--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <no_re...@...> wrote: > > agreed-- as has been said, there is no such thing as > bad publicity. and that goes for the TM and MMY bashers > here too- just by criticizing and bashing TM they continue > to keep it alive in the minds of those who read these posts. > after some time all people remember was a discussion on TM, > not what was said. its why people like Martha Stewart are > still celebrities. keep it up!
If that were really true, then there is no basis for the position taken by Judy and Raunchydog (and by the TMO's/Lynch Foun- dation's scumbag of a lawyer) that John Knapp and others expressing their critical points of view about TM, the TMO, and Maharishi should not be allowed to happen. Judy and Raunchydog have stated that they feel that "revealing" information about the puja and the nature of the mantras, etc. could be "confusing" to new meditators and "spoil the innocence of their experience of TM." They have put themselves on the record as being firmly in favor of WITH- HOLDING such information, "for the students' own good." The TMO scumbag lawyer went so far as to *threaten* John Knapp and his associates for holding a simple online conference, and intimidate them into can- celling it out of fear of an expensive lawsuit. So CLEARLY none of these people agree with you, Jim. Instead, they CLEARLY believe that saying anything negative about TM, the TMO, and Maharishi does **NOT** fall into the cate- gory of "any publicity is good publicity." Instead, they believe that it is *detrimental* to TM and TMers and has to be suppressed and/or demonized. How do you reconcile your theory with what seems to be the *established policy* of the TM organization, and with its vocal supporters and apologists on this forum? And on another level, if your mind is so weak that a few days after a discussion here all that you can remember is that "there was a discussion on TM," what does that say about TM really improving "creative intelligence?" Seems to me that you are saying that what it does is *impair* your memory and make you incapable of retaining information, right? Not that that should surprise us given your history of posts here... :-) > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > But BILL O'REILLY? That's going too far. > > > > ******* > > > > I've never liked Howard Stern's schtick, and I don't like > > O'Reilly's schtick, but so what? They both are displaying > > an enthusiasm for TM, and I like that. Like MMY always > > said, even a sick man can run a health-food store. > > >
