--- In [email protected], "boo_lives" <boo_li...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > > > ("World domination." Hilarious.) > > > > > > > Should we go through the criteria, one by one? > > > > > > > > I'd really enjoy that. Let's do it! > > > > > > Oh, yes, let's! Why don't we start with this: > > > > > > "If you cannot find anyone who has all of these > > > attributes, at least find someone who has more > > > good qualities than defects." > > > > Very few give any response to the posts by this > > Buddhist fundamentalist Vaj. He is ignored yet > > year after year he spends a lot of time here with > > his foolish propaganda and downright lies. I > > suppose he must be retired to have so much time > > on hand. Doen't he have better things to do, > > walking dogs for example ? ;-) > > > I find Vaj very interesting, at least it's usually > info I've not come across before even if I don't > agree completely. > > What I actually don't get is why nabluss and the > like post here. We've all been exposed to approved > tmo doctrine for decades, we know all the perfect > logic, spent 1000s of hours listening to mmy, even > promoted it ourselves for years and years, but it > doesn't work for us anymore and most of us here are > looking to process our tmo involvement and freely > explore alternative world views, or at least modify > the approved doctrine to something that fits our > reality (or some reality). > > WHY THE NEED for tmo TBs to try to enforce official > tmo thinking here?
I'm not a "tmo TB" by any stretch, although I suspect you're including me here. >From my perspective, it isn't at all a matter of trying to "enforce" official TMO thinking; it would be foolish in the extreme to make such an attempt. Often the "alternative world view" incorporates an extremely uncharitable interpretation of why the TMO has done or said something. In some of those cases, there's a more positive interpretation that's at least somewhat plausible. Since we don't know for sure what the TMO was thinking, it makes sense to me that both possible interpretations be provided. Plus which, there are a few people here whose negative views of the TMO/MMY/TMers are consistently expressed in an unnecessarily unpleasant, superior, demeaning, insulting tone. In at least some cases, what we're responding to is as much the tone as the specifics. My response to Vaj that you quote above was one such case. And then there are the flat-out factually inaccurate or grossly misleading criticisms. Nobody sensible should want their alternative worldview to be based on such statements. And when one of the unpleasant people mentioned above consistently comes out with factually inaccurate or misleading criticisms, it's awfully hard to resist thinking they're being deliberately dishonest. If you're dubious about what I just wrote, you might want to take into account how many of the criticisms made here we *don't* object to. If you compare those we don't object to to those we do object to, I think you'll probably find that the latter mostly, if not all, tend to fall into the above categories. <snip> > This site isn't filled with J.Knapp's who are > out there as anti TM activists, we're just > individuals generally with long "spiritual" > histories working things out amongst ourselves It's not "filled" with them, certainly, but there are several who seem to be at least informal anti-TM activists, who are here not to work things out but simply to bash. I think it would be extremely difficult to characterize Vaj as wanting to work things out for himself. He's already decided, and he wants to push anyone still on the fence to decide the same way, while at the same time nastily putting down anyone who leans the other way. And he doesn't seem to me to have many scruples as to how he accomplishes that, with regard either to honesty or minimal tolerance for disagreement.
