Raunchy: > > When I was on the Vedic Atom, I worked in the course > > office at PAC Pal and processed tons of applications > > for LA Sidhas applying for WPA's and the course in > > India with Maharishi. We did not have a list. An > > unidentified male voice on the phone calling from an > > undisclosed location (probably Livingston Manor) from > > the "Council of Supreme Intelligence" had the list. > > They seemed to know all about the applicants I > > processed so I assumed they had a list.
Turq: > So Raunchydog, in all that time that you were > "processing applications for LA Sidhas applying > for WPA's," did you ever turn anyone down? > > If so, that probably does not fall into the > category of "causing you harm." But is is pos- > sible that you caused *others* harm by just > believing an unidentified male voice on the > other end of the phone? > > Is it possible that you turned down someone's > application because the unidentified voice on > the other end of the phone said to out of spite, > or because he thought that they might have once > seen another spiritual teacher or done some- > thing Off The Program? This line of reasoning seems far fetched and out of line. It is pure speculaton. We've heard from Raunchy that she acted in good faith. And now you're asking her if she thinks the course office was acting in good faith? Sort of like "Isn't it possible Raunchy, isn't it entirely possible that the this UNIDENFIED, ANONYMOUS, -DO YOU HEAR ME ANONYMOUS voice on the other end of the line, might NOT have been acting in good faith. And isn't it true Raunchy, that an negative experience that the this unidentified voice may have had with a person named Todd sometime in his past, may have predudiced him against any applicant named Todd. Please Raunchy, tell the court, isn't this possible? Indeed, isn't it even likely this unidentied was voice was applying arbitrary standands for acceptance to a course., based on previous life experiences that affected his outlook, most likely in negative way that could have a profound effect on the individual applying including, but not limited to loss of self esteem, or divorce. Isn't this a possiblity Raunchy. Tell the court, yes, or no. And then Sal, chimes in that if Rauncy doesn't take this bait, then the point is proved. Or even more likely, if the answer isn't to Sal's satisfaction then the point is proved as well. I believe this is what is called baiting. And a little cheap IMO. > > If so, and someone was discriminated against > and kept away from a course that even YOU would > have to believe would be beneficial for them, > does this present a case for YOUR "unfounded > beliefs" being a tad harmful to someone else? > Or is their experience of YOU turning them down > all "their experience, not yours?" > > I'm SURE you can make a case for "I was just > doing my job, and following orders." But you > don't even know WHOSE orders you were follow- > ing. Do you not see something vaguely remin- > iscent of Germany during WWII about this, > where good Germans sent Jews somewhere (they > didn't care where) because some unidentified > male voice told them to? > > Do you get my point? > > Thanks for posting, "Anything is possible," > by the way. That's another evasion, and not > the same as actually saying, "There is a > possibility that the TM critics are right > and I am wrong," but it's the closest any > of the people I addressed my question to > have come to actually answering it. So that > makes you the least pussy-like of any of > them. Your certificate is in the mail. :-) >
