(Curtis, see below the ad.)
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > So Buck used my name in his "subtle satire" because he > > > really is aligned with my POV? He is really saying, I > > > wish Curtis would post more critical things about the > > > movement and meditation because he is right on and I > > > too think that Maharishi oversold his technique? > > > > Er, no. He's mocking those who would treat apostates > > harshly. > > > > > But you always know which is which, unlike those anti- > > > whateverers who need broad burlesque? > > > > No, every so often I'm not sure what he's getting at. > > But I never used the term "anti"-anything. Where did you > > get that from? > > > > > So what was Doug trying to convey about me in that > > > post? If the target of his satire was the movement's > > > repression, why was I included in the rant about the > > > movement? What subtle message did you get that I > > > missed? > > > > Boy, sometimes I wonder about you, Curtis. > > > > You're one of the people on FFL whom the movement's > > repressive faction would like to repress if they could. > > But being against repression doesn't necessarily mean > > one agrees with the views of its targets. > > Other than movement people saying inaccurate things > about me I have experienced zero movement repression. > No lawsuits, no intimidation. Right. Did you see my words "if they could"? If so, why are you coming out with this non sequitur? <snip> > > Could you really not figure that out for yourself? > > This has not advanced my understanding of what Buck > is up to. You still don't understand that what he's mocking is the would-be repressers, citing you as an example of whom they'd repress if they could? Look back at your huge straw man at the top, please. > There is a lot of passive aggressive stuff in his > posts meant to invoke the reaction it does. Sure. So? > It is an old trick they use in NLP. > > "Some people would consider Buck a complete asshole > who is hiding behind a confusing humor schtick to > take a swipe at people who don't share his beliefs, > while hiding behind the facade of humor. Isn't that > funny what those other people might think about him?" I don't know whom you're quoting here. I'm pretty sure you haven't completely forgotten all the swipes he's taken in the past at the TM suits--or the TM robes, I guess--for keeping those not 100 percent on the program out of the domes, right? This is another such swipe, only he's cast it in the form of satire (or maybe role-playing is a clearer term). He's voicing what he believes the TM robes are thinking (if not saying aloud to each other). And he's going just far enough overboard with it (bringing up the death penalty, e.g.) that it *should* have clued everyone in that he wasn't advocating such repression himself (although everybody who's read his past posts should have realized that anyway). That doesn't mean he loves your critiques. As I noted, one can be against repression without agreeing with the repressee. (See ACLU and the KKK in Cicero, for example; or "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Not that Buck is being quite that selfless, but what he wrote is in the same general category.)
