--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > In other words, your whole series of questions > > about "historical documentation" was disingenuous, > > as was your question about whether plastic surgery > > was compatible with the "Vedic ideal." > > OF COURSE my whole series of questions to Lawson > were disingenous.
Right. Instead of simply stating your point of view, you had to phrase it as a slam. The reason you had to do that is because the attempt at a slam in your earlier post about plastic surgery crashed and burned when Lawson explained to you that MMY had left India because it was not living up to the "Vedic ideal." So then, embarrassed at your ignorance, you tried to distract attention from it by attacking Lawson for mentioning the idea you yourself had proposed in the first place for the purpose of slamming MMY because India purportedly wasn't living up to that "Vedic ideal." Once again your uncontrollable anger has clouded your mind. > I knew that Lawson would never deal with the fact > that the period that Maharishi describes as a time > of ""abundance, peace and bliss" were full of wars > that required soldiers, crimes that required courts, > and that its priests regularly practiced animal > sacrifice to propitiate the gods that they believed > in. I knew that you wouldn't, either. That was a > given. The point was to make it *obvious* that > you wouldn't, or couldn't. And you were wrong. Both Lawson and I *have* addressed it directly. So now you're just lying. > Thank you for your participation. Dance, Barry, dance!
