--- In [email protected], "Paul Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quotes from the characters created by playrights are often wrongly > attributed to the writer himself/herself.
This isn't a playscript, Paul. In a Q&A, if the questioner and the respondent aren't explicitly identified as being two different people, any viewpoint expressed without attribution to someone else is assumed to be that of the writer. Moreover, it's clear from the rest of the questions that they were written specifically to match the answers you wanted to give. Although the question and > answer was intended to be provocative it was not intended serve as > a guide to my opinions of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Well, but the last question (even as you modified it below) is clearly an expression of your opinions of MMY. "In conclusion, then" refers to your answers to the previous questions; it's obvious that this is the conclusion you believe proceeds from those answers. > But I concede, on reflection, that some might see the remarks > otherwise. So, I have taken this opportunity to ammend the online > text of this Q&A, to change the line in question, to bring it more > into synch with my own opinion: > > Q. In conclusion then, isn't it true to say that the Maharishi is > nothing other than an opportunistic, self-promoting maverick who, > though probably well-meaning, wilfully misleads his supporters and > anyone else who has the time, the inclination and the money to > listen to him? That's a little better, but why don't you just take out "nothing other than"? Because if he's really nothing other than all those other unpleasant characterizations, he can't also be well meaning. The words don't add anything, and they flatly *contradict* "well meaning." If you feel you just have to have some kind of intensifier, why don't you change "nothing other than" to "really"? > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul Mason" > > <premanandpaul@> wrote: > > > > > > Q. Isn't it true to say that the Maharishi is nothing other than > > an > > > opportunistic? > > > A. Yup > > > Q. self-promoting > > > A. Yup > > > Q. maverick, > > > A. Yup > > > Q. who wilfully misleads his supporters > > > A. Yup > > > Q. and anyone else who has the time, the inclination and the > money > > > to listen to him? > > > A. Yup > > > Q. Some say the TM method is a good one, some say not? > > > A. Yup > > > Although I believe that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has used deceptive > > > means to spread the teaching of transcendental meditation, I am > > > confident that his motives have been well intended. > > > > > > Although I have voiced criticism of Maharishi, it should not be > > > construed that I believe him to have just been in it for the > money > > or > > > the fame. > > > > Suggested rewrite: > > > > "Isn't it true to say that the Maharishi isn't in > > it just for the fame or money, but is nothing other > > than an opportunistic, self-promoting, well- > > intentioned maverick, who with the best of motives > > wilfully misleads his supporters and anyone else who > > has the time, the inclination and the money to listen > > to him?" > > >
