti relief on this forum was moi, a TM critic. Nope, wrong. It was Raunchy, who made two posts listing relief agencies the morning after the earthquake: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/238584 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/238585 I posted the story of how the Buddhist group in the Garraf mountains near Sitges had decided to take the entire amount they were raising for very necessary repairs to their temple and donated it to Medecins San Frontieres instead. I mentioned that I had con- tributed to it. Here's what Barry said in that post (made 18 hours after Raunchy's): My thoughts exactly. I would bet that the 'raja' whose 'domain' is Haiti will not donate a single penny to the relief efforts. Neither will the TM movement, with its billions. And neither will most TMers. The Buddhist group I sit with here from time to time raised 40,000 Euros in one day. My contri- bution added to the total. What would you like to bet that NO ONE ELSE on this forum who has commented on this subject -- including Raunchy, Judy, and those who find 'karmic' reasons for the earthquake has contributed a penny. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/238645?var=1l=1 Nice, eh? Raunchy reacted to this (and admirably, on one level) by creating a fund-raising drive for FFL. Wrong again. I was wrong on this as well. It was sgrayatlarge, not Raunchy, who proposed the FFL fundraising drive, a few hours after Barry's post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/238665?threaded=1l=1 http://tinyurl.com/yaaeqkc During the *entirety* of that drive, when posting the amount of money contributed by FFL members, they did not once include the amount that I contributed before they even started their fund drive. Of course not, since Barry had contributed through a different group, and not for Haiti in any case. His donation, as he later admitted, was intended for a fund for temple repairs, which the group then decided to give to Haiti relief instead. Why on earth would he be included in the FFL drive? Since it wound up being about half of what they raised as a group, I thought that an...uh...oversight. But I didn't say anything, because the money *was* raised, and went to a real-world cause. Actually Barry said a whole lot. He claimed the FFL drive was all about Get Barry, when *he* had been the one to suggest--not just suggest, *bet*--that TMers wouldn't donate anything. snip The attempt to reinvent history at this point by one of the score-keepers seems an awful lot like what someone on this forum would call a LIE. ROAR See above for the reinvention of history--by none other than our Barry. I don't think he's lying. I think he creates his history in his own mind to make himself look good and believes it actually happened that way.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [Curtis wrote:] showing that for you this proved a point about TM people. One that is bogus as I have pointed out. You just said you *accepted* it. Make up your mind. If the point I was making--that TMers contribute just like others--was bogus, then why *did* the TMers contribute? Come on, Curtis, spit it out. Have the balls to let us see how you really think. Because they felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti? That would be my guess. Uh-huh. So it's only TMers who contributed because they felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti? What does that say about those who didn't contribute? What does that say about non-TMers who *did* contribute, if it's bogus that TMers contributed just like others? You're digging yourself into a hole, Curtis. snip And just how do you imagine I wouldn't have gotten to donate, such that you can be glad I did get to? Are you suggesting I wouldn't have had any motivation to do so if there hadn't been a TMers' effort here? No I think linking the charity to TM vs Non TM is bogus. You are over focusing on words without getting my meaning. Sorry, I'm an editor, and I assume words are what have meaning in a words-only forum. You said, I'm glad you got to donate, which implies that I might *not* have gotten to donate. You didn't need to make the statement about non TMers and you certainly didn't need to accuse me of nastiness for calling you out on it. Wait *just* a minute. I didn't accuse you of nastiness for calling me out on non-TMers' nonparticipation in the donation drive. I accused you of nastiness for suggesting that the reason TMers donated was to prove something about TMers. I did not suggest this. Oh, right, I forgot, you suggested the TMers donated because they felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti. Gee, what a profound thought. I bet nobody else ever attributed contributing to charity to feeling sorry for the folks the charity benefits. For pete's sake, Curtis, have some self-respect. You have made this up to make me look bad for challenging your making charity into a partition issue. Not what I was doing, as I've already explained and you've accepted. I was pointing out that the partition Barry tried to make was bogus. And an anti-Barry issue at that by your own admission. Get the sequence straight before you get all self-righteous. That was funny. Look again. You got the sequence mixed up. It didn't occur to me to wonder why non-TMers hadn't participated until you suggested the TMers had ulterior motives for contributing. Seems I was late in realizing how the non-TMers here viewed the drive. Silly me. I did no such thing. I asked a question why you thought it was that non TMers didn't contribute. I didn't say a word about non-TMers not contributing until you nastily asked why the TMers had contributed. YOU Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. MEsVery interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why that was? You want to show me how this means I was accusing TMers for having ulterior motives for contributing? Curtis, when you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING. Think you might have jumped the gun a bit? Made some stuff up to make me look bad? I don't have to. You make yourself look bad all on your own. Judy There was no need to ask why that was. The *only* point I was making was that TMers aren't slackers about doing their bit, contrary to the impression your pal Barry tried to create. That wasn't your ONLY point. You have neglected to mention your other point which was : Judy Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. Same point, of course. What did you imagine was different about it? Yup. I'm sure many of the TM critics gave money for Haiti relief as well; they just didn't want it to look as though they might have been inspired to do so by TMers. Speaking only for myself, your reason is bogus. As you know, I wouldn't trust you any further than I could throw you. You asked me why I thought it was only TMers who had contributed to the FFL drive. I told you what I thought. I stand by it. Live with it. (Although Barry thinks he should have been included, even though the money he donated hadn't been intended for Haiti relief and was given through an entirely different group. We could discuss his motivations for that if you like.) You're more than welcome, of course, to say why *you* think it was only TMers. Maybe because non-TMers didn't feel sorry for the poor people of Haiti? That's where your digging has taken you, Curtis. I made a simple, obvious, incontestable point, and you decided to challenge it just to pick a fight. That rarely works out well for you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [Curtis wrote:] showing that for you this proved a point about TM people. One that is bogus as I have pointed out. You just said you *accepted* it. Make up your mind. I accept they gave because of their good intentions towards the people in Haiti and not to prove a point. I do not accept to point about how interesting it was that non TMer didn't. If the point I was making--that TMers contribute just like others--was bogus, then why *did* the TMers contribute? Come on, Curtis, spit it out. Have the balls to let us see how you really think. Because they felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti? That would be my guess. Uh-huh. So it's only TMers who contributed because they felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti? What does that say about those who didn't contribute? What does that say about non-TMers who *did* contribute, if it's bogus that TMers contributed just like others? Why would you assume this? This is one of the issues you have in these discussions, you are reading this in. I didn't mean it that way. My point is that not giving to the FFL fund means NOTHING about the non TMers here. I agree with your point that TMers are just like everyone else. They are not better in any way, neither more or less altruistic. As a group their altruism is usually expressed