--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Are your series of "Duh's" really called for? Seems a > rather rude and egotistical contribution.
So deeply sorry to have offended you. It's just that you sounded as though you thought folks here weren't already convinced that Hagelin and the TMO P.R. machine weren't to be trusted, and that the secrecy issue wasn't what they've been objecting to, when in fact you were preaching to the choir on these points. Did you have any other comments, or did you just want to find something to be offended by? > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Haiglin said he was surprised -- the us raja, presumably > > > > > in the inner of innermost circles -- had no idea Tony > > > > > was "missing" for 8 years. > > > > > > > > Do we take this as gospel? > > > > > > Well, the Raja of the US for the Global Capital of Supreme > > > Consciousness said it. I would hope its "gospel". If not, > > > then JH has no credibility. > > > > Uh, duh. > > > > > If he blatently lied on this, what other areas areas topics > > > did he lie about? And if one of the head rajas lied, then > > > its not a stretch that other rajas (and prime ministers) are > > > blatant liars. > > > > > > > Or might it have been tactical spin? > > > > > > Could be. But that would discredit the PR wing of the TMO. > > > > Double-duh! > > > > > And spin is a bit inaccurate in my opinion. Spin is > > > presenting facts in an advantageous light. Lying to > > > presenting false facts. > > > > Right. And...? > > > > > > "Well, gee, if even John Hagelin wasn't told, I don't > > > > feel so bad that *we* weren't told." > > > > > > Not tactically successful if the upshot is the TMO world > > > now sees JH as a clueless baffoon. Or if it confirms what > > > they have suspected. > > > > They don't have many good choices, do they? > > > > > But, that may be indicative of the deep wisdom and sucess > > > skills of the TMO: a tactical ploy that backfires and > > > yields a much more damaging result that the "cover-up" > > > was supposed to shelter. > > > > I doubt it will be more damaging among the folks > > to whom it's directed. > > > > > > I'd speculate that *all* the top-level people knew, > > > > and quite possibly a good sprinkling of lower-level > > > > folks as well. > > > > > > Then the secrecy issues are all there. > > > > Duh again. > > > > > Is the TMO a group of clever, manipulative liars or merely > > > clueless baffons. > > > > As you just pointed out, not so clever. But again, > > what choice do they have at this point? > > > > > > > If Tony has 25 meals cooked for him, to only eat one, > > > > > wouldn't someone notice when no one was there to eat > > > > > such? > > > > > > > > For the record, the 25 meals deal is a rumor Vaj passed > > > > on from the TM-Free blog (a hangout for very bitter TM > > > > critics), supposedly something someone heard from > > > > someone else who heard it "from the kitchens at Vlodrop." > > > > > > OK. But if we drop this "dot", the pattern is still there > > > -- no one noticed for 8 years that the leader of the thing > > > they have devoted their lives to was missing. Not exactly > > > competence incarnate. > > > > If you think about it, the "no one noticed" notion > > really isn't plausible. They surely knew he wasn't > > at Vlodrop. Whether they all knew everything else > > isn't clear, but it seems awfully likely to me. > > > > In any case, I just wanted to point out that this > > particular dot is only a poorly sourced rumor, since > > quite a few folks here seem to be taking it as > > established fact and using it to build their cases. > > > > > > That isn't exactly the most reliable sourcing, yet it > > > > too appears to have been accepted as gospel here. > > > > > > > I don't accept anything as gospel. But if a number of dots > > > begin to form a close knit cluster, it begins to paint a > > > picture. > > > > I don't really think we've got all that many dots. All > > we know is they have a potentially embarrassing situation > > that they're trying to present in the best possible light. > > > > A lot of dots don't do you much good if most of them are > > imaginary. Imaginary dots that form a pattern we'd like > > to see can be highly misleading. > > >
