--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > > Barry's most recent Big Lies about me, as it happens, > > were contained in two posts *addressed to you*, in > > response to posts of yours. You didn't reply to either > > of his posts, but I strongly suspect you read them, > > because there was a lot of more general stuff in them > > as well. > > I probably did but I tend to gloss over anything Judy > related in his posts or Barry related in yours. You > guys just don't seem to get each other
You really aren't qualified to have an opinion on which of us gets or doesn't get the other *because* you "gloss over" the material in question. Not knowing what's actually going on enables you to comfortably set up in your mind an equivalency between Barry and me that is simply false. > and don't bring out the best in each other. Or maybe you do and I > am > missing some point that you enjoy interacting this way. > But I am not ever going to be convinced to move to some > position that sees either of your as awful people because > that is not my way of seeing you guys. Awful *behavior* is the issue. > Barry has accepted that about me and does not make our > friendship contingent on me converting to Judy-hater. But > you seem to have a real problem with maintaining these > boundaries and that disappoints me. I haven't asked you to convert to a Barry-hater. Genuine friendship isn't contingent on total acceptance of everything the friend does. And I'd point out that you're real quick to get on me when you think I'm behaving badly. But because Barry is your friend, you carefully avoid getting on him. <snip> > > And even then you couldn't bring yourself to do the > > right thing and speak up. That's really a step beyond > > simply not "getting in between" me and Barry.> > > That is way too judgmental for me to go with Judy. You > are not a reference point for what the "right thing" is > for me. Yes, you and I have very different ethical standards. > > If Jim were to respond to one of my posts with what I > > knew to be lies about you, I wouldn't hesitate for a > > split-second to call him on them. > > No you don't and I can't expect you to. But you don't and > haven't. Don't what?? If you mean I haven't called Jim on lies about you, that's because he hasn't told any. > > Frankly, I wouldn't want to *have* an "ally" who was > > a liar. > > You love this word too much. I am sick of it. That was your word, toots. That's why I keep putting quotes around it. You referred to Jim as my "ally." > > Just for kicks, here's a list of the specific lies > > (i.e., deliberate untruths), which you knew were lies, > > in those two posts Barry addressed to you: > > > > --I'm a "TB." > > I will be abbreviating point of view as POV to indicate > where I think you are taking Barry's opinion and claiming > it is a lie. And I'll be pointing out why these examples aren't just opinion but deliberate misrepresentations of fact, and how you *know* that's what they are. > This may be the reason you overuse the word so much here. > I hope you will consider this because I am being completely > serious. I don't overuse it in Barry's case. I don't use it to mean "different opinion" or "different belief." You've bought into Barry's premise, which is itself knowingly factually false, an attempt to justify his lies. > I don't see you this way now but it took me years. The > reason is that there is a decent case to be made for it. It isn't just a "decent case." To make a remotely legitimate case for the contrary, one would have to redefine the way "TB" is used here to mean anyone who has anything at all positive to say about TM/MMY, regardless of what they've said that's negative. But in that sense, both you and Barry would be TBs. An example would be what I've said about MMY's philandering. Not only do I believe it occurred, I've condemned it in very strong terms. You're very much aware of that, and so is Barry. > But there is a better one for me that doesn't see you that > way and I find it is a more useful perspective in > discussions with you to understand the nuances of your > beliefs or working hypothesis. So is Barry's POV on you, > it is not a lie. No, it doesn't have to do with nuances or my working hypotheses. It has to do with the *fact* that I don't fit the definition of True Believer. > > --I told you I was in the room with MMY when he was > > lecturing. > > I would have to read the context, this sound untrue. I > can't imagine you saying this. Nor did I. Here's the context, my statement followed by Barry's: ----- > > His approach was holistic no matter who he was > > talking to. He'd emphasize either the physical or the > > metaphysical (although he hated that word) depending on the > > occasion, but never one to the exclusion of the other, at > > least that I ever heard, and I've been in both types of > > audience. Actually, you have not. You never sat in *any* audience with Maharishi. I point this out because