in non physical ways like flying for world peace but that isn't how you operate. You're digging yourself into a hole, Curtis. No I'm not you are running the Judy program on me and it isn't working. snip And just how do you imagine I wouldn't have gotten to donate, such that you can be glad I did get to? Are you suggesting I wouldn't have had any motivation to do so if there hadn't been a TMers' effort here? No I think linking the charity to TM vs Non TM is bogus. You are over focusing on words without getting my meaning. Sorry, I'm an editor, and I assume words are what have meaning in a words-only forum. You said, I'm glad you got to donate, which implies that I might *not* have gotten to donate. No it doesn't. That has nothing to do with being an editor. You are jumping to an erroneous conclusion. How could any of us with the many channels to donate including my own cell phone NOT have a chance to donate, that interpretation doesn't make any sense. You didn't need to make the statement about non TMers and you certainly didn't need to accuse me of nastiness for calling you out on it. Wait *just* a minute. I didn't accuse you of nastiness for calling me out on non-TMers' nonparticipation in the donation drive. I accused you of nastiness for suggesting that the reason TMers donated was to prove something about TMers. I did not suggest this. Oh, right, I forgot, you suggested the TMers donated because they felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti. WTF? Gee, what a profound thought. I bet nobody else ever attributed contributing to charity to feeling sorry for the folks the charity benefits. I didn't say it was profound. You were implying that I had some nefarious reason that I didn't have the balls to express. I was just telling you what I DID think rather than you wrong assumptions. For pete's sake, Curtis, have some self-respect. Unnecessary but not uncharacteristic of you combative style. You have made this up to make me look bad for challenging your making charity into a partition issue. Not what I was doing, as I've already explained and you've accepted. I was pointing out that the partition Barry tried to make was bogus. That was the point you made before you tried to use the Non Tmers NOT giving something as being interesting. And an anti-Barry issue at that by your own admission. Get the sequence straight before you get all self-righteous. That was funny. Look again. You got the sequence mixed up. It didn't occur to me to wonder why non-TMers hadn't participated until you suggested the TMers had ulterior motives for contributing. Seems I was late in realizing how the non-TMers here viewed the drive. Silly me. I did no such thing. I asked a question why you thought it was that non TMers didn't contribute. I didn't say a word about non-TMers not contributing until you nastily asked why the TMers had contributed. Uh huh, nice try. YOU Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. MEsVery interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why that was? You want to show me how this means I was accusing TMers for having ulterior motives for contributing? Curtis, when you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING. Think you might have jumped the gun a bit? Made some stuff up to make me
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [Curtis wrote:] showing that for you this proved a point about TM people. One that is bogus as I have pointed out. You just said you *accepted* it. Make up your mind. I accept they gave because of their good intentions towards the people in Haiti and not to prove a point. I do not accept to point about how interesting it was that non TMer didn't. That is not what I said was interesting. You made that up. If the point I was making--that TMers contribute just like others--was bogus, then why *did* the TMers contribute? Come on, Curtis, spit it out. Have the balls to let us see how you really think. Because they felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti? That would be my guess. Uh-huh. So it's only TMers who contributed because they felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti? What does that say about those who didn't contribute? What does that say about non-TMers who *did* contribute, if it's bogus that TMers contributed just like others? Why would you assume this? This is one of the issues you have in these discussions, you are reading this in. I'm pointing out that it doesn't make sense, Curtis. snip You said, I'm glad you got to donate, which implies that I might *not* have gotten to donate. No it doesn't. That has nothing to do with being an editor. You are jumping to an erroneous conclusion. How could any of us with the many channels to donate including my own cell phone NOT have a chance to donate, that interpretation doesn't make any sense. That was *my* point. It didn't make any sense to say I'm glad you got to donate as if I might *not* have gotten to donate. If you miswrote, fine, just say so. snip Oh, right, I forgot, you suggested the TMers donated because they felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti. WTF? Gee, what a profound thought. I bet nobody else ever attributed contributing to charity to feeling sorry for the folks the charity benefits. I didn't say it was profound. You were implying that I had some nefarious reason that I didn't have the balls to express. I was just telling you what I DID think rather than you wrong assumptions. Curtis. See if you can give a straight answer. Why did you ask why it was that TMers donated to the fund? snip You have made this up to make me look bad for challenging your making charity into a partition issue. Not what I was doing, as I've already explained and you've accepted. I was pointing out that the partition Barry tried to make was bogus. That was the point you made before you tried to use the Non Tmers NOT giving something as being interesting. Nope, didn't do that. You made that up. And an anti-Barry issue at that by your own admission. This is hilarious. In the process of correcting Barry's misrepresentation of how the fund drive started in his post to you, I went back and read his posts at the time. They were *vicious* attacks on TMers, and on me and Raunchy and Nabby specifically, much worse than what he said recently about TMers never doing anything to help people that I was commenting on. I wouldn't expect you to go back and look at his posts, or at my post correcting his current misrepresentations in his post to you. You don't want to know what a piece of slime he is. But it's just fine by you for him to attack us. If we criticize him in return, well, that's an *agenda* that somehow invalidates anything we say. Hypocrite. snip Judy There was no need to ask why that was. The *only* point I was making was that TMers aren't slackers about doing their bit, contrary to the impression your pal Barry tried to create. That wasn't your ONLY point. You have neglected to mention your other point which was : Judy Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. Same point, of course. What did you imagine was different about it? No response from Curtis... snip That's where your digging has taken you, Curtis. I made a simple, obvious, incontestable point, It was the interesting comment that betrayed you. You've betrayed yourself by pretending I was talking about non-TMers. You can't explain why you interpreted what I wrote as somehow different from the point I was making. See immediately above. snip and you decided to challenge it just to pick a fight. That rarely works out well for you. I was calling you out for trying to make a donation fund a pawn in your games. Right, you didn't think it was appropriate for me to counter Barry's slurs against TMers by pointing out that we'd donated to the fund. But Barry's slurs are just fine with you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Just as a somewhat-related followup, I wanted to point out that Global Good News, as of (their timestamp) Monday, 01 March 2010 11:40:29 AM CST, has not noticed yet that there was an earthquake in Chile. (Again, just a reminder: Barry means to say the Global Good News site had not yet been updated to reflect the Chile earthquake, not that they hadn't noticed it.) The earthquake update is up now, both on the Flops main page and on the Chile page.