"This is, I feel, the crux of the issue for you. Do you wish that we express the same level moral outrage at Barry's and Shemp's and Vaj's and Curtis' and whomever else's dishonesty and unfairness and beat it down whenever it raises its ugly head?"
Marek, As this is a searchable public forum, and I use my real name, I just want to protest at being characterized as being dishonest or unfair in my posting here. If there are any specific points you would like to raise on or off line, I am happy to respond. I have posted candidly and honestly here. --- In [email protected], "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Responses interleaved: > > ** > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Marek Reavis" > > <reavismarek@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Judy, > > > > > > Thank you for replying, and thank you, too, for your restraint. > > > My criticism was harsh and I'm normally reluctant to express > > > criticism so baldy. But even though my remarks were made with a > > > broad brush, so to speak, I don't believe that my perception is > > > overly skewed or my primary point incorrect. > > > > Well, of course you don't, or you wouldn't have > > said what you did! > > > > But you've acknowledged that you don't read the > > exchanges you're complaining about, which > > necessarily limits your understanding of what's > > involved. > ** > RESPONSE: > > No, that contention is absurd. Of course I read what I was > complaining about. I said that it is my habit to avoid the threads > but occasionally I get caught up in them, as I had this time with > this "addiction" thread. I also clearly stated that I used to read > all the posts, including (impliedly) threads just like this one where > the "topic" might have been different but the sniping theme was the > same. It has been deja vu all over again. > > Plainly stated: I have in the past followed threads in their > entirety in which you were a major participant with others who > formerly posted regularly on a.m.t. According to your own report and > theirs, similar squabbling and insults among you all continued for > years on that forum and have now found a home at FFL. > > After following such threads for some time, I grew tired of them and > began avoiding them; at first only selectively dropping in and then > later, avoiding most of the participants' posts almost entirely, > yours included. Sometines, however, I would dip back in and sample > several exchanges between you and others. The read was the same; the > topic was merely window dressing for yet another a.m.t. tag-team > smackdown. > > In my experience, (and I have read scores, if not hundreds of > exchanges between you and other, former a.m.t. posters), the threads > follow the same pattern. My "sampling" method may not be 100% > accurate but I am satisfied that it is substantially so. > > ** > > > <snip> > > > it's been my policy for several months to pass over yours, and > > > Barry's, and Sparaig's, and Shemp's, as well as a few others. > > > You all are part of a group that had previously traded barbs > > > and tirades on a.m.t. for a long while and then started doing > > > the same here. > > > > Yeah, just for the record, it was not I who started > > the trend here. I was being demonized by the alt.m.t > > TM critics on FFL well before I arrived, as I discovered > > when I was reading some of the back traffic to orient > > myself to the group. > > > > I'm curious to know if you're aware of the extent to > > which TM supporters on this forum are harassed and > > attacked and viciously mocked by these people when > > we say anything positive about TM or MMY, or our > > views are dismissed without consideration simply > > because we *are* TM supporters. Once in a blue moon > > someone will speak up in our defense, but it's the > > exception rather than the rule. > > > ** > RESPONSE: > > It doesn't matter who started it, for the record or for any other > reason. It never matters who started it, no matter what "it" is. > That is the reasoning of a child. > > And, yes, I am aware that several people who post here do "mock" TM > and certainly take every opportunity to put you down for your views > on Maharishi and TM. That is unfortunate and even childish but to > continually react to that is only to provide more reason for them to > continue to do so. Again, that is the dynamics of the playground. > Why persist in being baited? > > I disagree with many of the things stated "authoritatively" about > Maharishi and his meditation. I've stated clearly my own feelings of > gratitude and reverence for Maharishi and my own endorsement of his > meditation. So far no one has taken issue with that. If they do > then I'll address whatever criticism they level against me but I feel > no compulsion to correct every mistatement that I read. People all > come to their own conclusions and oftentimes reach those conclusions > for erroneous reasons. And oftentimes people will persist in their > conclusions even if someone else has pointed out to them how wrong > they are. That's just life. > > ** > > > <snip> > > > It is true that many people > > > engage in argument in what could be said to be an intellectually > > > dishonest fashion. I'm used to it. In my line of work, where the > > > metric of how well I make my own argument and how I respond to my > > > opponent's argument, is measured in the months and years my > clients > > > spend either in custody or in liberty, I have to consider what I > say > > > and what I don't and how it is conveyed very particularly. > > > > > > I'm always considering the final outcome. What it is that I want > to > > > achieve. And my question to you is: what do you want to achieve > by > > > fighting against the unfairness and dishonestly you find in the > > > posts