Curtis, my very sincere apologies. Re-reading what I wrote I can see how you would be offended. I included your name (I included all those names) only because you are one of the people whom Judy has identified as offending her. There is nothing I have read of yours that I feel is either unfair or dishonest. Quite the contrary. Moreover, I enjoy your posts quite a lot.
I'm very sorry. -Marek --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <reavismarek@> > wrote: > > > > Responses interleaved: > > > > ** > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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. > > > > > >