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [Curtis wrote:] showing that for you this proved a point about TM people. One that is bogus as I have pointed out. You just said you *accepted* it. Make up your mind. I accept they gave because of their good intentions towards the people in Haiti and not to prove a point. I do not accept to point about how interesting it was that non TMer didn't. That is not what I said was interesting. You made that up. OK so you are saying that saying it was interesting that it was ONLY TM people who gave is not a statement at all about non TM people not giving. You don't see those two things as connected. Perhaps you mean that what was interesting about it was that the TM people who had been demonized as non givers came through? If the point I was making--that TMers contribute just like others--was bogus, then why *did* the TMers contribute? Come on, Curtis, spit it out. Have the balls to let us see how you really think. Because they felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti? That would be my guess. Uh-huh. So it's only TMers who contributed because they felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti? What does that say about those who didn't contribute? What does that say about non-TMers who *did* contribute, if it's bogus that TMers contributed just like others? Why would you assume this? This is one of the issues you have in these discussions, you are reading this in. I'm pointing out that it doesn't make sense, Curtis. Feeling sorry for people is not the reason people give? You asked me why I thought TM people gave. This is why I think they gave. It makes perfect sense and does not imply all that other nonsense. snip You said, I'm glad you got to donate, which implies that I might *not* have gotten to donate. No it doesn't. That has nothing to do with being an editor. You are jumping to an erroneous conclusion. How could any of us with the many channels to donate including my own cell phone NOT have a chance to donate, that interpretation doesn't make any sense. That was *my* point. It didn't make any sense to say I'm glad you got to donate as if I might *not* have gotten to donate. If you miswrote, fine, just say so. It makes perfect sense and I didn't miswrite anything. It was a turn of phrase that had none of the implications you drew except in some contentions literal world. snip Oh, right, I forgot, you suggested the TMers donated because they felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti. WTF? Gee, what a profound thought. I bet nobody else ever attributed contributing to charity to feeling sorry for the folks the charity benefits. I didn't say it was profound. You were implying that I had some nefarious reason that I didn't have the balls to express. I was just telling you what I DID think rather than you wrong assumptions. Curtis. See if you can give a straight answer. Why did you ask why it was that TMers donated to the fund? Do you mean originally what I asked? Very interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why that was? Because its flip side of your interesting point was that non TMers had not contributed to this specific fund. I am a non TMer so I didn't want it to look like we are charity deadbeats. You say that was not your point, but it was only the TM side of the equation that was interesting? OK. So now we both made the points interesting to us. You made the point that the TMers on this board gave to Haiti exclusively, although the reason I gave that you felt sorry for the people makes no sense to you. I made the point that non TMers here might have other channels to give that didn't involve you. I'm gunna skip the usual name calling section with all the Barry is bad too parts. snip You have made this up to make me look bad for challenging your making charity into a partition issue. Not what I was doing, as I've already explained and you've accepted. I was pointing out that the partition Barry tried to make was bogus. That was the point you made before you tried to use the Non Tmers NOT giving something as being interesting. Nope, didn't do that. You made that up. And an anti-Barry issue at that by your own admission. This is hilarious. In the process of correcting Barry's misrepresentation of how the fund drive started in his post to you, I went back and read his posts at the time. They were *vicious* attacks on TMers, and on me and Raunchy and Nabby specifically, much worse than what he said recently about TMers never doing anything to help people that I was commenting on. I wouldn't expect you to go back and look at his posts, or at my post correcting his current misrepresentations in his post to you. You don't want to know what a piece of slime he
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [Curtis wrote:] showing that for you this proved a point about TM people. One that is bogus as I have pointed out. You just said you *accepted* it. Make up your mind. I accept they gave because of their good intentions towards the people in Haiti and not to prove a point. I do not accept to point about how interesting it was that non TMer didn't. That is not what I said was interesting. You made that up. OK so you are saying that saying it was interesting that it was ONLY TM people who gave is not a statement at all about non TM people not giving. *You* said ONLY. I said all. One more time: My point was that contrary to Barry's sliming, TMers are happy to do what they can to help out. You don't see those two things as connected. If what you're after is emphasizing the flip side, as you go on to put it, sure. That wasn't what I was after. Perhaps you mean that what was interesting about it was that the TM people who had been demonized as non givers came through? My point was more general, but that did happen to be the case. snip Feeling sorry for people is not the reason people give? You asked me why I thought TM people gave. Because you had asked *me* that, and while it was clear you had something in mind, it wasn't clear what. Obviously you didn't ask why TMers gave because what you had in mind was that they felt sorry for the poor Haitians. Your response didn't make sense in terms of the question I was asking, and you know it. snip That was *my* point. It didn't make any sense to say I'm glad you got to donate as if I might *not* have gotten to donate. If you miswrote, fine, just say so. It makes perfect sense and I didn't miswrite anything. It was a turn of phrase Which didn't make sense. snip Curtis. See if you can give a straight answer. Why did you ask why it was that TMers donated to the fund? Do you mean originally what I asked? Very interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why that was? Because its flip side of your interesting point was that non TMers had not contributed to this specific fund. That was *your* flip side, not one I was pointing to. I am a non TMer so I didn't want it to look like we are charity deadbeats. As I immediately confirmed before you'd said anything to that effect. You say that was not your point, but it was only the TM side of the equation that was interesting? Right. OK. So now we both made the points interesting to us. Except that yours had nothing to do with mine. You made the point that the TMers on this board gave to Haiti exclusively, although the reason I gave that you felt sorry for the people makes no sense to you. Disingenuous. It made no sense in context. See above. I made the point that non TMers here might have other channels to give that didn't involve you. No, *I* made that point. In response to your original question, I said I was sure many non-TMers had donated on their own hook, remember? We all had other channels to give, of course. But since you raised the issue of non-TMers not donating to the FFL fund, the question arises as to why they didn't join in, why there wasn't group solidarity in helping Haiti. As I pointed out, none of those who donated waved the TM flag; we were waving the *FFL* flag. You'd think that would be one issue we could come together on, wouldn't you? Let's make FFL's contribution as big as possible. Even if all the non-TMers had already given through other channels, you'd think they could make at least a token contribution to the FFL effort to jack up the total. (Of course, if anyone really couldn't afford it, no problem. But many here certainly could.) I think it was because they didn't want to participate in a TMer-initiated effort. I'm gunna skip the usual name calling section with all the Barry is bad too parts. Of course you are. Hypocrite. I'm going to leave it in, though: And an anti-Barry issue at that by your own admission. This is hilarious. In the process of correcting Barry's misrepresentation of how the fund drive started in his post to you, I went back and read his posts at the time. They were *vicious* attacks on TMers, and on me and Raunchy and Nabby specifically, much worse than what he said recently about TMers never doing anything to help people that I was commenting on. I wouldn't expect you to go back and look at his posts, or at my post correcting his current misrepresentations in his post to you. You don't want to know what a piece of slime he is. But it's just fine by you for him to attack us. If we criticize him in return, well, that's an *agenda* that somehow invalidates anything we say. Hypocrite. snip Judy There was no need to ask why that
