--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Combined with holding Maharishi as a teacher so special > > > > we should never goof on him or point out his failings > > > > with us > > > > > > That isn't what he said. Here's what he said: > > > > > > "I think you could write about MMY as far less than > > > perfect, as many on here do, without the cheap shots." > > > > > > Ooopsie. That pretty much cancels out a good portion > > > of your indictment of Jim. > > > > Actually Jim has a long history of attacking me personally > > for saying things about Maharishi. Although he made that > > statement his many examples of going after me after I have > > said something he doesn't like pretty much cancels out > > your point. > > Let's see an example (both of your remark that Jim > objected to and Jim's objection). > > > > I might as well stick in my response to your demand > > > for an example of one of your cheap shots: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > So what do you consider a cheap shot that I > > > > have taken at Maharishi? I can't think of > > > > anything I have said about him that I didn't > > > > sincerely mean. My shots are carefully > > > > considered and not cheap at all. > > > > > > Well, those are some interesting definitions of > > > "cheap shot," especially the first. I've not > > > encountered "cheap shot" used in either of those > > > senses, i.e., not sincerely meant or carefully > > > considered. > > > > > > Here's a recent remark of yours that qualifies as > > > a cheap shot in my book: > > > > > > "Then after Unity you have leisha vidya which I > > > suspect was one of his personal excuses for > > > banging groupies." > > > > Then you have missed a key ingredient of what makes a > > shot cheap, its unfairness. In this case we both have > > adequate documentation that this was precisely the > > behavior he did engage in. > > I told you to do yourself a favor and not try to > justify it. Here's the dictionary definition: "a > critical statement that takes unfair advantage of > a known weakness of the target." > > "Adequate documentation" doesn't enter into it at > all.
It isn't unfair if the guy literally did what I was writing about. Maharishi actually did bang groupies. There is nothing cheap about mentioning it. It was cheap that he did it. > > > And my speculation that this may have been some of > > his rationalization is probably not far off. > > But it was gratuitous in that context: Not to me. I get it that you want to help Jim who failed to come up with any examples of cheap shots. But my statements reference his actual behavior. > > > > One of the hallmarks of the cheap shot is that it's > > > a gratuitously nasty remark that makes no > > > contribution to the context into which it's been > > > shoehorned, as was the case here. > > > > It contributed to the context of my understanding of > > the term and how it might be employed by Gurus to > > justify behavior. It was not gratuitous to me and I > > was the writer. > > You were a writer who was attempting to communicate > about a general principle to somebody else. You weren't > writing in your diary. So we disagree about whether it was a cheap shot. Perhaps this is in the eye of the beholder. It seemed like one to you and Jim but not to me. > > > > Do yourself a favor and don't try to "justify" that > > > one. Just know that when we say you take cheap shots > > > at MMY, that's the kind of thing we mean. > > > > My objection with Jim is that when I say something > > about Maharishi, he takes a personal cheap shot at me. > > Aligning yourself with this behavior does not speak > > well of you. > > I'm aligning myself with what he said in the post youe > misrepresented. > > > Maharishi is a dead guy. There is not "shot" to take that > > affects him. When people here take opinions of him > > personally it reveals poor intellectual boundaries. > > Oh, I forgot, you don't think there's any such thing > as taking a cheap shot at a dead person. We'll have to > agree to disagree on that point, if you don't mind. I may have to rethink that in light of thinking that it may be nature that a cheap shot for one person is just referencing an aspect of the person for another. It is sort of a judgement on the relevance of something. For me a cheap shot might be to say that Maharishi was such a midget that he couldn't see over his table of flowers. Who cares how tall he was. But I do care that he presented himself as a holy many and then banged groupies. For me that is not gratuitous to reference that behavior. Sometimes it is very humorous to me. > > > Your posturing of virtue would be much more effective if > > you spoke out against Jim's cheap shots at actual living > > people here. > > You are in no position to accuse me of posturing about > anything, given your unwillingness to speak out against > Barry's constant demonizations of and blatant falsehoods > about actual living people here, including me and Jim. But I don't posture to you that you should. I was just pointing out what I consider hypocritical. > > But you don't. So I can only conclude that when he > > ridicules people for their lack of the self realization > > he believes he is so full of, you are down with that. > > And I can only conclude that when Barry demonizes and > lies about me and Jim and others, you're down with that. > > Little tit for tat there. Live with it. So perhaps you get my point that I try to stay out of the way you and Barry choose to interact. But in this post you have inserted yourself into how Jim and I are interacting. But you are only selecting the bits that attempt to support him without speaking out against his use of spirituality as a one upmanship game. I don't care if you don't speak out against a guy you consider an ally here. And I hope you understand better why I feel the same way about getting in between you and Barry. >
