snip > > 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.
It was hissed in a threatening tone by an Anonymous caller. None of your possibilities make sense if you had heard the tone. It was a creepy veiled threat from a coward who would not face me. It was easy to assume that the person would not have the guts to do anything themselves, but it did shake my wife up at the time. The person was not letting me know that I might have a "profound mystical experience" someday. It was consistent with the movement's view of karma gleaned from all those self serving Guru-love scriptures who have very clear physical threats against speaking against the "master." > > 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. Not having heard the call, I don't find your conjecture very helpful. > 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? Yes, it was the claim of a "death threat." > > 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"? I am trying to figure out what you mean, that's why I asked you. > > > 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. I was responding to your invitation for someone to ask you about it. I don't know why you are jerking my chain here. But I will read what you write to Raunchy and hope it is not so cryptic. I don't need a "hint" as if I am just being a bit thick here. I am inquiring about your perspective because it is not obvious from what has been written so far. My one word replacement for "misogynistic vomit" would be "hyperbole." > > Thank you for asking, by the way. Barry never has. You're welcome, but it hasn't improved my understanding yet. > > Watch for my post to raunchydog. Will do. I still think you are misusing the term "misogyny" on people who just don't like you, but who like women in general. There has been sexists language used against you and Raunchy and you have both retaliated. I don't see any evidence for the claim of misogyny against anyone here, nor have I seen any death treats. As far as I can tell you and Raunchy seem perfectly capable of dishing out as much as you are getting here. >