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [Curtis wrote:] showing that for you this proved a point about TM people. One that is bogus as I have pointed out. You just said you *accepted* it. Make up your mind. I accept they gave because of their good intentions towards the people in Haiti and not to prove a point. I do not accept to point about how interesting it was that non TMer didn't. That is not what I said was interesting. You made that up. OK so you are saying that saying it was interesting that it was ONLY TM people who gave is not a statement at all about non TM people not giving. *You* said ONLY. I said all. This is not a reasonable distinction. One more time: My point was that contrary to Barry's sliming, TMers are happy to do what they can to help out. OK I get it. You didn't mean it as a slight to non TMers. You don't see those two things as connected. If what you're after is emphasizing the flip side, as you go on to put it, sure. That wasn't what I was after. I live on the flip side so of course that is what interested me. Perhaps you mean that what was interesting about it was that the TM people who had been demonized as non givers came through? My point was more general, but that did happen to be the case. Finally, some agreement. OK, so you didn't mean it the way I took it. That is what follow-up posts are for. snip Feeling sorry for people is not the reason people give? You asked me why I thought TM people gave. Because you had asked *me* that, and while it was clear you had something in mind, it wasn't clear what. Obviously you didn't ask why TMers gave because what you had in mind was that they felt sorry for the poor Haitians. If that was not a part of it they are not human. It was not a bad guess. I assumed they give a shit. Remember my view of TMers is that they are just ordinary people. Your response didn't make sense in terms of the question I was asking, and you know it. snip That was *my* point. It didn't make any sense to say I'm glad you got to donate as if I might *not* have gotten to donate. If you miswrote, fine, just say so. It makes perfect sense and I didn't miswrite anything. It was a turn of phrase Which didn't make sense. We are not getting anywhere here. It sure makes sense to me that TM people might care about Haitians. snip Curtis. See if you can give a straight answer. Why did you ask why it was that TMers donated to the fund? Do you mean originally what I asked? Very interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why that was? Because its flip side of your interesting point was that non TMers had not contributed to this specific fund. That was *your* flip side, not one I was pointing to. OK but I felt like making sure my own point got made. I'm pretty sure that is how it works here. I didn't accuse you of anything I asked you a question. Then you demonstrated why non TM people might not want to get involved in your agenda with Barry. And I don't give a shit who started it because there is no real start. I am a non TMer so I didn't want it to look like we are charity deadbeats. As I immediately confirmed before you'd said anything to that effect. You say that was not your point, but it was only the TM side of the equation that was interesting? Right. OK. So now we both made the points interesting to us. Except that yours had nothing to do with mine. Yeah that's because I don't live in your head, I am outside here in another body with another perspective. You made the point that the TMers on this board gave to Haiti exclusively, although the reason I gave that you felt sorry for the people makes no sense to you. Disingenuous. It made no sense in context. See above. I made the point that non TMers here might have other channels to give that didn't involve you. No, *I* made that point. In response to your original question, I said I was sure many non-TMers had donated on their own hook, remember? We all had other channels to give, of course. But since you raised the issue of non-TMers not donating to the FFL fund, the question arises as to why they didn't join in, why there wasn't group solidarity in helping Haiti. As I pointed out, none of those who donated waved the TM flag; we were waving the *FFL* flag. You'd think that would be one issue we could come together on, wouldn't you? Let's make FFL's contribution as big as possible. Even if all the non-TMers had already given through other channels, you'd think they could make at least a token contribution to the FFL effort to jack up the total. (Of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip OK so you are saying that saying it was interesting that it was ONLY TM people who gave is not a statement at all about non TM people not giving. *You* said ONLY. I said all. This is not a reasonable distinction. Obviously it is in this context, because your reading--reflected in your term ONLY--caused you to think it was a slight on non-TMers. ONLY is, as you said, the flip side, the side you focused on, the negative side, the assumption of a slight, so you could pick a fight. All--the word I used--focused on the positive side, the fact that TMers were eager to help, contrary to Barry's vicious slur, which bothers you not at all. You're focused only on slights on non-TMers from TMers. Hypocrite. snip Obviously you didn't ask why TMers gave because what you had in mind was that they felt sorry for the poor Haitians. If that was not a part of it they are not human. It was not a bad guess. I assumed they give a shit. Remember my view of TMers is that they are just ordinary people. Not the point. Disingenuous. snip That was *my* point. It didn't make any sense to say I'm glad you got to donate as if I might *not* have gotten to donate. If you miswrote, fine, just say so. It makes perfect sense and I didn't miswrite anything. It was a turn of phrase Which didn't make sense. We are not getting anywhere here. It sure makes sense to me that TM people might care about Haitians. Not the point. Disingenuous. snip Because its flip side of your interesting point was that non TMers had not contributed to this specific fund. That was *your* flip side, not one I was pointing to. OK but I felt like making sure my own point got made. One more time: *I* made that point before you did. That should have clued you in right away that you had misinterpreted my point. But then you'd have had to give up on the fight you chose to pick, so you managed not to notice. I'm pretty sure that is how it works here. I didn't accuse you of anything I asked you a question. I didn't say you accused me of anything. And your question was obviously rhetorical; you had an answer in mind, you weren't looking for one from me. Interestingly enough, you *still* haven't been willing to state what that answer was. Then you demonstrated why non TM people might not want to get involved in your agenda with Barry. And I don't give a shit who started it because there is no real start. Yeah, there is. You just don't want to acknowledge it. snip OK. So now we both made the points interesting to us. Except that yours had nothing to do with mine. Yeah that's because I don't live in your head, I am outside here in another body with another perspective. You mistakenly assumed it had something to do with mine because you were looking for a fight. snip We all had other channels to give, of course. But since you raised the issue of non-TMers not donating to the FFL fund, the question arises as to why they didn't join in, why there wasn't group solidarity in helping Haiti. As I pointed out, none of those who donated waved the TM flag; we were waving the *FFL* flag. You'd think that would be one issue we could come together on, wouldn't you? Let's make FFL's contribution as big as possible. Even if all the non-TMers had already given through other channels, you'd think they could make at least a token contribution to the FFL effort to jack up the total. (Of course, if anyone really couldn't afford it, no problem. But many here certainly could.) Your judgments are your own. I don't share them. Jacking up totals may not have been on people's minds, it wasn't on mine. Obviously they decided they didn't want to. As I said: I think it was because they didn't want to participate in a TMer-initiated effort. I'm gunna skip the usual name calling section with all the Barry is bad too parts. Of course you are. Hypocrite. Well I guess if that is where your TM practice has evolved you to I'll have to leave it at that. You believe noticing hypocrisy is unevolved? How con-V-nient.