> > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > Read the definition again. What do you think "known > weakness" means? > > > Maharishi actually did bang groupies. There is nothing > > cheap about mentioning it. It was cheap that he did it. > > It was cheap to shoehorn it into a different discussion. > Goodness knows we've had plenty of discussions here > focused specifically on what he did and how cheap it was. > It didn't belong in that one.
Here is the crux of this issue for me. The term cheap shot is a subjective on like offensive and gratuitous. But for you to see my point as a cheap shot is to miss the point I was making and only see it from your own perspective. Your choice, but I will explain in case you are interested. Although to you the point seemed to be not connected, to me they are. I view the term leish avidya as a product of religious imagination like original sin. The only used the term has for me is in terms of how it is used in the belief system of those who use it, like Maharishi. The most interesting thing to me is the speculation that it could be used as a justification for a "masters" carnal desires. And I believe that if I was still in the movement, and if I did face up to Maharishi's indiscretions, I would probably have used this as the reason it was possible for him to act this way. So it was not some cheap shot for me, it was an interesting speculation. And the problem with Jim's request is that it is like someone asking you to never write something that is offensive. How can anyone tell what might offend someone or what they might interpret as a cheap shot? When Nabbie turned your question about deer skins into a chance to slip in a putdown on me, I might consider it a cheap shot since the point had nothing to do with the topic. But I would never consider telling him never to write something that I might consider a cheap shot. If everyone did this to Nabbie I suspect he would have nothing to post. SNAP! Cheap shot! I wish you had let Jim answer my question about what he considered to be a cheap shot before you rushed in to defend him because I asked it to find out what he considers a cheap shot. > > > > > 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. > > Au contraire, Pierre. I was astonished that you wouldn't > cop to using cheap shots, especially when that one was > so recent. > > <snip> > > 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. > > Again, it's gratuitous to stick a crude reference to > it in a discussion where it isn't relevant. Here we have to agreed to profoundly disagree. It has to do with our almost total disconnect with what we consider humor. For me to juxtapose the sacred and the profane is the most entertaining type of humor and more points are garnered if it can be slipped into a serious discussion to lighten the mood during a serious discussion. We are not going to agree on this. But I suspect if it were up to you to decide when a crude reference was "relevant" the Monte Python series would never have been made. > > > > > 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. > > You just did. That is a little confusing. You might have won the round but I can't exactly follow it. I'll concede the point. > > <snip> > > 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. > > Are you *kidding* me? He's far more sinned against > than sinning in that regard, especially from Barry. I > thought that "spiritual oneupsmanship" was a bum rap > when you first laid it on him, but I stayed out of it > until you outright misrepresented what he'd said. And > then I commented on your long post because it was > directed partly at me, also unfairly, IMHO. > > > 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. > > With a very few exceptions of people who don't pull a > lot of weight here, I don't make any such distinctions > about whom I speak out against when I think they're > being unfair. You obviously do. You consider Barry an > "ally," so you don't want to risk chastising him no > matter how despicable his behavior is. > > Barry's a special case. "Unfair" doesn't begin to cover > it. He's at the Rush Limbaugh level of "unfair." Worse, > actually. No comparison with anything Jim has ever said. You guys have chosen your style of interaction. I know you have an intractable web of beliefs about Barry being a bad guy and vice versa. But I like him and enjoy his posts that are not directed to you. I dislike reading either of your take on each other because I enjoy communicating here with both of you and find the way you depict each other is not a match for how I think of you. >
