--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: "How many simply blocked it out of their awareness because they're friendly with Barry?"
I'm gunna take a wild guess who this was aimed at. At least you know I'm reading your posts. Of the 3 alternative options I can think of my favorite is that if you take off the "malicious Barry" glasses for a moment, and knowing his writing style, you might just conclude that Barry enjoys hyperbole and finds it entertaining to take an extreme perspective and watch people react to it. I didn't think for a second that he meant it literally so I thought it was a funny exaggeration. Maybe he was tweaking John's ear a bit, I don't remember how they usually interact here. You are starting with the premise of sinister intent and finding pieces to suggest that. I'm pretty familiar with that writing style. As far as the shared tendency to exaggerate to provoke between Palin and Barry, I can see that. But Barry is a much more entertaining writer. Wait a second, I may have to take that back: http://www.slate.com/id/2237261/ > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "metoostill" <metoostill@> > wrote: > > > I wonder was Tony: > <snip> > > > 5. or...[please fill in as appropriate] > > > > 6. It was along the lines that JohnR (who IMO repre- > > sents pure, unadulterated, On The Program "TM thinking" > > more than anyone else on this forum, even Nabby) said > > this morning in another context. > > "In another context" = about a different couple, > in an entirely different situation. John said > nothing in the post Barry references about Tony > and his wife. > > "Mrs. Nader" was just > > playing some kind of "power game" with Tony, and trying > > to be the center of attention. Instead of that "center > > of his attention" being -- as we all know it should > > be -- on meditation, > > Actually, with regard to this other couple, it > was Curtis who proposed to the husband that the > wife may be more "sensitive to your disappearing > for periods of time from her needs than anything > to do with spiritual practices." > > John concurred, saying, "She may be feeling left > out in the cold." And he suggested they meditate > together--even if she practices a different > meditation technique--so she wouldn't feel > excluded. Not exactly "pure, unadulterated On the > Program TM thinking." > > Then John said, "AT WORST, she may playing a power > game in that she wants to be the center of > attention in all of your activities" (emphasis > added). > > > He should have "taken out a contract" on her and had > > certified Maharishi-brand pundits "perform a yagya" or > > two on her, > > "Taken out a contract" is Barry's phrase, not > John's, the misleading quote marks notwithstanding. > And John said the yagyas would be performed "for > your family," not "on her." > > > and then he wouldn't have had to worry about > > the waste of time of having a relationship between equals > > Actually, John's first suggestion was to "speak > with her about this matter," the yagyas to come > into play only if the problem could not be > "resolved amicably"--in other words, as a last > resort, not in order to *avoid* what Curtis > called the need to "work this balance out, as > most couples do." > > <snip> > > 7. Tony and Maharishi really DID commission pundit hit > > men to "take Mrs. Tony out," > > Again, "take [the wife] out" is Barry's phrase, > despite the misleading quote marks. > > **Barry wants readers to react to the idea of the > man having a yagya done for his family in the > same way they would to the idea of his hiring a > hit man to have his wife murdered.** > > <snip> > > Seriously, though, how many here *did not even pause* > > when reading JohnR's tribute to misogyny and hatred > > of women in the earlier post? How many didn't even > > NOTICE it? That's how pervasive that attitude was in > > the TM movement, and still is. Read it again, at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/240690 > > and see what a TMer's view of "resolving family problems > > amicably" is. > > How many here who read this post of Barry's did > not even click the link to read the post of > John's he references? How many who did failed to > notice the extraordinary and malicious distortion > of Barry's characterization of the post? > > How many who *did* notice are afraid to point > it out lest they become Barry's next target? > > How many simply blocked it out of their > awareness because they're friendly with Barry? > > > Chilling. JohnR clearly has *no earthly > > idea* how insane his view of a relationship and how > > one maintains one is. > > John's "insane view of a relationship": The wife > "may be feeling left out in the cold," and AT > WORST "may be playing a power game." That view > represents, to Barry, "misogyny and hatred of > women." > > I mean, the notion that a relationship may > involve "power games" is really way out there, > isn't it? *Especially* if it's the woman who's > playing the game. Only an insane person could > propose such a thing. > > > And this guy probably sells his > > services as a Jyotish "marriage consultant" to help > > other men who think the way he does find wives. > > Chilling. > > Barry sure does manage to manufacture chilling > fantasies. The question is, does he have *any > earthly idea* that they're fantasies? > > The same question occurs to many of us with > regard to, say, the chilling fantasies of Rush > Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. > > Some of us suspect these figures *do* know they're > fantasies, constructed with the express purpose > of maliciously manipulating the thinking of their > fearful and credulous Tea Party audiences. > > Barry's "take out a contract/take her out" trope > reminds me of nothing so strongly as the "death > panels/pull the plug on Grandma" notion first > proposed by Sarah Palin, referring to a provision > in an early version of the health reform bill that > would have reimbursed patients for a consultation > with their physicians about end-of-life issues. > The degrees of distortion and malice are quite > remarkably similar. >