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: For someone who prides themselves on understanding the written word so well and the intentions of the writer, I have to say... I have never met anyone with less ability to understand what I write. Every interaction is a struggle. Sorry to distract you from your main mission here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip OK so you are saying that saying it was interesting that it was ONLY TM people who gave is not a statement at all about non TM people not giving. *You* said ONLY. I said all. This is not a reasonable distinction. Obviously it is in this context, because your reading--reflected in your term ONLY--caused you to think it was a slight on non-TMers. ONLY is, as you said, the flip side, the side you focused on, the negative side, the assumption of a slight, so you could pick a fight. All--the word I used--focused on the positive side, the fact that TMers were eager to help, contrary to Barry's vicious slur, which bothers you not at all. You're focused only on slights on non-TMers from TMers. Hypocrite. snip Obviously you didn't ask why TMers gave because what you had in mind was that they felt sorry for the poor Haitians. If that was not a part of it they are not human. It was not a bad guess. I assumed they give a shit. Remember my view of TMers is that they are just ordinary people. Not the point. Disingenuous. snip That was *my* point. It didn't make any sense to say I'm glad you got to donate as if I might *not* have gotten to donate. If you miswrote, fine, just say so. It makes perfect sense and I didn't miswrite anything. It was a turn of phrase Which didn't make sense. We are not getting anywhere here. It sure makes sense to me that TM people might care about Haitians. Not the point. Disingenuous. snip Because its flip side of your interesting point was that non TMers had not contributed to this specific fund. That was *your* flip side, not one I was pointing to. OK but I felt like making sure my own point got made. One more time: *I* made that point before you did. That should have clued you in right away that you had misinterpreted my point. But then you'd have had to give up on the fight you chose to pick, so you managed not to notice. I'm pretty sure that is how it works here. I didn't accuse you of anything I asked you a question. I didn't say you accused me of anything. And your question was obviously rhetorical; you had an answer in mind, you weren't looking for one from me. Interestingly enough, you *still* haven't been willing to state what that answer was. Then you demonstrated why non TM people might not want to get involved in your agenda with Barry. And I don't give a shit who started it because there is no real start. Yeah, there is. You just don't want to acknowledge it. snip OK. So now we both made the points interesting to us. Except that yours had nothing to do with mine. Yeah that's because I don't live in your head, I am outside here in another body with another perspective. You mistakenly assumed it had something to do with mine because you were looking for a fight. snip We all had other channels to give, of course. But since you raised the issue of non-TMers not donating to the FFL fund, the question arises as to why they didn't join in, why there wasn't group solidarity in helping Haiti. As I pointed out, none of those who donated waved the TM flag; we were waving the *FFL* flag. You'd think that would be one issue we could come together on, wouldn't you? Let's make FFL's contribution as big as possible. Even if all the non-TMers had already given through other channels, you'd think they could make at least a token contribution to the FFL effort to jack up the total. (Of course, if anyone really couldn't afford it, no problem. But many here certainly could.) Your judgments are your own. I don't share them. Jacking up totals may not have been on people's minds, it wasn't on mine. Obviously they decided they didn't want to. As I said: I think it was because they didn't want to participate in a TMer-initiated effort. I'm gunna skip the usual name calling section with all the Barry is bad too parts. Of course you are. Hypocrite. Well I guess if that is where your TM practice has evolved you to I'll have to leave it at that. You believe noticing hypocrisy is unevolved? How con-V-nient.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
OK, that makes it official for me. Judy has achieved what I had thought was unachievableshe actually IS crazier than Tex! Wowwho-da-thunk it! Question: ever been married Judy? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip OK so you are saying that saying it was interesting that it was ONLY TM people who gave is not a statement at all about non TM people not giving. *You* said ONLY. I said all. This is not a reasonable distinction. Obviously it is in this context, because your reading--reflected in your term ONLY--caused you to think it was a slight on non-TMers. ONLY is, as you said, the flip side, the side you focused on, the negative side, the assumption of a slight, so you could pick a fight. All--the word I used--focused on the positive side, the fact that TMers were eager to help, contrary to Barry's vicious slur, which bothers you not at all. You're focused only on slights on non-TMers from TMers. Hypocrite. snip Obviously you didn't ask why TMers gave because what you had in mind was that they felt sorry for the poor Haitians. If that was not a part of it they are not human. It was not a bad guess. I assumed they give a shit. Remember my view of TMers is that they are just ordinary people. Not the point. Disingenuous. snip That was *my* point. It didn't make any sense to say I'm glad you got to donate as if I might *not* have gotten to donate. If you miswrote, fine, just say so. It makes perfect sense and I didn't miswrite anything. It was a turn of phrase Which didn't make sense. We are not getting anywhere here. It sure makes sense to me that TM people might care about Haitians. Not the point. Disingenuous. snip Because its flip side of your interesting point was that non TMers had not contributed to this specific fund. That was *your* flip side, not one I was pointing to. OK but I felt like making sure my own point got made. One more time: *I* made that point before you did. That should have clued you in right away that you had misinterpreted my point. But then you'd have had to give up on the fight you chose to pick, so you managed not to notice. I'm pretty sure that is how it works here. I didn't accuse you of anything I asked you a question. I didn't say you accused me of anything. And your question was obviously rhetorical; you had an answer in mind, you weren't looking for one from me. Interestingly enough, you *still* haven't been willing to state what that answer was. Then you demonstrated why non TM people might not want to get involved in your agenda with Barry. And I don't give a shit who started it because there is no real start. Yeah, there is. You just don't want to acknowledge it. snip OK. So now we both made the points interesting to us. Except that yours had nothing to do with mine. Yeah that's because I don't live in your head, I am outside here in another body with another perspective. You mistakenly assumed it had something to do with mine because you were looking for a fight. snip We all had other channels to give, of course. But since you raised the issue of non-TMers not donating to the FFL fund, the question arises as to why they didn't join in, why there wasn't group solidarity in helping Haiti. As I pointed out, none of those who donated waved the TM flag; we were waving the *FFL* flag. You'd think that would be one issue we could come together on, wouldn't you? Let's make FFL's contribution as big as possible. Even if all the non-TMers had already given through other channels, you'd think they could make at least a token contribution to the FFL effort to jack up the total. (Of course, if anyone really couldn't afford it, no problem. But many here certainly could.) Your judgments are your own. I don't share them. Jacking up totals may not have been on people's minds, it wasn't on mine. Obviously they decided they didn't want to. As I said: I think it was because they didn't want to participate in a TMer-initiated effort. I'm gunna skip the usual name calling section with all the Barry is bad too parts. Of course you are. Hypocrite. Well I guess if that is where your TM practice has evolved you to I'll have to leave it at that. You believe noticing hypocrisy is unevolved? How con-V-nient.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
