Judy, I don't want to prolong this because I do understand that you feel that if Barry just stopped acting the way you don't agree with then you wouldn't have to point out to everyone that he's acting/writing the way you don't agree with.
But there is a world of difference (IMO) between Barry posting on FFL, no matter how loose you believe he may be with a fact or how soft his argument may be or provocative his rhetoric is, as compared to Bush, Al Qaeda, Sai Baba, Maharishi, or Muktananda and the level of influence and power they exercise in world affairs. But, to address one of your points directly, I am always dissappointed when Barry makes a point of needling you or criticising you gratuitously, too. The knee-jerk reaction you both exhibit regarding the other has some other underlying motivation that is, I feel, other than what either of you state is the particular reason you are writing about in any particular post. For my part, I've come to appreciate you and your contributions tremendously, but feel that this reactive behavior diminishes your influence, that's all. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > [Marek wrote:] > > > As has been pointed out before, you are not going to change > > > Barry's style and everyone else is just as likely to recognize > > > it and either comment on it or ignore it as they see fit; so > > > why waste your time with constant carping? Nothing is going to > > > change there. > > > > Someone once asked Maharishi why, in the scriptures the Gods and > > Demons are always fighting. He said something to the effect that > > they needed that intensity of activity to avoid slipping into the > > Absolute, and thus dissolving creation. Maybe Barry and Judy need > > to fight to maintain the structure of their egos, and there's > > some fear of ego dissolution associated with each relaxing and > > allowing the other to be what they are without criticism or > > judgment. > > Or maybe not. > > Note once again the astounding *moral equivalence* > inherent in Rick's vacuuous little speculation: > between a hypocritical phony completely lacking in > any scruples about fairness and honesty, and the > person who is calling attention to his behavior-- > neither, in Rick's mind, apparently more deserving > of criticism or judgment than the other (although > what criticism there is typically is directed at > me). > > Say, why don't we all relax and allow the Bushies > to be what they are without criticism or > judgment? And Al Qaeda too, while we're at it? > > How about we relax and allow Maharishi be what > he is without criticism or judgment? Or Bevan? > Or Sai Baba or Sri Chinmoy or Muktananda? > > Let's just ignore all ethical lapses lest we > get in the way of our own precious enlightenment. > Yeah, that's the ticket. >
