--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> Judy: 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."
>
> Me: They had nothing to with what MMY taught YOU.
Or what he taught you, as you go on to confirm:
My use of all
> those things were recommended by MMY's top leaders to me
> personally. This included Nandkashore, my TTC phase III course
> leader and the Indian movement leader who actually got me the deer
> skin in India.
(Just out of curiosity, were these recommendations
something they told you about on their own, or did
you *ask* what more you could be doing to get your
"buzz"?)
> It was not troubling to me at the time, it was a
> total blast.
Of course. I'm not sure where you got the idea I
was saying it was troubling to you at the time.
It is from the
> perspective that I gained when I left the movement that I could
> see how odd it all was.
Right. *That's* what I was saying.
In the context of the culture of the fulltime
> monks in the movement that I lived with it was normal behavior.
> The phrase "getting a buzz" reflects my perspective that the
> "higher states" of consciousness we were experiencing were
> altered states with little epistemological significance.
Right.
You have no idea what my
> subjective experiences were at the time, so you have no way to
> tell if I was overboard.
I never said your subjective experiences were
overboard, Curtis. Again, I can't figure out where
you got that idea.
From the perspective of a non-TM teacher, who has
> never lived fulltime, the whole structure of the programs I lived in
> were over your chosen board.
I don't know what "over your chosen board" means.
<snip>
> 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.
>
> Me: How many times do I have to say that I had a great time in
> the movement before you stop this nonsense.
Never said otherwise. Another straw man.
<snip>
The fact that I decided that
> my perspective was wrong, or that looking back on it all I see the
> humor, has nothing to do my "past".
Not sure how that works. If you can look back on it,
it's your past by definition.
This is a fantasy you have
> persisted in concerning my movement participation. I think it
> stems from your inability to accept that someone could have a
> great time in the movement, experience MMY's predicted state of
> mind, and then decide that it was an incorrect perspective and
> walk away.
No, that's a fantasy you have about what you
think is my fantasy. I have no problem accepting
all that.
You are
> trying to discredit my participation in the movement,
No more than you are!
but the
> problem is that you didn't know me then. So you use snippets
> of a reporter's recollections about what I said in a long
> interview as evidence of my flawed perspective.
Were you misquoted, or quoted misleadingly?
This is in the face of actual evidence of my role
> in the organization. I was no more "troubled" than anyone, but that
> doesn't mean that I was correct in what I believed at the time.
Right. What I'm talking about is your
perspective *now*.
> Judy: 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.
>
> Curtis: Since I have repeated numerous times that I was not
> victimized by the movement, this statement is knowingly false.
Well, no, it's not. It may be "false," but not
knowingly. It's based on what you've said here
and on alt.m.t, and goodness knows I'm not the
only person to understand it that way, your denials
notwithstanding.
But again, it has to do with your perspective *now*,
not back then.
<snip>
> Judy: 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.
>
> Me: You have overgeneralized the term ad hominem and have
> confused it with getting personal.
"ad hominem...literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather
than by an answer to the contentions made"
[Curtis to Nablusos]
"However, like Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, I have the courage of my
own convictions and do not hide behind a fake name."
[Curtis to me]
"Your continued hostility towards me personally speaks for itself
about your personal values. I do not share them."
"To Jim: If you can search on my name you can search what ad
hominem attacks are. Your use of them undermines any hope you
may have as coming across as a thoughtful advocate of your point
of view."
[Curtis to me]
"So if what you say is true then your disclosure of my personal
name was not just gratuitous and mean spirited, it was an attempt
to infringe on my privacy and hurt me. Nice move."
Yes, there's a distinction between ad hominem
meaning "getting personal" and ad hominem in the
strict rhetorical/logical sense. But you use both,
as the examples above show. You used ad hominem
in the first sense when you attacked Jim for
using ad hominem, both for the attack and in
describing what he had said to you.
So you don't observe that distinction. If you
can call what Jim said to you ad hominem, then
I can certainly call what you said to me and Jim
and nablusos ad hominem (some of which was actually
ad hominem in the second sense).