Oi! The tortured Judy debate autopsywhat madness. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [Curtis wrote:] showing that for you this proved a point about TM people. One that is bogus as I have pointed out. You just said you *accepted* it. Make up your mind. I accept they gave because of their good intentions towards the people in Haiti and not to prove a point. I do not accept to point about how interesting it was that non TMer didn't. That is not what I said was interesting. You made that up. OK so you are saying that saying it was interesting that it was ONLY TM people who gave is not a statement at all about non TM people not giving. *You* said ONLY. I said all. One more time: My point was that contrary to Barry's sliming, TMers are happy to do what they can to help out. You don't see those two things as connected. If what you're after is emphasizing the flip side, as you go on to put it, sure. That wasn't what I was after. Perhaps you mean that what was interesting about it was that the TM people who had been demonized as non givers came through? My point was more general, but that did happen to be the case. snip Feeling sorry for people is not the reason people give? You asked me why I thought TM people gave. Because you had asked *me* that, and while it was clear you had something in mind, it wasn't clear what. Obviously you didn't ask why TMers gave because what you had in mind was that they felt sorry for the poor Haitians. Your response didn't make sense in terms of the question I was asking, and you know it. snip That was *my* point. It didn't make any sense to say I'm glad you got to donate as if I might *not* have gotten to donate. If you miswrote, fine, just say so. It makes perfect sense and I didn't miswrite anything. It was a turn of phrase Which didn't make sense. snip Curtis. See if you can give a straight answer. Why did you ask why it was that TMers donated to the fund? Do you mean originally what I asked? Very interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why that was? Because its flip side of your interesting point was that non TMers had not contributed to this specific fund. That was *your* flip side, not one I was pointing to. I am a non TMer so I didn't want it to look like we are charity deadbeats. As I immediately confirmed before you'd said anything to that effect. You say that was not your point, but it was only the TM side of the equation that was interesting? Right. OK. So now we both made the points interesting to us. Except that yours had nothing to do with mine. You made the point that the TMers on this board gave to Haiti exclusively, although the reason I gave that you felt sorry for the people makes no sense to you. Disingenuous. It made no sense in context. See above. I made the point that non TMers here might have other channels to give that didn't involve you. No, *I* made that point. In response to your original question, I said I was sure many non-TMers had donated on their own hook, remember? We all had other channels to give, of course. But since you raised the issue of non-TMers not donating to the FFL fund, the question arises as to why they didn't join in, why there wasn't group solidarity in helping Haiti. As I pointed out, none of those who donated waved the TM flag; we were waving the *FFL* flag. You'd think that would be one issue we could come together on, wouldn't you? Let's make FFL's contribution as big as possible. Even if all the non-TMers had already given through other channels, you'd think they could make at least a token contribution to the FFL effort to jack up the total. (Of course, if anyone really couldn't afford it, no problem. But many here certainly could.) I think it was because they didn't want to participate in a TMer-initiated effort. I'm gunna skip the usual name calling section with all the Barry is bad too parts. Of course you are. Hypocrite. I'm going to leave it in, though: And an anti-Barry issue at that by your own admission. This is hilarious. In the process of correcting Barry's misrepresentation of how the fund drive started in his post to you, I went back and read his posts at the time. They were *vicious* attacks on TMers, and on me and Raunchy and Nabby specifically, much worse than what he said recently about TMers never doing anything to help people that I was commenting on. I wouldn't expect you to go back and look at his posts, or at my post correcting his current misrepresentations in his post to you. You don't
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: Oi! The tortured Judy debate autopsywhat madness. Yeah, too bad, you might have been able to make believe Curtis had won if I hadn't autopsied the corpse.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: For someone who prides themselves on understanding the written word so well and the intentions of the writer, I have to say...I have never met anyone with less ability to understand what I write. Every interaction is a struggle. That would be *so* much more impressive if it hadn't been *your* misunderstanding of what *I* wrote--which you've even acknowledged--that led you to start this fight. It would also be more impressive if you were able to point to anything that I misunderstood of what you wrote, other than the fact that I didn't immediately realize how completely you'd misunderstood what I had said.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Oi! The tortured Judy debate autopsywhat madness. Yeah, too bad, you might have been able to make believe Curtis had won if I hadn't autopsied the corpse. Yeah, sure Judy. You won. Be careful of sharp objects
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: For someone who prides themselves on understanding the written word so well and the intentions of the writer, I have to say...I have never met anyone with less ability to understand what I write. Every interaction is a struggle. That would be *so* much more impressive if it hadn't been *your* misunderstanding of what *I* wrote--which you've even acknowledged--that led you to start this fight. It would also be more impressive if you were able to point to anything that I misunderstood of what you wrote, other than the fact that I didn't immediately realize how completely you'd misunderstood what I had said. Classic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: For someone who prides themselves on understanding the written word so well and the intentions of the writer, I have to say...I have never met anyone with less ability to understand what I write. Every interaction is a struggle. That would be *so* much more impressive if it hadn't been *your* misunderstanding of what *I* wrote--which you've even acknowledged--that led you to start this fight. It would also be more impressive if you were able to point to anything that I misunderstood of what you wrote, other than the fact that I didn't immediately realize how completely you'd misunderstood what I had said. Classic. You know something, Geeze? I don't expect you to ever have the guts to do this, but if you were to follow one of these exchanges you leave your little yapyapyap turds on, actually follow it closely from one post to another, from the beginning to the end, so you understood what was going on, you would be so embarrassed. You aren't stupid. You just have a habit of making snap judgments and insisting on sticking with them no matter what. Curtis *did* misunderstand the point I was making. He admitted it. Because he isn't the world's clearest writer when he's dealing with a challenge (and not just from me), I didn't realize what his problem was for several go-rounds. And that wasn't his only misunderstanding in this exchange. He's also not real clear on how rhetorical questions work, even when he asks them, and even more so when somebody else does. That's what makes his comment at the top so ironic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: The TMO may not approve of this. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?em http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?em Good article, John. Especially: Mr. Stearns argues that evangelicals were often so focused on sexual morality and a personal relationship with God that they ignored the needy. He writes laceratingly about a Church that had the wealth to build great sanctuaries but lacked the will to build schools, hospitals, and clinics. In one striking passage, Mr. Stearns quotes the prophet Ezekiel as saying that the great sin of the people of Sodom wasn't so much that they were promiscuous or gay as that they were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49.) I guess my question is, Do *you* approve of this article, and this author's point? I ask because your posts have been historically focused on sexual morality and a personal relationship with God. As is the TMO's approach to spirituality and what they consider spiritual develop- ment. Helping the poor and the needy has *never* been one of the TMO's focuses, and in fact was actively looked down upon. The closest that the TMO comes to helping the poor and the needy has historically been claiming that Yogic Flyers who bounce on their butts for peace are influencing the whole world, and thus helping on that level. What do *you* think of this, John? Which *is* more important on a spiritual path -- trying to be sexually moral and developing a personal relationship with God, or helping other people however you can? Most of the Buddhist groups I've interfaced with would