That's a good reply, Judy. I read this piece by Barry earlier today and thought it an ingenious piece of fiction, complete with the required straw men, in this case the unholy triumvirate of me, you, and Lawson. Just for the record, though, I was never on alt.m.t. and I have not seen the TMFree blog. But I have looked at Knapp's sites, including his Family Counseling site, and I agree with your assessment of it. It presents a false and dishonest view of TM. Knapp is now on FFL claiming to be wiser and more balanced in his views, but his sites do not give that impression at all.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I thought I'd had my 50, but according to > Bhairitu's count, I've got one left. Barry's > the lucky target, er, recipient. > > He claims Feste, Lawson, and I haven't changed > our view of Knapp in the 10-plus years since we > encountered him on on alt.m.t because *we* > haven't changed, and therefore we can't see the > positive changes in Knapp. > > Barry's forgotten something, though. About a > year and a half ago, Knapp started the TMFree > blog for disaffected former TMers to complain > about TM; and he put up his own Family Counseling > site to advertise his cult-counseling services, > with a particular focus on former TMers. > (Couldn't be any connection between the two, of > course.) > > I've been checking the blog regularly; I even > participated as a commenter in its first months. > And I've browsed around Knapp's Family > Counseling site. > > Reading one or the other or both gives you a > *very* clear idea of where Knapp's head is at > currently. There's no need to extrapolate from > the thinking and behavior he demonstrated back > on alt.m.t and Trancenet more than a decade > previously. > > He hasn't changed. He's become more sophisticated > in the way he trashes TM/the TMO/MMY, making > extensive use of professional therapeutic jargon > so as to sound more authoritative, but the > substance is the same as it was over a decade ago. > It's just as poisonously negative, and just as > dishonestly presented. > > The Knapp Family Counseling site includes a page > headed "Why I Believe the Transcendental > Meditation Org Is Dangerous." It has many links > to articles on the revived Trancenet Web site, > including to the notorious "German study" he > pushed so assiduously back in the '90s on alt.m.t, > despite being told by professional researchers-- > including one who was a strong TM critic and > another who was neutral--that the study was > completely unscientific. (And no, for various > reasons it's not even useful as anecdotal > material; I may post on that next week.) > > As to the TMFree blog, if you think FFL is > negative concerning TM/TMers/TMO/MMY, the views > expressed here are benignly rosy compared to > Knapp's blog, both in the posts and the comments > thereon. Anyone who dares say anything positive > about TM/TMO/MMY is attacked by the commenters > with a ferocity that makes the pro-TMers' comments > about TM critics on FFL look like gentle caresses. > > (I haven't been reading all the comments there, > but it appears from what I have read that the > few pro-TMers that participated in the > beginning have been driven off. At one point > when I was still commenting there, Knapp made a > half-hearted attempt to dial down the former > TMers' hostility, but he didn't bother to keep > an eye on things, and nobody paid any attention.) > > Having delivered himself of this blooper about > Knapp, Barry goes on to dig himself an even > deeper hole by pointing proudly to Curtis as > another example of a former TM critic who has > become much milder and more benign. > > Sez Barry, "They [meaning Feste, Lawson, and me] > don't believe that it is *possible* for someone > they disliked in the past to change in the > present. Once they have developed their first > impression of them, that impression is fixed, > immutable." > > But we have no problem seeing the changes in > Curtis. Barry inadvertently steps on his own > point again, as he so often does when he's more > anxious to bash TMers than to make sense. > > "Their belief system," Barry proclaims, "does > not seem to allow for the possibility of [Knapp] > having changed over the years." > > Actually, we see no *evidence* of his having > changed over the years, and much evidence, from > his blog, his Web site, and his posts here, that > he has not--in sharp contrast to the way we see > Curtis. > > A couple more points: > > > This covers Judy (who pretty much dwells > > in the past full-time), Lawson, and feste. > > Their message is consistent: "Why should we > > trust what John says in the present, because > > his past actions (as we see them, that is) > > have convinced us that he is not to be > > trusted." > > > > Now THINK about this statement, > > Note for the record that "this statement" is > Barry's own version of what we said, even > though he puts it in quotes as if he was > directly quoting one of us. For me, it's > not just Knapp's "past