--- In [email protected], "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> > > wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > > I've always thought that people who leave organisations > > > like this rail against them in proportion to how much > > > they felt they were taken in by it they were before they > > > got disillusioned. > > > > > > Heavens, just think what you'd be like Judy ;-) > > > > Hell, I *started out* disillusioned with the TMO. I > > always thought it sucked big-time and have seen no > > reason to change that opinion. That's why its more > > recent antics (rajas and recerts and so on) didn't > > surprise or upset me. > > So why spend so much time defending it? From my point > of view you *always* came over as the defender of the > faith and not just since I saw your "fan" site. And > such energy!
Gee, I don't think I spend that much time defending the TMO.(*) Maybe the "energy" you perceive gives you the impression I do it more than I actually do. I think you'll find that *when* I defend it, it's against really unfair criticism. There's more than enough to criticize on an objective basis; there's no need to demonize it as so many here do. And defending the TMO from unfair criticism kept me *very* busy on alt.m.t when Andrew Skolnick and John Knapp were holding forth. Bad as it is here at times, it's nothing compared to those two in full cry. > I'm honestly not picking a fight here or saying I think > it's bad, just that your disillusionment seems incongruous > with how you come over. Are you just misunderstood? Oh, by some, no doubt! My point really was that I never had to be DISillusioned per se because I was never ILLusioned about the TMO. I'll defend practically anything or anybody against what I consider unfair criticism, BTW, not just the TMO. Also, you may notice in many cases that what I'm doing is proposing an alternate, less malign interpretation of something that's still consistent with the facts. Too often the impression is created that a particular accusation is established beyond all doubt when it may only be one of several possible interpretations. I think that's a good exercise for all of us to engage in. I'm not so much insisting on my own interpretation as pointing out that there's more than one possibliity. Often *I* don't know which is correct. ----- * What I *do* defend passionately is MMY's teaching about the nature and mechanics of consciousness (as opposed to his sociopoliticoeconomic opinions). That has very little to do with the TMO per se.
