--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > One of the things I've found most fascinating in > all of this post-concert "I'm important because > something I was once associated with is in the > news" idiocy is the continuing tendency on the > part of the TMO and TMers to not *CARE* who the > praise comes from as long as it's praise. I would > bet that if they'd gotten a "good review" of the > concert and its goals from Adolf Hitler they'd > be putting that in their press releases, too. > > But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. At least > the great Roger Ebert is not giving him a pass > on being an idiot. Here is his reaction to Bill's > latest "hit list." The last line should be read > over and over and over by Nabby, Judy, and Off. > That's their reaction to this concert hype to a "T."
Well, no, it's certainly not mine. I've been a Beatles fan since the winter after I graduated from college (1963-64), before they made their first visit to the U.S. I'd have been tickled by this concert regardless of their association with TM. I think what we're seeing here from Barry is more of the distress the TM critics feel about the TMO being involved with something positive and successful. As to O'Reilly, anybody that gives him a pass on being an idiot is, well, an idiot. As they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That's no credit either to the clock or to what it was right about. (And O'Reilly's clock is right far less often than twice a day. Once every few years, maybe.) But the TM critics are *delirious* that they finally have something with which to do a guilt- by-association number: If O'Reilly likes it, it *must* be a really terrible thing.
