--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'll be happy to explain how I was using the > > term "death threats" and why Barry's finely > > crafted definition and his humor excuse don't > > apply, if anybody is interested. > > > > I doubt anyone will be, and that's fine, except > > in that case, they aren't in a position to have > > an opinion on whether my claim is valid. > > I would like to hear it Judy. I thought this was a pretty > serious charge so it got my attention. > > When I left the movement (probably after some article came > out with my opinion of the movement) I got a message on my > phone machine (remember them!) that said: > > "Nature will silence you!" > > Although it does have a sinister vibe and was creepy, I don't > think a movement person would come to kill me. They were > expressing their belief that a piano would fall on my head > someday in a Mafioso nature hit.
Just for the sake of argument, there are lots of ways you could have been "silenced," including by means well short of death, even by entirely nonviolent means. "Silenced" might even refer just to your criticisms of the movement--and it *could* refer to Nature bringing about a change of mind on your part, either in terms of your opinions about the movement, or your judgment about whether it was really productive, for you or for the movement, to continue to criticize. Hypothetically, it could include your unexpectedly having a profound mystical experience in which you recognized the truth of MMY's teaching. So I think your assumption as to what the caller really had in mind is not a statement of established fact at all. There are lots of possibilities. That's somewhat (although not entirely) beside the point, so I'll leave it at that for now. Suffice it to say that some people here are also making assumptions that are not a matter of established fact. For example: > I think it is important for people to feel safe here. I'm not > sure what threat a person on a different continent poses when > they write inflammatory things here. Remember when Off was > spouting all his karate stuff which included some very pointed > physical threats of how he would prove his point? I thought to > myself that it would be a pretty long kick from Vermont to > Virginia so I didn't feel physically threatened. Did you read anything from me suggesting that I felt physically threatened by what Barry said, Curtis? Let's go back to the beginning. Here's what I wrote, in response to your insistence that the men on this forum couldn't possibly be accused of misogyny because they all had "loving relationships with the women in their lives," and that the only men we should distrust were religious fanatics who hated sex (and therefore women): "Your hypocrisy is stunning, Curtis. You've seen the misogynistic vomit (including death threats) hurled at me and raunchydog and other women who attempt to post here, not to mention at Hillary and Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain and even Jackie Kennedy." That's what threw Barry into a tizzy from which he has yet to recover. See anything about fear on my part that Barry would cross the Atlantic and hunt me down with a flamethrower? Have I expressed any such fear since? No? Then how come it hasn't occurred to you that this may not have been what I meant by "death threats"? > Anyway Judy I would like to hear how Turq's statements seemed > like death threats to you. I'll give you a hint, but I'm going to put a full answer in my response to raunchydog a little later today when I have time. Hint: How would you characterize the phrase "misogynistic vomit"? I'm looking for a one-word description; there are two that would fit, one a little more precise than the other. Thank you for asking, by the way. Barry never has. Watch for my post to raunchydog.
