Just to put this stalker silliness in some sort of perspective before going back to ignoring her, the stalker in question said on a.mt. only *two days ago*, with regard to moi:
"Actually things have been *vastly* more pleasant here since you decided you'd have more luck putting over your phony act on FFL. Take a hike. We're wise to you on alt.m.t." and "Get lost, jerk. Go throw your dick around FFL some more. Maybe they'll be impressed." Those statements seem fairly dismissive to me. And to tell the truth, I'm happy to oblige. a.m.t. just isn't interesting enough these days to read regularly. So I'm perfectly willing to "take a hike" from a.m.t., as she suggests, although if you folks don't mind, over here I think I'd prefer to keep my dick properly zipped up and out of sight. :-) But *two days* after declaring that things at a.m.t. were "more pleasant" without me, and that I should "take a hike" and "get lost," the stalker is here on FFL replying to the posts of the very person she told to "get lost," the person who has stated quite clearly and publicly that he wishes to have no inter- action with her at all on FFL. I've been very careful about *ignoring* any posts she's made here, and allowing her to form her own relationships, without comment. But now, as I orig- inally predicted, she's responding to my posts, trying to start some kind of argument, going on and on and on and on and on with it. And this is a mere two days after she seemed to be telling me to darken her door no longer. Tell me folks...what part of this behavior does *not* constitute "cyberstalking" in your book? Unc, going back to ignoring her, dropping the subject, something I think you're going to find the stalker is unable to do... --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Peter Sutphen > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 2005, at 9:59 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wow, I never heard that the absence of thoughts > > > > > > > > in TM indicates an absence of "progress." Is > > > > > > > > that something MMY says that I've somehow > > > > > > > > managed to miss? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, whatever happened to the gap gets bigger and > > > > > > > bigger? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ask Barry; he's a former TM teacher. Maybe > > > > > > that's what he taught his students. Sure is > > > > > > news to me. > > > > > > > > > > What in the hell is all this distorted TM "teaching"? > > > > > Are you guys that are spouting this TM teachers? > > > > > Because MMY never, ever mentioned this stuff in the > > > > > context of explaining experiences during meditation. > > > > > > > > yeah, I don't remember a word of it either, and that's after > > > > hundreds of hours of tapes, reading his books, etc. > > > > > > It's a cyberstalking thang, Jim. :-) > > > > > > I just used a phrase that I'd heard from many TMers > > > who had grown concerned that "because thoughts mean > > > release of stress, does lack of thoughts indicate > > > no progress in the release of stress?" The two > > > non-TM teachers harping on the phrase are merely > > > doing the a.m.t. thang of trying to nitpick to > > > discredit someone they don't like. It's just how > > > things are done over there. You'll get used to it. :-) > > > > So Judy came over to AMT, biding her time, contributed a few > > (I think you mean over to FFL...) > > > articles that had nothing to do with you in order to give > > everyone a false sense of who she was, then pounced when you > > least expected? > > LOL! > > Note once again that Barry *encouraged* alt.m.t > participants to join FFL. This is now the third > (or fourth?) time he has repeated the "cyberstalking" > misrepresentation. > > > Who is the other non-TM teacher? Moi? I stalked you here also? > > Actually in the context of Peter's question, the > other non-TM teacher is Vaj. > > It's funny that nobody seems to have noticed what > Barry said until I questioned it and Vaj then > quoted my question after deleting my quote of > Barry's post. > > Then all of a sudden it's "You can't be TM teachers > if you think this is what MMY says!" To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