My objection to using ad hominem arguments in
> the context of another discussion is that it is poor thinking.
> When you attempt to deflect specific criticisms of the movement
> by trying to paint my past in the movement as "troubled" you
> are not addressing the points I am making.
But I never *was* addressing those points,
Curtis, and I don't think Jim was either.
Here's part of what Jim said:
"Color me crazy but I am leery of those who having
been slavish proponents of one way of life are now
hugely critical of it. Its creepy and irresponsible
in my view."
Is not "having been [a] slavish [proponent] of one
way of life [and] are now hugely critical of it"
an accurate description of your situation?
Does Jim not get to have his own opinion about
what he's describing? Where is he deflecting your
specific criticisms of the movement?
That wasn't ad hominem in the strict sense at
all.
It's arguable whether it's permissible to use
ad hominem in the first sense ("getting personal")
in discussions of this type, i.e., not a formal
debate-type context. It seems to me personal
observations of some types have a role to play.
Sometimes accusing someone of using ad hominem is
*itself* ad hominem.
You do it in the context of discussing points
> in the teaching that have nothing to do with me personally.
Such as?
<snip>
> I'll remember how funny you think it is to be compared to the
> mouthpiece of a murderous dictator.
Oh, please. Comical Ali was a target of ridicule
in his own right, entirely independently of Saddam.
> The reason you know my name and Barry's name is because we have
> not hidden it. I was not criticizing Nabby's use of a handle,
> but the fact that I don't know who was flinging the criticism at
> me.
And the distinction here is...?
I'd say "hiding behind a fake name" is about as clear
a criticism of someone's use of a handle as it gets.
About half the regular posters here use handles.
Maybe you know their real names, but I certainly
don't. Somehow I don't think you'd accuse them of
"hiding behind a fake name" if they had
*complimented* you on something.
> But you piling on was your attempt to find something
> to put me down for from my conversation with someone else. It
> didn't concern you and you got it all wrong anyway. Your
> characterization of my comments as "ugly" was pathetic.
Curtis. Here's what I said initially:
"Isn't your real name Curtis Mailloux? Or have you
legally changed it to Curtis Delta Blues?"
Period. That's it. Nothing else.
Go back and look at the exchange. You responded to
the above by claiming the above was "gratuitous" and
"meanspirited." My response to that attack was still
polite until the very last sentence, when I simply
used your characterizations of me back at you.
I didn't say anything about "ugly" until after your
second attack, in which you reiterated "gratuitous"
and "meanspirited" and added "hypocritical" and that
I was trying to "infringe on [your] privacy and hurt
[you]."
And you're accusing *me* of ad hominem?
<snip>
> I made no argument or case based on personal attack on you Judy.
You sure tried.
> If I was being a dick to you it was because you deserved it.
For simply reminding you that you also used a
handle?
And in your perspective where
> "who started it" seems to make all the difference, I'll be
> looking forward to your acknowledgment that you started it
> by attacking me.
Uh-huh. How was my first post an attack, Curtis?
Let's look at it again:
"Isn't your real name Curtis Mailloux? Or have you
legally changed it to Curtis Delta Blues?"
*You* started it by attacking *me* in response to
the above.
If you want to argue about who started it, at least
get your facts straight.
<snip>
> Judy: Yet you came back with guns blazing.
> Me: "Guns blazing" because I pointed out that I don't know
> the guys name? Right!
"Guns blazing" because you accused him of "hiding
behind a fake name," in other words, of cowardice--
after having neatly disposed of his dig logically.
If you even *needed* to respond to his dig, the
logical point was all you needed, but you had to
then go on to attack him personally.
No, that's not ad hominem in the strict sense, but
it has the same *effect* of diminishing the person,
even if it isn't used as a point of debate. In the
context of an informal forum like this, the
distinction you're insisting on is pretty much
irrelevant.
I could say a lot more, but this is already getting
too long.
