Barry piles more lies on top of the first batch, as he usually does when he's been caught. The idea is to thoroughly confuse the issue with red herrings. You'd have to read both my posts and his posts carefully to see what he's tried to do here; he's counting on nobody going to that trouble.
--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll make an exception and reply to one of Swami J's > posts here, because she *knows* that what she's implying > below isn't true. In fact, Barry knows his claim that I was implying something that wasn't true is--wait for it--not true. > BTW, you'll notice that disciple John is letting Swami J > fight his battles for him. Get used to it. Uh, well, no, he isn't. In the first place, this wasn't one of his "battles"; in the second place, he's given as good as he's gotten and more in the battles that *were* his. <snip> > > In the current account, it was Charlie *making up* > > a "grand paranoid tale" about "Jerry's minions" > > keeping him out of the room. > > > > But last year, it was MMY himself who told Charlie > > that. > > As you well know, Swami J ( recognize the phrase > "As you well know"? :-), that part came *after* > the part of the story I just retold. It happened > at the airport the next day, when Charlie showed > up to see Maharishi, having blown him off the > night before. Totally irrelevant, as Barry knows, to the contradiction I was pointing out. This is a red herring Barry's waving around in an attempt to distract attention from the fact that his accounts contradict each other on a major point and several smaller ones. As noted, you'd have to read both Barry's and my posts very carefully to see the game Barry's playing here. One hint: the fact that he snipped the quote from his earlier account here is part of his effort to put across his red herring. > Charlie went up to Maharishi and said something > to the effect of, "I was there at the hotel last > night, but they told me to wait outside." > > Maharishi looked Charlie straight in the eye and > said, "No one ever told me you were there." > > THAT is a LIE. Nor, of course, was this ever in dispute. And yet Barry goes on for several more paragraphs as if somebody had challenged it. That's part of the red herring. <snip> > But even more so, it's a head-scratcher for those > who think Swami J never lies. She just got back > from reading the earlier version of these stories, > so she knows what went down, and in what sequence. > But that's not quite how she told it, is it? *Zero* conflict, as Barry knows, regarding the door issue. Red herring from Barry, a particularly smelly one. He's been caught again, and he's doing his damndest to create a conflict where none exists. <snip> > > Oops. In this version, Barry seems to have > > "forgotten" that it was MMY who told Charlie > > Barry was the one to have kept him out of > > the room. We're back to Charlie's "paranoia" > > again. > > Not true. Maharishi never assigned blame. If I said > so earlier that was fast writing on my part. <snicker> So that's what we're calling lies now, is it, "fast writing"? Here's Barry's "fast writing" on this point: "Later, because I was the door guy, I was the one who Maharishi told Charlie WAS TO BLAME for keeping him out: 'They never told me.'" (my emphasis) <snip> > They were *his* words, just as he said them. And you > are trying to make someone recording them *at the > request of the TM International Staff* a bad thing. > Any other time, you'd be giving me shit for *not* > doing exactly as I was told. :-) Well, no, actually I would criticize International Staff quite severely for having told you to tape Charlie without his knowledge, and criticize you for going along with it. Kind of a toady thing to do, it seems to me, highly unethical. > Then again, you are busy defending John Manning for > calling Edg a liar, Nope, never defended John for doing that, sorry. You made that up. <snip> > > Only Barry knows what the time sequence was here. > > But one way or another, it appears that Charlie > > had plenty of reason to dislike and distrust > > Barry. > > Which is interesting, because before his rather > juvenile attempts to extract "retribution" on me > for an imagined affront, That would be the affront MMY told him you had committed by not telling MMY he was there, right? <snip> > > And now we're back to the alternate story again, > > that MMY regularly blamed Jerry and "his minions" > > for keeping Charlie out of the room. > > I don't think it has *ever* been suggested that > "MMY regularly blamed Jerry and 'his minions' for > keeping Charlie out of the room." Swami J just made > that up. Well, let's have a look at Barry's very own words: > > I was in a position several times to see how Maharishi treated > > Charlie. He often kept him waiting in hallways for *hours*, > > knowing full well that he was there, knowing he was impatient > > and would sooner or later throw a tantrum and stalk off, and > > then, just when Charlie was about to storm off in a snit, > > Maharishi would call him into the room and then say, "Oh, they > > (meaning Jerry and/or whoever was on 'door duty' that night) > > never told me you were there." Sure sounds like regularly blaming Jerry and his minions for keeping Charlie out of the room to me. Maharishi often *claimed to Charlie* that > they hadn't told him that he was waiting, but they > always had, and Maharishi knew that. Everyone would > have been too *afraid* of Maharishi to *not* tell > him that Charlie was there. Maharishi was lying to > Charlie, and shifting the blame to "Jerry's kids." > > It was Charlie and *his* minions who claimed that it > was all a big plot on the part of Jerry and "his" > TM teachers. Not MMY. Barry apparently has difficulty comprehending the words he himself wrote. MMY shifted the blame to "Jerry's kids," but, hey, it wasn't MMY who shifted the blame to "Jerry's kids." See? Clear as crystal. <snip> "Then, > > after a few hours, Maharishi called Charlie in." <snip> > > This one's really interesting. It appears to > > be the same *occasion*, the night before the Merv > > taping. But in this version, Charlie waits for hours > > and finally *is* let in. > > No, Maharishi asked for Charlie to come in about one > minute after he had stormed off in a snit. So, in this account, that would have been "after a few hours." In the most recent account, it was half an hour. Which version is the "fast writing" here, Barry? <snip> > I suppose *you* would have announced Charlie multiple > times, right? *You* said you could have done it but didn't. Not my idea at all. Yeah, right...the only reason you're > defending Charlie now is because I gave John a hard > time, and you've got to "defend your disciple." You > don't think much of Charlie Lutes, either, and have > said so rather overtly in the past. I'm not defending either Charlie or John. I'm pointing out, as usual, that you're thoroughly dishonest. > You're just taking advantage of the situation to > blast me. Yup, I'm taking advantage of your dishonesty to point out your dishonesty. Which is a really pissy-assed and childish > thing to do, in my opinion. Well, of *course* you'd consider it "pissy-assed and childish" to be called on your lies and viciousness. You seem to have attained > the same emotional and behavioral age as Charlie Lutes. > > Having made one exception, I've changed my mind about > not reading your posts and/or replying to them for two > months. > > Make it four months. If you're lucky. Sweetie poops, that's just super as far as I'm concerned. It gives me a free hand to call you on your various dishonesties and meannesses without having to then dissect the additional lies and meannesses with which you always try to attack when you've been caught, as in this case. Less work for Mother, don'cha know?
