--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
That is pretty misleading. I didn't say I have always from day one glossed over your cross-fire and never read it. Anyone who posts here regularly has plenty of material to judge you guys on even if they mostly avoid it. > > > 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. That is just awful and he should stop it immediately! (Reference to Albert Ellis's Rational Emotive therapy) He is writing on a board with a small group of readers with an even smaller group of readers who follows your cross posts. That is my perspective on it all. > > 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. I'll have to think about that. It is probably because of the issues involved and how I view them in importance. I might view getting on your case as a way to advance my own opinions about whatever topic is involved. But the truth is that I interact with you ten times as much as I do with Barry here. > > <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. With what we believe is important concerning what we are doing here, probably. In real life unlikely. > > > > 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. Then we are going to have to agree to disagree. > > > > 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." The word I was referring to was "liar". > > > > 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. So you DID know which word I was referring to. That was weird. > > > 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. I don't think this is the case. There is a core level of your buy-in with Maharishi's teaching that may not be able to changed even with counter-evidence. That is my perspective on the term. You don't have as many beliefs as a fulltime movement person does in that protected status. But I really don't know for sure. > > 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. That is not part of the protected status belief web for you. And even when I was all in with the movement I had the ability to see things that were bad about the movement or even heaven forbid, weird about Maharishi. I justified it as my karma. So the concept of being a TB is not contingent on buying into everything at the same level. A true believe could even justify Maharishi's indiscretions as leish avidya as I said before. > > > 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 don't think summing anyone up with a label like that is very useful in conversations like the ones we have here. But it my be an influencing factor for us in different ways. I am subject to having classes of beliefs that are not available for counter-evidence just as you are. It is a human thing. We probably picked it up in our tribal ancestor. in fact you have attempted to portray me as a TB as far as atheism is concerned. It is just one of the moves on the chessboard around here. > > > > --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." That doesn't make sense in this context. That is what caused the gap that Barry exploited. You are clearly referencing how Maharishi adapted his talks to different groups and are aware that a tape is only a moment of the long hours he spent with groups. You were not clear to me either. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, he didn't. > > > > --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. It is an opinion he has. You are just so determined to see his pants on fire it is really tedious. > > 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. Judy in the years I have known you, you often do come off as if you believe this. We had years of arguments about what I was taught on TTC, with you challenging what I said based on things other teacher said, blah blah blah. This is not a lie, in any case, it is a POV. You have softened up over the years on this. For me that has been a good thing. > > > > --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. Judy if you think I pay attention to that level of posting nonsense... I was not only not aware of that I will never become aware of that. This is ridiculous. He is getting your goat and you are letting him. > > > > --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. Judy you have never conceded to this point and I don't want to dig up the past because you and I have gotten beyond this. But your no conceding doesn't preclude people having a different opinion. > > > > --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, That is what I mean by not getting it. It is not funny to you. It doesn't work for you. Intellectually understanding the joke isn't getting it. 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. Hyperbole for effect. Calling it a lie doesn't work for me. It is not being said as a factual statement with no exceptions. It is a put-down of you. If a person acts humorously 98% of the time, the other 2% doesn't significantly improve their score. I suspect this is how we is viewing it. You not only don't play for comedy here but you have often chastised me for mine being "inappropriate". So this is not an aspect of your online personality that I connect with from you. For all intents and purposes we do not have a comedic relationship here. For Barry that is even more so I suspect. So I can imagine why he thinks of you this way. > > > > 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. I know I am not going to get through to you on this but I had fun trying. I made my case, you said no go...OK. > > <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. And that assumption would be ridiculous. You don't improve your situation of being uncomfortably (for me) judgmental by telling me you could be more so. And I think you would have a hard time making that case about me here although I guess you could expect Nabbie and Jim to give your their vote ahead of time. > > > > 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.> It is not the difference in ethical standards between us that is the most significant thing for me. It is the difference in how we approach people and what our goals are while we are here. We are never gunna get to agreement about Barry, we just see him too differently. The same is true for Barry and his view of you. Barry is cool with that fact with me, and from time to time you express that you are not. It is just something I have to accept about interacting with you here. For the most part, you and I have found a comfortable spot to hang out in and I really enjoy our interaction here. It stimulates me to think and write, which is a tremendous asset for me. I thank you for that Judy. >