actions," it's his > current actions as well. > > <snip> > > WHY? And WHY do they act like this? > > > > My bet is that what *we* see as their anger at > > these TM critics is in reality anger at *them- > > selves* for their inability to change. They > > cling to the TM dogma, and talk, talk, talk > > about its supposed benefits and the changes it > > can supposedly enable people to make, but they > > never actually *make* any of these changes > > *themselves*. That must get them down after a > > while, seeing others change and evolve around > > them, while they do not. And seemingly cannot. > > Barry may be the very *last* person who should > be preaching about the inability to change--at > least to change for the better. Over the years, > his thinking and behavior have gotten > progressively *worse*. His posts are angrier, > nastier, more hostile, more self-important, more > dishonest, more grounded in his own solipsistic > fantasies, and far, far less coherent and logical > than they were back in the old days on alt.m.t > (the post I'm responding to being a typical > example). > > Knapp's thinking and behavior, at least, don't > seem to have *deteriorated*. His presentation > is glossier and, as noted, more sophisticated; > he's carefully tailored his act to appear "kinder, > gentler, and more balanced." But it doesn't take > much to scratch off the veneer of civility and > uncover the same anger and hostility. And he's > just as hypocritical and dishonest as he ever was. > > The wonderful changes Barry claims to see in > Knapp are purely cosmetic. > > > (Barry's entire post follows for the record.) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > The re-arrival of John Knapp on FFL, and the > > reaction of the TM TBs to his presence, has > > brought an issue into focus for me, so I > > figured I'd throw it out for others to react > > to. Or not, if you don't think it's relevant. > > > > Most of the people who have reacted so nega- > > tively and so *strongly* to John in the last > > few days are doing so based on their *past* > > interactions with him. They even say this. > > > > This covers Judy (who pretty much dwells > > in the past full-time), Lawson, and feste. > > Their message is consistent: "Why should we > > trust what John says in the present, because > > his past actions (as we see them, that is) > > have convinced us that he is not to be > > trusted." > > > > Now THINK about this statement, and what it > > reveals about the persons making it and their > > belief system. They don't believe that it is > > *possible* for someone they disliked in the > > past to change in the present. Once they have > > developed their first impression of them, that > > impression is fixed, immutable. > > > > And WHY? > > > > Duh, because none of THEM have changed, in > > years. Sometimes decades. If you go back into > > the archives of FFL or a.m.t. and look up posts > > by Judy Stein or by Lawson or by feste, you > > could "swap out" the posts from a decade ago > > with today's posts, and no one would be able > > to tell the difference. There has been no > > change; they are still the same basic selves, > > with the same basic samskaras and same basic > > behavioral patterns, still posting the same > > basic ignorance and bigotry that they posted > > years ago. Nothing *ever* seems to changes > > for them. > > > > Compare and contrast to someone like Curtis. > > There was a time when he was pretty in-your- > > face on these forums, too (and he still can > > be, when it is deserved, although almost always > > with humor these days). But generally we see > > a kinder, gentler, more balanced Curtis in his > > posts these days, a veritable model of behavior > > that many of us look up to. John Knapp seems to > > have learned a few things along the Way, too. > > > > And I'm betting that the *majority* of people > > here notice the difference. Whereas the TM TB > > trio I'm discussing above do not. They see John > > as the same old demon they saw him as before; > > their belief system does not seem to allow for > > the possibility of him having changed over the > > years. > > > > WHY? And WHY do they act like this? > > > > My bet is that what *we* see as their anger at > > these TM critics is in reality anger at *them- > > selves* for their inability to change. They > > cling to the TM dogma, and talk, talk, talk > > about its supposed benefits and the changes it > > can supposedly enable people to make, but they > > never actually *make* any of these changes > > *themselves*. That must get them down after a > > while, seeing others change and evolve around > > them, while they do not. And seemingly cannot. > > > > So, being unable to address what's really bug- > > ging them, they lash out at anyone they can > > find an excuse (and, seemingly, *any* excuse) > > to lash out at, and project onto their victims > > the very inability to change that they see in > > themselves. > > > > I find it curious, and more than a little sad. > > >
