--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > > On Feb 1, 2009, at 12:43 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > > oh i see, since there is nothing but hearsay regarding the > > possibility of Maharishi's sexual escapades, you are more > > comfortable believing the "he fucked around" rumors, instead of > > believing the "he didn't fuck around" rumors? > > > > did i get that right? gotta wonder about the bias, don't you-- or > > does that just not matter, trumped by character assassination? > > > It's not considered "hearsay" when it's already been published in > newspapers Dawn.
-that- is your standard, that something has been published in newspapers?? unbelievable...and what about all of those health benefits of TM that i have read published in newspapers? sorry, that just doesn't cut it, and is a ludicrousdly low bar, my Biased Buddhist.
