thanks for your post! please keep the controversy going!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <no_reply@> 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.
> > >
> >
>
