Examples of Curtis's ethics and practice of "subtle deception": --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: <snip> > What I said about his situation with Vaj was about my opinion > about the ethics of not coming all the way clean with Vaj. > Let's see where Judy falls in what is a pretty simple case of > an apology owed.
Steve: > > > So, yes, I did feel that Curtis might have had a little pent > > > up frustration, and was not particularly in a forgiving mood. > > > I don't mean to project anything on Curtis, but this were > > > the impression I had. > > > > Judy: > > > > Me too. And I don't consider it ethical. > > Right, it was ME being unethical for voicing my opinion > about it. Hope you don't mind my adding what Steve said that I was responding to so everyone can see how you distorted it by taking it out of context and imposing your own on it. Of course I didn't say it was unethical for you to voice your opinion on it. In fact... > > Curtis would have the right to press Robin on these issues > > *whether or not* he had a more involved relationship with > > Robin and had been on the receiving end of Robin's > > challenges. One doesn't have much to do with the other. ...this is what I said in my immediately previous post to Steve. It was quoted in the post you were responding to. So, you took the first quote out of context, pretended it was in a different context, and attributed to me a take that was *directly contrary* to the position I had taken. Unethical. Deceptive. Not even that subtly deceptive. The context in which I wrote what you quoted was the way you tried to punish Robin for what he had said to you by attacking him for what he had written to all of us in his "confessional." That's what I was saying was unethical. > Me. Not the guy who hit the people under the enthusiasms of > inner Deva fueled exorcism of the demons in the person, And that's a misrepresentation of what Robin described. Unethical. > not the guy who spent considerable effort to give the > impression that the person who was saying this actually > happened was a liar. The only person who has said Robin "hit the people under the enthusiasms of inner Deva fueled exorcism of the demons in the person" is Curtis. Curtis knows that isn't what Robin described. Unethical. I quoted in my earlier post to Curtis a number of things Vaj had said about it that were not true in one or more respects. Curtis has chosen to ignore these things and paint Vaj as a noble truth-teller. Unethical. > In the context of a concerted effort of Judy through the > years to paint even Vaj's claims to have practiced TM or > been a teacher to be falsehoods Judy and eight current or former TM teachers, Curtis unethically fails to add. The only ploy Curtis has to rebut this uncomfortable fact is the claim, which he's made in other posts, that I brainwashed all of them into concurring with me, including several people who are not my fans, one of whom has been outspoken in denouncing me and even prefaced his comments about Vaj with the words, "I hate to agree with Judy here, but..." Unethical. >, so this claim of duplicity had twice the impact for a > partisan faction here, not that guy. Uh-huh, partisan, eight TM teachers or former TM teachers, several of whom are not my fans. They are not, as far as Curtis is concerned, entitled to hold their own point of view about Vaj. Plus which, Vaj has a long history of not being honest on this forum. > It is me for saying, hey dude, don't you owe Vaj an > apology after all this? No, and I never said it was. Mistaken, IMHO, but not unethical. Characterizing what I said as you do above is unethical. > Unethical. This post I'm responding to, yup. Your motivation for attacking Robin, yup. Your misrepresentation of what Robin said, yup. Your distortion of the context of what I said, yup. Your attempt to make it seem that I was the only person who said Vaj had likely never been a TM teacher, yup. And that's just the high spots.
