Rory IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE A BIG JOKE YOU FUCKING MORONIC ASSHOLE ! --- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- 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/
