--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > They are; Barry and Vaj are receiving sponsorship > > > for their long-time anti knowledge, anti TM- > > > activities at FFL. > > > > OK, the Maitreya delusion is just entertaining. > > This one is offensive Nabby. Claiming such > > defamatory nonsense on a public forum is a low, > > dirty trick. Fortunately for your targets anyone > > who would come across this would see it in the > > contexts of your other beliefs and laugh it off. > > But that doesn't excuse your malicious intent > > with this creepy fantasy. > > I can't say I get this. > > No one is covering themselves with glory - but the > *defamation* that upsets you here is the idea that > Barry and Vaj are in it for the money. (Heh, can we > all get some?)
Funny thing is, back on alt.m.t the TM critics repeatedly accused me of being a paid shill for TM, and I can't recall a TM critic ever expressing outrage. (I'm not sure Curtis was present on alt.m.t on any of these occasions, so this may not reflect on him.) <snip> > But there should be an equivalence of mud-slinging > tolerance. Well put. That's the point I was just making in my response to Barry (albeit not so succinctly). I confess that I dumped on Nabby as well, but it was more because of the absurdity of the charge than that it was "defamatory." Defamation that isn't at least somewhat plausible doesn't really qualify as "defamatory," in my book. It just detracts from the credibility of TM's defenders. <snip> > Emptybill's antivaj speel was highly amusing I > thought. Ditto. > If Vaj wants to promote nonsense from trashy > newspapers as "part of the historical record" > (again, yes, really), I don't think anyone > should get too precious about folks wanting to > have a shot at him. "Those that live by the > sword" and all that. Again, well put. > If I am going to be honest, I did feel that > Emptybill's story was an explanation of > something that seems to need explaining! Yupper.