not hesitate for a moment if asked that question. They'd say, Helping other people, of course. And in practice (Where the rubber meets the road) they walk the talk of that. Given a choice between doing something that benefits others and doing something that benefits only their own perceived advancement to enlightenment, the Buddhists I've met consistently choose the former. Whereas, historically, I don't think there is a single person here who would suggest that committed TMers would do or have done the same. The very *dogma* of TM states that the pursuit of one's own enlightenment is the highest path or the highest goal, and that *everything else* should take a back seat to that. The saints or others trotted out as good examples are those who were *most* one-pointed and focused almost exclusively on their own enlight- enment. The video posted two days ago ends with Raja Hagelin saying exactly this, and saying that the entire future of the TM movement *depends* on this one-pointed focus on enlightenment. So how do *you* feel about this dichotomy between what the org- anization you're a part of teaches and practices in the name of spirituality and what this author is suggesting might be a more balanced approach to spirituality? It seems to me that he pretty much *nails* the issue in the quotes above, and in the article as a whole. I'm asking because you posted a thoughtful article, but didn't actually say what you thought about it, and whether you thought the TMO not approving of it was a good thing or a bad thing. Step up and take a stand, dude.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: The TMO may not approve of this. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?em http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?em Good article, John. Especially: Mr. Stearns argues that evangelicals were often so focused on sexual morality and a personal relationship with God that they ignored the needy. He writes laceratingly about a Church that had the wealth to build great sanctuaries but lacked the will to build schools, hospitals, and clinics. In one striking passage, Mr. Stearns quotes the prophet Ezekiel as saying that the great sin of the people of Sodom wasn't so much that they were promiscuous or gay as that they were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49.) I guess my question is, Do *you* approve of this article, and this author's point? I ask because your posts have been historically focused on sexual morality and a personal relationship with God. Barry is apparently confusing John with BillyG. As is the TMO's approach to spirituality and what they consider spiritual development. Focused on sexual morality and a personal relationship with God? The TMO? Really?? Helping the poor and the needy has *never* been one of the TMO's focuses, and in fact was actively looked down upon. Actively looked down on? Really?? The closest that the TMO comes to helping the poor and the needy has historically been claiming that Yogic Flyers who bounce on their butts for peace are influencing the whole world, and thus helping on that level. Plus teaching TM to as many people as possible, of course. What do *you* think of this, John? Which *is* more important on a spiritual path -- trying to be sexually moral and developing a personal relationship with God, or helping other people however you can? Since neither John nor the TMO focuses on trying to be sexually moral and developing a personal relationship with God as the means to spiritual development, but rather considers teaching and practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis to be helping people, the question answers itself. Most of the Buddhist groups I've interfaced with would not hesitate for a moment if asked that question. They'd say, Helping other people, of course. And in practice (Where the rubber meets the road) they walk the talk of that. Given a choice between doing something that benefits others and doing something that benefits only their own perceived advancement to enlightenment, the Buddhists I've met consistently choose the former. Since there is *always* something to be done to benefit others, this would mean the folks in these Buddhist groups would never engage in anything that benefits only their own perceived advancement to enlightenment. (However, if you look at the Bodhisattva Vow of Buddhism, it's clear that at least some Buddhists hold a similar view to TMers, i.e., that personal spiritual development benefits humanity as a whole.) Whereas, historically, I don't think there is a single person here who would suggest that committed TMers would do or have done the same. Actually, committed TMers believe teaching and practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis benefits others *as well as* advancing their own enlightenment. The very *dogma* of TM states that the pursuit of one's own enlightenment is the highest path or the highest goal, and that *everything else* should take a back seat to that. Actually, the TM dogma states that the most effective way to benefit others is to engage in practices that advance one's own enlightement. The saints or others trotted out as good examples are those who were *most* one-pointed and focused almost exclusively on their own enlightenment. The video posted two days ago ends with Raja Hagelin saying exactly this, and saying that the entire future of the TM movement *depends* on this one-pointed focus on enlightenment. The entire future of the world as well, of course. So how do *you* feel about this dichotomy between what the organization you're a part of teaches and practices in the name of spirituality and what this author is suggesting might be a more balanced approach to spirituality? It seems to me that he pretty much *nails* the issue in the quotes above, and in the article as a whole. The point Barry has been so sloppily trying to make boils down to a matter of belief as to whether teaching and practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis is a more effective way to benefit humanity than building schools, hospitals, and clinics. (Sexual morality and personal relationship with God, the basis for how the article nails the issue, are red herrings here.) Barry obviously doesn't believe this, whereas John, I would guess, does. That's the dichotomy. To TMers, there's no dichotomy between personal spiritual development and helping other people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
Just as a somewhat-related followup, I wanted to point out that Global Good News, as of (their timestamp) Monday, 01 March 2010 11:40:29 AM CST, has not noticed yet that there was an earthquake in Chile. Hilariously, when you drill down into the By Country listings, and focus on Chile, not only is there no mention of Saturday's earthquake, but the most recent Flops article listed for the country of Chile is really about China. Since their timestamp list CST, it is possible that no one who works on Global Good News has finished their morning program before noon, and thus realized they had work to do. But not being able to tell the difference between Chile and China? Somehow that doesn't strike me as a big advertisement for coherence or creative intelligence. :-) When they DO get around to noticing what's happening in the world, I wonder whether their coverage of this disaster will be on the same level as their coverage of the Haiti disaster. That is, copied AP articles listing what *other* organizations around the world are doing to help out. I rest my case about how much the TM organization cares about the poor and the needy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Just as a somewhat-related followup, I wanted to point out that Global Good News, as of (their timestamp) Monday, 01 March 2010 11:40:29 AM CST, has not noticed yet that there was an earthquake in Chile. Translation: Whoever updates the Web site hasn't gotten around to adding the earthquake yet (it happened over the weekend, BTW). At least Barry isn't trying to pretend it's *Google's* timestamp that counts, the way he did with the Haiti earthquake. Hilariously, when you drill down into the By Country listings, and focus on Chile, not only is there no mention of Saturday's earthquake, but the most recent Flops article listed for the country of Chile is really about China. Since their timestamp list CST, it is possible that no one who works on Global Good News has finished their morning program before noon, and thus realized they had work to do. It's not exactly as if the world comes to the Global Good News site to find the latest news. If they update it once a week, that would be plenty for its purposes. We may not see the Chile earthquake on the site until Friday (it listed the Haiti earthquake on a Friday, three days after it happened), which would be a logical day to do once-a-week updating. But not being able to