--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <drpetersutphen@> wrote: > > > > At any other college or university security would have been > > called after the first assault, then the local police would > > have been called because a crime had been committed. The > > police would have recognize right away the Sem was psychotic > > and he would have been brought to a psychiatric facility. > > This was MUM's very own policy and they didn't follow it. > > Why? Good question. I think we all know the answer, but can > > you imagine telling a jury that the reason you didn't follow > > your own safety procedures was because you didn't want to > > bring bad publicity to the university? > > That really is the interesting factor in all > of this, isn't it? WHY would the TMO allow even > its own insurance company for MUM to bring this > issue to court? It defies reason. > > If they were such TBs that they allowed Suvender > Sem to act out his psychosis rather than admit > to themselves that such a thing as murder was > possible within the protective bubble of the > Domes, would they willingly go forth into the > arena of possible public ridicule, and risk > making that it was *very* possible a matter not > only of public record, but of legal precedent? > > It really doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm going > to be VERY interested in how this plays out, and > in the cases that MUM presents for being "not > responsible" in this case, and thus in all cases. > > > Happens all the time with organizations, but it usually > > involves sex or money. > > Yes, it does. > > > Only MUM would be embarrassed about a student becoming > > psychotic. > > Excellent insight. Out of pretty much every other > university in the world, which one would even *conceive* > of being *embarrassed* by one of its students not being > ...uh...perfectly sane? > > > What about perfect mental health through the TM and TM > > Siddhi program? What about the ME? > > Seriously, dude, WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE THINKING? > > If they allow this issue to be directly challenged > and cross-examined in court, they are inviting their > own personal world view to be so challenged. On the > surface, it's as if a significant number of the > lingering TBs believe that they can defend their > world view in court. That speaks volumes. >
It's also going to be interesting for another very significant reason: there is no Maharishi Mahesh Yogi sitting in the CEO chair of the TMO. Before, when things such as the New Jersey Court Case had to be decided, MMY called the shots...and how he called the shots really impacted the TMO and the way TM was perceived in society at large for years to come. Now, there is a new CEO (not sure who that is...da King? Bevan? Hootenany Hagelin?) and how he calls the shots on this will be most interesting. This court case is probably the first instance since Maharishi's death in which a decision on which way to play this thing will impact the perception of the TMO in the world at large in a big way.
