--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You need to go up thread to the original post to get it, and also > realise that I had whispered the question a couple of times before > with no response.
I *do* realize that. I still don't see why repeating the same question over and over (and shouting it at the end when no one responds) is particularly funny, sorry. Petulantly immature, maybe, but not funny. > > It is other statements you have made over time that have smelled > of > > TM-fundamentalism or even (sorry, Judy) cultism to me: some recent > > examples would be your denouncing Rick as a lost yogi, > > > But Rick is a lost Yogi, which by the way is a huge comliment. Gee, I wonder if Rick felt complimented by your post! Maybe you should follow your own advice and go back and read it again. >You > others do not come up to that category. See? Another sidestep and insult. Humor? Or false-humor to mask anger, aggression, and denial? Don't know; don't really care. Just not particularly funny, IMO. > <<maligning his > > logic, dismissing his evidence and experience out-of-hand > > because "the accusers are anonymous," >>> > > Anonymous is what you call non-evidence you idiot. No, "you idiot;" anonymous is what *you* call non-evidence. Rick's evidence smells generally right to me (and I would guess to most other mature minds); your rationalizations and denials do not. > <<dismissing the reporter's > > opinion piece on TMO and Amma, and accusing MMY's critics of short- > > term thinking (a classic cult maneuver is to justify short-term > > abuse in the name of lofty long-term ideals; i.e., "ends-justify- > > means" enabling). >>> > > Wrong. It was a highly prejudiced piece which you are too prejudiced > to see. I would never write such a prejudiced thing about any group > as a reporter. See? You flat-out dismiss our point-of-view as "wrong" and "prejudiced." Trademark fundamentalist thinking. What makes you think we are prejudiced? Do you know the definition of prejudice? It means something along the lines of judging before one has all the facts. Many of us have experienced MMY and the TMO first-hand over a period of many years. Many of us may have more knowledge here than you do. Many of us are incredibly grateful to MMY for the divine enlightenment he has shown us, *and* do not flinch from seeing his human narcissism and fallibility. > > To me, all of this points to a completely idealistic image of MMY > > that is seriously threatened by other viewpoints implying > > any "fallibility" or humanity on MMY's part, which (it seems to > me) >>>> > > > Man , you really lack insight. I have a less ideal image of MMY than > you and half the people here. You just don't see it. I am not saying you toe the TMO line in every respect because you certainly don't. In what way precisely is your image of MMY less ideal than mine and half the people here? > > you often attempt to deny through attack, ridicule, insult, and so > > on. >>> > > Wow, you are making things up. > I don't see you saying this to Llundrub, the king of constant > insults. This again shows your prejudice. Llundrub is not the point here; you are. I have found Llundrub's "insults" to be generally based in truth. Yours almost never are. (If I were he, by the way, I would have apologized for *nothing* he said to either Vaj or to you -- it was all on-target, if undiplomatically phrased.) > Read those two sentances again. Why? I do not find them to be any more pregnant with meaning on the second read than the first. Again, they just look like more of your classic ego-tactics: flailing around, attacking, and sidestepping. Anything to avoid admitting fallibility, right? :-) > <<In like manner, you seem to need to cling to a self-image of > > invulnerability, omnipotence, and grandiosity. (Although I suppose > > these may all be "jokes" too, for all I can tell with my > apparently- > > limited sense of humor.) >>>> > > > You have not sense of humor old man. That may very well be. Or maybe you're sometimes just not very funny, and/or are using so-called humor to hide something else. Who knows? :-) > > > > If however you have been serious, I respectfully suggest that if > you > > can open up to the paradox of MMY's being both divine *and* human, > > perfect *and* flawed, that you can then allow yourself the same > > luxury. > > > > And of course, I may be way off base, in which case you can tell > me > > to go take a flying leap. :-)>>> > > A smiley face does NOT constitute a sense of humor. It doesn't make > you funny, as you and Alex seem to think it will do for you. No, it is generally meant to constitute friendliness, to try to convey the light-heartedness (not humor per se, other than good humor) in which I am conveying these words. Sometimes IMO the written word comes across as far too serious without a smile. :-) But again, if this is your polite way of telling me to go take a flying leap, consider it done :-) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