tell the difference between Chile and China? Somehow that doesn't strike me as a big advertisement for coherence or creative intelligence. :-) Translation: Somebody made a mistake (not not able to tell the difference). Considering the number of countries the site covers, it's not surprising a story gets in the wrong place occasionally (in this case, especially since Chile and China begin with the same three letters). When they DO get around to noticing what's happening in the world, I wonder whether their coverage of this disaster will be on the same level as their coverage of the Haiti disaster. That is, copied AP articles listing what *other* organizations around the world are doing to help out. Actually, all the non-TM-related stories (good or bad) on the site are reproduced from the MSM (possibly to avoid any accusation that the TMO is making them up). The site doesn't do coverage in the sense the media do, so Barry's scare quotes are, in this case, quite appropriate--but it's his term. And, of course, any MSM story about a major disaster published shortly after the event will include reports of what kind of aid is being offered from around the world. On the Haiti page, the top *positive* story is about aid to Haiti. I rest my case about how much the TM organization cares about the poor and the needy. That is, the way *Barry* thinks the TMO should be caring for them. The TMO doesn't get a say as to what it thinks is the most effective way to do so.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I rest my case about how much the TM organization cares about the poor and the needy. That is, the way *Barry* thinks the TMO should be caring for them. The TMO doesn't get a say as to what it thinks is the most effective way to do so. P.S.: The TMO likely believes it's the positive influence of TM that has inspired the outpouring of aid. Again; Whether you believe that or not, the point is that the TMO believes teaching/practicing TM/the TM-Sidhis is more helpful to the poor and the needy than anything else it could be doing with its resources. We might well recall how often Barry preaches about simply stating one's beliefs without arguing that other beliefs are Wrong, and how often he fails to practice that preaching.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: The TMO may not approve of this. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?em http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?em Good article, John. Especially: Mr. Stearns argues that evangelicals were often so focused on sexual morality and a personal relationship with God that they ignored the needy. He writes laceratingly about a Church that had the wealth to build great sanctuaries but lacked the will to build schools, hospitals, and clinics. In one striking passage, Mr. Stearns quotes the prophet Ezekiel as saying that the great sin of the people of Sodom wasn't so much that they were promiscuous or gay as that they were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49.) I guess my question is, Do *you* approve of this article, and this author's point? It's not a question of my approving the article or not. The intent of the author, it appears, is to wake up all of us as to how effective are our beliefs in actual practice. This article reminds me of the words in the Beatitudes, i.e. Blessed are those who hunger and mourn... At face value, I don't see how hunger and mourning can be considered virtues. But in a deeper sense the meaning of these words can take on a different perspective. Specifically, hunger can mean hunger for justice and fairness in the structure of society throughout the world, particularly in the distribution of wealth. And, mourning can mean our emphaty for people who are suffering, in particular those who are victims of natural disasters. In the final analysis, these virtues can only be validated with actions. I ask because your posts have been historically focused on sexual morality and a personal relationship with God. As is the TMO's approach to spirituality and what they consider spiritual develop- ment. Helping the poor and the needy has *never* been one of the TMO's focuses, and in fact was actively looked down upon. The closest that the TMO comes to helping the poor and the needy has historically been claiming that Yogic Flyers who bounce on their butts for peace are influencing the whole world, and thus helping on that level. What do *you* think of this, John? Which *is* more important on a spiritual path -- trying to be sexually moral and developing a personal relationship with God, or helping other people however you can? Most of the Buddhist groups I've interfaced with would not hesitate for a moment if asked that question. They'd say, Helping other people, of course. And in practice (Where the rubber meets the road) they walk the talk of that. Given a choice between doing something that benefits others and doing something that benefits only their own perceived advancement to enlightenment, the Buddhists I've met consistently choose the former. Whereas, historically, I don't think there is a single person here who would suggest that committed TMers would do or have done the same. The very *dogma* of TM states that the pursuit of one's own enlightenment is the highest path or the highest goal, and that *everything else* should take a back seat to that. The saints or others trotted out as good examples are those who were *most* one-pointed and focused almost exclusively on their own enlight- enment. The video posted two days ago ends with Raja Hagelin saying exactly this, and saying that the entire future of the TM movement *depends* on this one-pointed focus on enlightenment. So how do *you* feel about this dichotomy between what the org- anization you're a part of teaches and practices in the name of spirituality and what this author is suggesting might be a more balanced approach to spirituality? It seems to me that he pretty much *nails* the issue in the quotes above, and in the article as a whole. I'm asking because you posted a thoughtful article, but didn't actually say what you thought about it, and whether you thought the TMO not approving of it was a good thing or a bad thing. Step up and take a stand, dude.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: The TMO may not approve of this. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?em http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?em Good article, John. Especially: Mr. Stearns argues that evangelicals were often so focused on sexual morality and a personal relationship with God that they ignored the needy. He writes laceratingly about a Church that had the wealth to build great sanctuaries but lacked the will to build schools, hospitals, and clinics. In one striking passage, Mr. Stearns quotes the prophet Ezekiel as saying that the great sin of the people of Sodom wasn't so much that they were promiscuous or gay as that they were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49.) I guess my question is, Do *you* approve of this article, and this author's point? It's not a question of my approving the article or not. It is. THAT is what I asked about. You failed to answer. It is my contention that you are *afraid* to. Being a Jyotish charlatan all this time has turned you into such a pussy that you *can't* make a stand one way or another on much of any- thing. You have to equivocate and cover your ass without stating what *you* actually believe. Remember when I challenged you to make just ONE falsifiable Jyotish prediction that we can track the supposed accuracy of? You bailed on that one, too. Pussy. :-) The intent of the author, it appears, is to wake up all of us as to how effective are our beliefs in actual practice. Not how effective. Whether those beliefs are self-serving bullshit or not. This article reminds me of the words in the Beatitudes, i.e. Blessed are those who hunger and mourn... At face value, I don't see how hunger and mourning can be considered virtues. Neither is wanting to be taken seriously, but some treat that as if it's a virtue. :-) But in a deeper sense the meaning of these words can take on a different perspective. Specifically, hunger can mean hunger for justice and fairness in the structure of society throughout the world, particularly in the distribution of wealth. And, mourning can mean our emphaty for people who are suffering, in particular those who are victims of natural disasters. In the final analysis, these virtues can only be validated with actions. Exactly. I asked you a simple question, and you failed to act. Instead, you spouted equivocation. Believing in bullshit is one thing. Pretending that you *don't* believe it is another. I merely asked what *you* believe on this issue, and you failed to respond. You are entitled to your view of what that means, but I'm going to go with John's a pussy. :-)
