--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote > > > > And you know what? I've been pondering what Robin has > > > > said about your appropriation of context. I think this > > > > is an example. You have terrible difficulty perceiving > > > > any context but your own. Not that we all aren't limited > > > > to some degree in perceiving another person's context, > > > > but most of us do take a stab at it, if only so that we > > > > can more effectively argue our own perspective. You > > > > rarely even try. > > > > > > When it concerns a misrepresentation of my own POV I am not > > > open to considering what point you think I was making. And > > > if you are making a case for having a superior ability for > > > understanding my context this would be a counterexample for > > > that claim. You have attempted to reframe the discussion > > > about whether or not I was "comparing" Maharishi and Mao, > > > which was never in question, of course I was. > > > > This is what you said to Nabby: > > > > Usually I would > > > > > > > correct you concerning this vicious lie pointing out that > > > > > > > my point about Mao had to do with the unreliability of > > > > > > > people's subjective darshon experiences > > > > No "of course I was" about it. You were telling Nabby > > that you *hadn't* been comparing MMY and Mao, that > > your point about Mao had to do only with the darshan > > experiences of his followers. > > Wow you really can't get out of your own context to > understand my point can you? That was my central point > about Mao and of course it is a comparison, but not in > the way Nabbie was implying. There was no comparison I > have ever made that could be summed up in the misleading > phrase "worse than Mao".
Yes, as I've acknowledged how many times now, including in my original response, where I *documented* that you hadn't said MMY was "worse than Mao"? You miss the context *even when it's right in front of your nose*, even when you *quote* it: <snip> > > Nor did you contradict Nabby's assertion that you'd > > said MMY was "worse than Mao." You didn't even mention > > it. *I* was the one who mentioned it, calling it a "lie." > > I even *documented* that it was a lie by quoting you to > > the effect that MMY was "a dim bulb" by comparison with > > Mao. > > > > > But that comparison did not have the odious and practically > > > insane suggestion that a pop guru was worse than the single > > > greatest mass murder in history whose status in buttholery > > > might only be challenged by Stalin. > > > > Right. That's a given, and I acknowledged and documented > > it, as noted. Nabby's gun said "Bang!" and you freaked. > > Ah the use of spin is so delightful, isn't it? "Freaked' did I? Says Curtis, focusing on one word and completely missing the context of what I wrote. Except in this case I think it's just a dance move to *avoid* the context. > > > So no, I am not open to the bullshit context you are > > > attempting and that is not evidence of my lack of ability > > > to understand another person's POV. > > > > Well, yes, it is, because you've completely missed my > > context in this post as well. > > As have you Judy. It is the nature of having different POVs > and is not a special case of you being better at it than I am. You are more oblivious to other people's contexts than anyone else on FFL. I got your context. That's what I was *tweaking*, doncha know. > > > The question I have for you is why you thought you would > > > get away with such a weak case while demonstrating the very > > > lack of perceptiveness you are accusing me of? You haven't > > > demonstrated that you get my context, quite the opposite. > > > > You've just proved my (and Robin's) point in spades, but > > you're incapable of recognizing it. > > > > You weren't even going after Nabby in your initial post, > > BTW; you were going after me *via* Nabby. But you were so > > intent on getting me that you lost focus and shot yourself > > in the foot instead. > > Funny how you missed how I cleverly did correct Nabbie in > my response while simultaneously exposing your double > standards for correcting blatant lies about a person. And because you were trying to use Nabby to get at me, you missed both shots. > But I forgive you because I know you are very good at taking > another person's perspective here. > > BTW from now on, any missile Barry lobs your way is hereby > labeled a bang flag on a toy gun Which label would, of course, in most if not all cases be thoroughly dishonest. No surprise there; you're blind to Barry's context as well. (BTW, did you notice how he's claiming to have "done the setup for this week's experiment"? Did he explain to you in private beforehand what he was going to do, and you've just been playing along? Or did you get sucked up in it unwittingly as he pulled your strings? Love to know what he said to Bob in private email that portrayed you as a hypocrite, wouldn't you?) That's my 50th for the week. You may have the last word until I return.
