--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I will address this to judyjim who seem to have formed a symbiotic
> entity of malice toward me personally.
Nobody has "malice" ("desire to cause pain,
injury, or distress to another") toward you
personally, Curtis.
Nor have Jim and I formed a "symbiosis." That's
just a cheap, ad hominem way of dismissing the
uncomfortable fact that two different people
independently have seen the same things in your
posts.
<snip>
> Judyjim have presented a criticism of my total commitment
> and sincere efforts when I was a part of organization a
> few times here, as if following MMY's strictest programs,
> sidhaland and MIU was a personal failure of mine.
What I was pointing out by quoting what you
told the D.C. City Paper was (a) that you went
*way* overboard, embellishing your program with
all kinds of things that had nothing to do with
what MMY teaches; and (b) that the tone in which
you described all this very clearly indicated
that you yourself found it troubling that you
had gone to these extreme lengths to "get a buzz."
> They also point to my willingness to share my new
> perspective with those who were interested as if
> this too reveals a defect in my character.
Wrong. The "defect in your character" is your
attempt to deny that your previous perspective
was a troubled one.
I certainly don't believe, and I'll bet Jim
doesn't either, that having had a troubled past
is equivalent to having a defect in character.
There is, perhaps, a defect in character involved
when the "new perspective" views the troubled
past exclusively in terms of victimization
and consists of excessively, exaggeratedly
negative portrayals of the purported victimizers.
> The attempt to paint my life as "troubled" because I was sincerely
> focused on MMY's teachings for 15 years, and since 1989 have
> expressed another point of view on his teaching, is lame.
What's lame is this characterization of what
Jim and I have been saying.
Rather then
> discussing ideas, it is the last resort to attempt to attack
> the person rather than an argument. It is the lowest form of
> discourse. It takes neither imagination or intellectual
> insight.
Then why are you doing it in this post?
Curtis, you almost invariably use ad hominem
whenever you're challenged on something. You're
no purer than anybody else in that regard. Your
absurd attack on nablusos for "hiding behind a
fake name," which was entirely gratuitous, having
nothing to do with nablusos's humorous dig at you,
is a case in point.
And when I gently reminded you of the fact that
you use a "fake name" here as well, you responded
with a whole bunch of ad hominem against me.
> To Judy: You have brought up the idea that when I fight back
> when personally attacked here, it is a flaw in my "nice guy
> image". This is a contrivance of your own invention.
That isn't what I said, Curtis. It's not *that*
you fight back, it's the *way* you fight back.
And the above is, again, a case in point: one of
the ways you fight back is to distort what you're
fighting back against.
Moreover, nablusos's comment was about as benign
an "attack" as it gets. To compare you to Comical
Ali was a funny dig, hardly anything you needed to
fight back against.
Yet you came back with guns blazing. You made a
good point, that nablusos's analogy of you with
Comical Ali was backward, but instead of leaving
it at that, you proceeded to accuse him of
deceit for using a handle. Not only was that
gratuitous and ridiculous on its face, but it was
hypocritical in two ways: you *yourself* use a
handle here; and you have FFL pals who use
handles, yet you've never accused them of "hiding
behind a fake name." Somehow a handle is only a
Bad Thing when it's used by someone who has
challenged you.
And if what you really want to discuss is ideas,
why all the ad hominem against MMY and TMers and
the TMO and even Guru Dev? What was your recent
"distinctions of specialness" post but one long
compendium of ad hominems?
> I am not a nice guy to people who attack me.
When I pointed out that you use a handle here,
I wasn't attacking you. Yet you responded with
an attack on me, and an ad hominem one to boot.
Dig yourself, Curtis. Either stop pretending to
be above it all, or *be* above it all. And if
you choose to do neither, accept that you're
likely to be criticized for the hypocrisy.
