--- In [email protected], obbajeeba <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > I still am waiting to hear from you: do you think > > > > > > > > it is ok for Ravi to have told that nasty personal > > > > > > > > lie about Curtis? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See if you can rephrase your question so it's not > > > > > > > offensive and I'll consider answering it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think it is ok for Ravi to have told that > > > > > > particular lie about Curtis's leaving the TM movement? > > > > > > > > > > Let's see, "Does Judy think it's OK to tell lies?" > > > > > > > > > > Nope, still offensive. > > > > > > > > Uh, I asked if you think it is ok if Ravi told a Particular > > > > lie in a Particular instance? Not a general statement about > > > > how you feel about lying in general (Does Judy think it is OK > > > > to tell lies?). > > > > > > So you're unsure of whether a negative response to "Does > > > Judy think it's OK to tell lies?" would cover all lies. > > > > > > I see. > > > > > > > A bit of difference, as you well know and would be quite > > > > quick to point out in others. > > > > > > Not if I were paying attention and wanted to be fair. > > > > > > > But in your dodging around and unwillingness to answer > > > > I got my answer. > > > > > > You can manufacture whatever answers and degree of > > > willingness suit your agenda, Susan. They don't have to > > > have anything to do with reality. > > > > Hey, whatever. I don't want to hide behind analysis of > > details and words. Just simple responses would have been > > enough for me. I am done with this discussion, no interest left. > > If one reads the words carefully, Judy is correct to not > wishing to answer the questions as they were written. It > was spin. Who wants to answer spin?
Not only was it spin, the whole basis for the question was disingenuous, since Susan is well aware I'm against lying. But she wanted to hide behind the pretense that there was some uncertainty on that point. There were any number of questions she *could* have asked that would have cleared up what she genuinely didn't understand. Even if she didn't agree, at least she would have known what she was disagreeing *with*. It's amazing how Curtis engineered all this to make himself appear to be the totally blameless victim by a series of moves that's so convoluted nobody gets what he's done except those he's done it *to*. And not for the first time, either. That's one thing at which he's better than anyone here. > > Just saying. > Happy New Year to us all! >
