--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > This post has some interesting insight. I think Judy's > description of her own motives seem accurate.
For the record, Curtis, I do not. If what she really wanted was to provide a more "positive interpretation that's at least somewhat plausible," that would be one thing. But that is NOT what she limits herself to doing. She has a long history of attempting to demonize and destroy the reputations of the people who provided the "less positive view." Several here do not. I try to never give them any shit when they provide a more positive spin on things TM or TMO *when they limit themselves to doing that*. But when they feel the need to *follow* their "positive interpretation" with comments such as the one Judy "finished up" her post with about how Vaj has no scruples or honesty, *in a conversation with someone who was not even Vaj*, I'm sorry but there is no need for that *except* vindictiveness and spite. That's over the line. My contention is that that vindictiveness and spite is what Judy is really interested in presenting, NOT the "more positive interpretation." The "more positive interpretation" is merely a smokescreen, a prelude, a pretext so that she can let loose with the personal invective against the person who presented the "more negative interpretation." To balance this, Vaj sometimes does the same thing. But for her to claim that she does what she does on this forum out of a sense of *caring* for the poor TMers being "misled" by "dishonest" people like Vaj is laughable -- bullshit so deep one needs hip boots to wade through it. I don't think that there is a single person on this forum -- *yourself included* -- who believes that. The history of Judy's personal invective and personal abuse of others -- *including fellow TMers* -- is just too long and too established for you to actually buy the line of crap she was spouting in this P.R. post to boo_lives. I'm pretty sure *he* didn't buy it, and I don't think you did, either. You were just trying, as you often do, to provide some balance and some mediation here. And good on you for that. But the bottom line is the bottom line, for *both* Judy and Vaj. In this exchange, as I see it, *all that Vaj did* originally was to post an *opinion* by the Dalai Lama. Dawn (and you know as well as I do who that really is) replied stupidly, trying to push Vaj's buttons. He succeeded only in that Vaj suggested in reply, before addressing ED's claims specifically, that he...uh...she had a "skewed sense of reality." Given that we are talking about a man posing here as a woman, I somehow think that you might not disagree with that assessment. :-) Enter Judy, claws bared, defending the man posing as a woman because he's a **TM** man posing as a woman. First she called Vaj a snob. Then she "played editor" and corrected him in a putdown way on a typo. Next she suggested that he implied that Maharishi lusted after young boys and not just young girls, which Vaj never did. She then mocked his use of the word "palace" to describe Vlodrop (which *she has never seen*), calling it instead a "monastery." I presume that is the "providing a more positive interpretation" thang she talked about in her P.R. speech to boo_lives. :-) Curtis, go back and *read the actual posts*. Then reread your sentence above, "I think Judy's description of her own motives seem accurate." Do you really believe that, or were you just taken out by Judy's backpedaling, smarmy, self-congratulatory "explanation" of her motives that she tried to pull on someone else she was trying to wrap and get him to see her the way that she sees herself? I understand to some extent what you were trying to do, but don't be taken in by this bullshit, Curtis. Judy's behavior in this exchange speaks for itself, as does Vaj's. When Vaj spends more time in a post "going for the throat" and putting down the people he's talking to *personally*, as opposed to challenging their ideas, bust him on it. But when Judy does the same thing, bust her, too. My contention is that even given Vaj's overexuberance in terms of "pushing TB buttons" on this forum, he does not have the history of mean-spirited, hateful personal attacks that Judy does. He is *perceived* that way by people who have their emotional buttons pushed by him presenting views of spirituality that conflict with their long-held and rarely-challenged beliefs. They IMO *cannot tell the difference* between those emotional buttons being pushed and actually being attacked. But Judy's history in terms of personally attacking others was already well-established LONG BEFORE Vaj ever entered her life. Vaj, after all, does not have an entire website devoted to describing him as the "junkyard dog." Judy does. There is a reason for this. I think they're *both* crazy as loons for being such prosyletutes and trying to convince others to believe the things that they believe. But there's overexuberent prosyletute crazy, and then there is over-the-top, would-be-sued-for-libel-if-this-were-a-newspaper, hate-driven prosyletute crazy. I'm sorry, but the latter does not describe Vaj, and it does describe Judy.
