wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
> <shempmcgurk@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > > > My meta comment on my feelings about the value of our
> > > > > > previous postings was meant as a positive . Rick had it
> > > > > > right.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, but I don't buy it. If you're interested in
> > > > > knowing why, I'll tell you, but I suspect you're not.
> > > >
> > > > On amt, Judy, you are quick to defend John Manning who was,
in
> > the
> > > > past, virulently anti-TM. And when you are reminded of this
by
> > > > willytex, you say that "people can change".
> > > >
> > > > Curtis has said here that it's been many years since he
debated
> > > > with you on amt. Why can't you imagine that he has changed
too?
> > > >
> > > > Or, at the very least, give him the benefit of the doubt,
> > > > particularly since he complemented you the way he did?
> > >
> > > You haven't been paying attention, Shemp. Please
> > > review the correspondence here between Curtis and me.
> >
> > I've read it all, Judy, and like virtually everyone else who has
> > weighed in on it, I think you were incredibly rude and snide to
him
> > while he was not only civil towards you but reconciliatory.
>
> Actually I think you're the only one to voice that
> conclusion.
Huh?
I've read several people stating that they felt he was positive to
you.
>
> If you had read my very first post to him, you'd know
> I gave him *major* benefit of the doubt that he had
> changed.
You were very civil and nice to him, yes.
>
> And if you had read my other posts--including the
> one you quote above!--you'd know that I don't
> believe he *was* paying me a compliment or being
> reconciliatory--to the contrary. So your whole
> premise makes no sense.
I know you don't believe that he was paying you a compliment.
That's obvious! If you believed he was paying you a compliment you
wouldn't have been so snotty towards him.
It's just that no one agrees with you.
>
> I was
> > holding back on joining this unanimous chorus because I thought
> > you'd come to your senses once I reminded you of your double
> > standard but I was wrong.
>
> Your "unanimous chorus" exists only in your mind,
> Shemp. It consists of two people who said they
> thought Curtis had paid me a compliment, period.
Uh, last time I looked those two plus me IS a unanimity if there are
ZERO on the other side.
>
> Obviously there's no "double standard" if I think
> John has changed but Curtis has not.
>
There is a double standard if you don't hold Curtis to the same
standard, which you didn't.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Maharishi university of management | Maharishi mahesh yogi | Ramana maharshi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
