Uh, Barry dear, if I had "jumped the gun" and sent the message while I was in the midst of writing it, it wouldn't have been an empty message, now, would it?
OOOOOOOOOOPSIE. To what emotional state should I attribute this laughable mistake? And it isn't "very often" that I do what you describe in any case; it's only once in a long while. Plus which, the subsequent post was hardly "apoplectic." It really isn't the case that every post criticizing you is generated by apoplectic rage. That you perceived it that way says more about you and your ultrasensitive buttons than it does about me. Not to mention that the empty post couldn't have been connected with the one you perceived to be apoplectic. It didn't take me 25 minutes to write three paragraphs. And finally, how do you expect me to "deal with" the "real issue"? I acknowledge that it exists, and I've said before I don't like it. I might also note that you've failed entirely to "deal with" your misuse of the "shoot the messenger" analogy, which I've mentioned before several times. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote : THIS is the post we all knew was coming, Judy, the one I referred to in advance as apoplectic. You don't recognize the pattern, but the rest of us do. Very often when you are in the midst of crafting what you're convinced is one of your "stinging" "shoot the messenger" putdowns, you "jump the gun" and push the Send button before you're finished. You're SO predictable. As was your response to me pointing it out, once you'd shat this one out and read my post. Gotcha. :-) Meanwhile, I notice that neither you nor anyone else has dealt with the real issue -- the fact that Maharishi felt he had the right to "excommunicate" anyone for going to see another teacher. You, of course, were never there to see it, but you know from traffic here that not only DID he do this, his movement CONTINUES to do it to this day. If you want to maintain the pretense of having "credibility" here, deal with that. SO much easier to ignore all that and try to cast aspersions on those pointing out Maharishi's faults, and those of the cult he created. Can you say "cult apologist?" I think you can... :-) :-) :-) From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 7:08 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why Maharishi REALLY Hated Students 'Seeing Other Teachers' Excellent point, Steve. Barry (mis)uses his "shoot the messenger" shtick as an all-purpose rebuttal and excuse to dismiss a response, when in fact it rarely applies. To "shoot the messenger" implies that the message is valid and that there's no legitimate objection to it (originally, the phrase meant that the messenger himself was not responsible for the content of the message, which is not the case with Barry's "messages," but leave that aside). When the message is delivered in such a way as to deliberately and gratuitously insult the recipient(s), the messenger deserves to be shot. Likewise if the veracity of the message is patently not true, or its negativity significantly and misleadingly exaggerated. And finally, if the messenger has a history of delivering false or exaggerated messages, as Barry does, he does not get the benefit of the doubt; he needs to be able to document the truthfulness of the current message if he wants to escape being shot. Plus which, of course, Barry routinely shoots the messenger when the message is not to his liking. Just say something even vaguely positive about anything TM-related, and presto, you're a brainwashed "cult apologist," according to Barry. That goes double if you're offering your message as a rebuttal to Barry's. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Okay, I'm coming in late on this. Rick, thank you for your comments. Well, there we have a comment from an experienced teacher, who most likely had more face time with MMY, and cannot corroborate Barry's accounts, at least first hand, and has not said anything about a second hand account. I will likely have more to opine about it, but I see Barry now doubling down on more accusations, that evidently only he was a witness to. Now, when you challenge Barry about this, he plays the "shoot the messenger" card, when likely, to the rest of world, it is called qualifying the witness. Attempting to establish if the witness has a history of objectivity regarding the subject he is claiming to be an expert about, or is even capable of offering an objective opinion.
