my comments below: --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for having my back Turq. The funny thing is that I know Jim > > > was trying hard to be a dick (that came out weird) and get under > > may > > > skin as punishment for goofing on that MMY quote. > > > > And now I'm supposed to counter and say that you goofed on the MMY > > quote in retribution for my praising Maharishi recently? > > No, that would not be true. What I wrote about that MMY quote had > nothing to do with you. This is kind if an important point.
And the "important" point I made previously was that you have no more credence saying the things that you did about Maharishi's quote, than I or any one else does saying the things I did about the muisic you play. But you had to think about it and defend it, even though there is in reality nothing for you to defend. Same deal about the stuff you spin about Maharishi. You choose to see it a certain way, for whatever reason. Fine, then I can see you as a rich white kid playing the blues. Its a choice Curtis, just as the stuff you say about Maharishi is a choice. So what I said wasn't in retribution- it was to make the point that you choose to think about Maharishi a certain way, that is no more valid than the characterization I made of you. And I am not taking what you said about Maharishi personally, just trying to point out it is a choice. :-)
