Good call, Judy -- I was not at my best in the earlier posts about this issue, and I am guilty of wanting to be on both sides.
I do like shaming the TMO for its pose of secularity, yet I was one of those very posers for decades. I haven't looked, but believe me, whatever I did post, I never once had you in mind as a troll. You're a very special kind of irritant but not one that approaches trollishness IMO. You're much more like the painful smack one gets in a Zen joint when one becomes less alert. Richard is incapable of dialog -- and you're a master listener. Richard hates communicational clarity -- you cannot breathe without it. Richard cheats -- and you're honest honest honest. Richard's sick -- you're too sane for your own good. I believe we would agree 100% about the SBAL "angels and gods" issues. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > This discussion is so twisted by trollism. > > Ya know, Edg, you *could* have explained to start > with what you tell us in this post. If you were > just going to let people guess what your motivations > in cornering your intro TM teacher were, you don't > really have any business blaming those who got it > wrong. Your earlier post made it sound--at least to > me--as though you initially wanted TM to be secular. > > You went on to quote me, apparently as one of the > "trolls," yet I went on to point out what you do, > that anybody who doesn't think there's a lot about > "God" in SBAL has never actually read it. >