you consistently attempt to imply otherwise on this forum, as you do above. ----- Note that I did not use the words "with Maharishi." > > --I have consistently "attempted to imply" that I've > > sat in an audience with MMY. > > POV I don't share it but as I pointed out when it came up, > with an uncharitable interpretation what you wrote could > have been taken that way. He did, I didn't. No, here we're talking about the claim that I have consistently attempted to imply this over time. Not only have I *never* done so, I've consistently and explictly pointed out that I was never in MMY's presence, both here and on alt.m.t. That's how Barry knows it, for pete's sake! That's how *you* know it. Therefore it isn't a POV, it's simply a deliberate misstatement of fact, a lie. I didn't say what he claimed I said, so that was also a lie. Somebody who had never read my posts might legitimately misinterpret "audience" to mean "audience with MMY," but unless Barry's deep in the throes of senile dementia, he was deliberately lying. > > --I'm "outrageously sensitive" about never having > > spent time with MMY. > > POV His opinion and evaluation on how you react to his > writing. If I were "outrageously sensitive" about it, why would I repeatedly point it out? Get real. My reaction to Barry's writing on this point has to do with his ridiculous claim that one had to have spent time with MMY to be able to speak with any authority about what he taught. Obviously, anyone who's watched his tapes and/or read his writings with any attention can do that with regard to what's on those tapes and in those writings, which is all I've ever claimed to be able to do. I've *laughed* at that claim of Barry's because it's so transparently wrong. That's what he characterizes as my being "outrageously sensitive." He knows that isn't the case; he just hates to be laughed at, so he tries to obscure that fact. So, again, it's a lie. > > --I present myself as "the most knowledgeable about > > what MMY taught." > > Come on Judy this is just an opinion and a putdown. No, Curtis, it's a factually false claim. Note the quote marks. I never said that (nor anything even to that effect). Even without the quotes, it's a lie. As Barry knows, and as you also know, I'll often ask for someone more knowledgeable than I to correct anything I've gotten wrong about MMY's teaching. > > --Barry got me to "post out" in a single day with > > one sentence. > > Bravado and a tweak to you. Knowingly factually false claim. And you know it too, because my last post for the week was to you. > > --My assertions that I don't lie are "laughable." > > POV Nobody has ever been able to show that I've ever lied about anything, here or on alt.m.t. And goodness knows folks have tried. If my assertions were in fact "laughable," it could only be because there was good reason to think they were untrue. There isn't and never has been. > > --I've never displayed a sense of humor. > > You don't get my humor, he doesn't get yours. I get your humor, Curtis. I don't always find it funny myself, but that's a different issue. I don't have any trouble recognizing that you have a sense of humor. I don't have any trouble recognizing that Barry has a sense of humor. I've made plenty of wisecracks here that others have found amusing. It's knowingly false for him to say I've never displayed a sense of humor, regardless of whether he finds the wisecracks amusing. > > There were other lies, including about his own behavior. > > You've got lie colored glasses on Judy. I don't see how > that serves you except to wind you up. Every item I listed is knowingly factually false, Curtis, not opinion, not POV, not belief. <snip> > > I'm sorry, but I think that really shows a profound > > lack of ethics on your part, a "sin of omission," as > > it were. > > You are more judgmental and quick to assume the worst > about me than I am comfortable with. Oh, I could assume lots worse about you, Curtis. I could assume you have no conscience, but I don't. > > I'm hardly the only person he lies about, either. He > > causes a tremendous amount of dissension and anger > > on FFL because of his lack of concern for truth. You > > know as well as I do that his criticisms of MMY and TM > > aren't what folks are primarily objecting to. > > > > He respects you, or says he does. If you'd speak up > > once in a while and let him know you don't approve of > > his behavior, you'd be doing a service to FFL and > > everyone on it, including him. Shutting your eyes to > > it makes you complicit. > > Barry and I have many levels of communication that we > enjoy. Finding things to disapprove about each other > is just not how we role. It works for us. You don't have to "find" anything. I've just got done laying Barry's propensity to lie out in front of you. You've made it quite clear you don't disapprove of it; you even do your best to make excuses for it. As I say, you and I have very different ethical standards.
