Christopher:
>You got me, Kirt! Since you offer me the "last word," I will use it to
>apologize.
How magnanimous of you. I hardly need the apology (compared to, say,
Deborah Boyer, who you absolutely _ripped_ here in public several months
ago). But it does make it easy for me to go back on my offer of giving you
the last word. ;) But, hey, I can always offer it again...
>It seems I abused information that you shared with me in confidence. For
>what it's worth, I simply *did not know* your changes, dietary or
>ideological, were privileged information.
They aren't. They are absolutely a matter of public record in the
archives--though I'm overdue for an update. What was a bit off was to "use"
what we wrote against Peter as some sort of wedge. Or even to mention
specifics of the ms which no one else (except Peter) has any point of
reference to. It was catty and also a breach of ettiquette on a couple
levels. Just plain bad form is all.
>No -- but Kirt, I do have a "marrow" bone to pick with your way of
>attacking folks you disagree with. As I said at the time, your report of
>tumor outbreaks among Instinctos smelled nasty to me in the absence of
>supporting evidence -- which you did not supply, even when I pressed you
>for details.
That was from Bruno, and Karl has mentioned it as well. What supporting
evidence do you need? There are no _studies_. Bogus or not, some
Euro-instinctos firmly believe that too much meat causes tumors. This is
interesting since the cooked meat eaters report no such tendency (nor did
instinctos in previous decades) and many have been eating huge amounts of
meat for many years. Anyway, if I were to dreg up some "for instances"
wouldn't that just be more unsubstantiated claims? Karl can give you more
firsthand hearsay than I can ;)
Further, it seems few ideological instinctos have any problem accepting the
_postive_ hearsay about instinctos. Ah, the painfree births, the odorless
shit, the superhuman strength and endurance--where is the pressure to
substantiate this sort of lore, I wonder.
And even further, you make some very vague and unsubstantiated claims
yourself. Peter has asked for details of all those lives that have been
turned around, all those folks whose testimonials prove the value of the
gurus. Supporting evidence indeed.
>And on a personal level, I feel you are hitting below the belt when you
>lampoon a man (whether Stephen Arlin or Guy-Claude Burger) for his private
>dating habits or alleged sexual misdeeds. Aren't such tactics on your part
>as deplorable as my "cherry-picking of your ms. in public" -- which so
>offends you now, when *you* are the target?
Stephen Arlin _deserves_ to be hit below the belt--I make no pretense of
being respectful to him. ;) As for GCBurger and his sexual abuse of
children, well, if that doesn't bother you at all so be it--it bothers me
and even more so because so many instinctos, you included, seem to care
less! The attitude seems to be, "well he is an 'eccentric' of course he had
to be to be such a great visionary guru--probably his buggering of kids is
part of his advanced karma which we mortals know nothing about". That is
absurd to me, plain and simple.
>Maybe you and I both need a reminder to take aim at the TOPIC, not the PERSON.
But sometimes, often actually, the TOPIC _is_ the PERSON. Ideas are rarely
more important than people it seems. Indeed, you claim that the charismatic
nature of the gurus is very important to you. How can you have it boths
ways: you get off on the charisma (supposed charisma--I only met GCBruger
once but he didn't glow ;)) but take refuge in the "topic" when elements of
the persona are negative, to say the least. That's a clever trick methinks.
Cheers,
Kirt
Secola /\ Nieft
[log in to unmask]
|