of the few individuals on FFL that you so often engage? > For > > > them to become less unfair and dishonest? > > > > What do you hope to achieve when you're defending > > someone you're convinced is innocent and you cross- > > examine a witness for the prosecution whom you know > > is lying? > > > ** > RESPONSE: > > The same thing that I hope to achieve for every client -- to win > their freedom or to minimize their time in custody. Guilt and > innocence is not really my issue. > > ** > > > > (Have you detected any progress on > > > that front?) Do you want those of us who also monitor FFL to be > > > aware of their dishonesty and unfairness? Do you think we can't > > > make our own evaluations or come to our own conclusions? > > > > If you've come to conclusions similar to mine, you-- > > or most of you--sure aren't acting like it. > > ** > RESPONSE: > > This is, I feel, the crux of the issue for you. Do you wish that we > express the same level moral outrage at Barry's and Shemp's and Vaj's > and Curtis' and whomever else's dishonesty and unfairness and beat it > down whenever it raises its ugly head? > > Do you wish that Rick ban them from FFL for those transgressions? I > don't. (And just hypothetically speaking, if Rick did ban these > people, do you think that it would take care of the problems that you > have here on FFL?) Most of the time, when I see something that I > disagree with, I just pass it one by. Perhaps you see that as > letting the Republicans win but there are (IMO) better battles to > engage and with greater consequences than the disputes about which > style of meditation is better, who is the most (or least) venal > spiritual teacher, and what the dictionary definition of road rage > really is. > > ** > > > > > Is your fight here on FFL against unfairness and dishonestly > > > more of a reflexive reaction to the personalities that you > > > have concluded are synonomous with unfairness and dishonesty? > > > That is my candid conclusion. And I don't think that it is a > > > misperception. It is confirmed by the many different remarks > > > made by several others on this forum at different times when > > > this same issue of the incessant bickering in which you are > > > a major contributor has arisen. > > > > Most, if not all, of whom admit they don't actually > > follow the exchanges. You'll forgive me, I hope, if > > I don't accept their (and your) perceptions as > > authoritative. In fact, I suspect it's those opinions > > that are reflexive. > > > > It also seems exceedingly odd to me that with > > very few exceptions, when these people complain, > > they don't complain about those who are dishonest > > and unfair, they complain about me, or at best > > draw a moral equivalence between me and the > > dishonest folks. > > ** > RESPONSE: > > No, most people don't admit that they don't follow the exchanges. > They generally state something along the lines of my opening > response: that they grew tired of the endless bickering and at some > point felt compelled to say something about it. > > I believe most people address their criticisms to you because they > feel, as I do, that you are the real provocateur. It's true that > hornets may be the ones with the stingers, but my suggestion to the > person who persists in stirring up the hornets' nest is to STOP. > Stop complaining about the stinging and stop stirring up the nest. > > In my life, when a whole lot of people keep pointing out the same > thing about an issue, no matter how it appears to me, it's going to > at least make me pause and consider the possibility that I might have > gotten it wrong. I have not read every post you have ever written > here on FFL, but I do not recall a single instance, and I may be > wrong here, but again, I do not recall a single instance where you > admitted that you were wrong or might even possibly be wrong about > this issue, no matter who has raised it with you or how many times. > It's a very George W. Bush-like, stay-the-course-regardless-of-what- > anyone-says-or-what-the-facts-show type of attitude. > > ** > > > > <snip> > > > It's just a world. We're all just a bunch of naked monkeys > trying > > > to figure out why we're here and where we came from. Just give > > > these guys some love. > > > > I can't sincerely give what I don't feel, and I > > decline to be insincere, sorry. > > ** > RESPONSE: > > Love is not only what everyone wants, it is All We Are. It's easy to > love when it just happens. But like everything else, if you exercise > love it grows and become stronger and more pervasive. If Barry > doesn't deserve your love, who does? If you refuse love of Barry (or > whomever) then all you're doing is denying yourself that love, > denying the Self. It's easier than you might believe. > > Just as an exercise, try praising Barry for a month. Look to what it > is in his posts that you can find to praise and ignore what you see > as his dishonesty and unfairness. You can take a month off without > any real damage and you can continue the good fight later with no > real harm done. > > If you want, I will make a deal with you that I will faithfully > monitor every post of Barry's for the next month and call him on > every mistatement, every dirty rhetorical trick, every point that he > refuses to address. I will do my best to fill in for you and in > return, you will try and see what might be positive and worthy of > praise in his posts, even if it's just proper spelling. It's only an > exercise, right? There won't be any dire consequences. > > I'm serious. Try it. Think about it. What have we got to lose? > > -Marek > ** > > > > > That's all anyone really wants. My apologies for > > > being so harsh before. > > > > No need to apologize, Marek. You're entitled to > > express your opinion. > > >
