I was referring to other people's post. I don't know that he had any real interest. If he did, then that is certainly of interest and may relate to my line of inquiry, and then again, it may not. Whence the hostile tone? a
feste37 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My point is very obvious. It is you who should read the posts. If you didn't even know that MMY ever said anything about Hitler, why then do you write "MMY's interest in Hitler," as if it were an accepted fact, and far more weighty than a few scattered comments? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Read the posts. I made zero comments about what MMY said. All that came from others, which I noted with interest. I had no idea he ever said anything at all about Hitler. So what, exactly, have I distorted? a > > feste37 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Interesting how you take a few comments scattered over the years that > MMY may or may not have said about Hitler and turn it into "MMY's > interest in Hitler," which implies something quite different. And you > make this blatant distortion in the interest of . . . what, precisely? > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > <mailander111@> wrote: > > > > MMY's interest in Hitler may be to the point and it may not. My > interest in Hitler certainly doesn't make me a Nazi. Someone has > suggested that my interest in these things is not good for me. I'd > like to know why not? Is a historian's field of interest not good for > him? Is a researcher's interest in his field not good for him? Even > were we to make a value judgment and say cancer is a bad thing, is a > cancer researcher's interest bad for him? a > > > > jim_flanegin <jflanegi@> wrote: --- > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 14, 2007, at 5:44 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 14, 2007, at 4:55 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also may not be aware, Mahesh was a real Hitler fan > > > > according to > > > > > > > some movement insiders. > > > > > > > > > > > > I challenge you to verify these claims. You are a f..... > > lier ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll post what I can find. Here's the first one: > > > > > > > > > > Maharishi said, on a radio show in Scandinavia, that Hitler was > > > > highly > > > > > evolved. > > > > > > > > > > Msg. #51983 > > > > > > > > > Of course he was-- how else could he have ammassed all of his > > power; > > > > conquering many countries, implementing his unspeakable > > atrocities, > > > > if it wasn't a manifestation of his own personal power? Those > > > > mechanics don't change whether a person is good or evil. > > > > > > > > > I don't think that's the question. The question is 'why was Mahesh > > so > > > darn fascinated by the guy'? > > > > Is he? Has he published endless volumes, and spoken at length about > > Hitler, for years? Sure doesn't seem that way from what little you > > have shared--it looks like a pretty minor interest on Maharishi's > > part. > > > > Could it be he is an Asuriac guru just > > > lookin' for some tips? > > > > > It is clear you'd like the answer to this to be "yes", so why ask me? > > > > > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
