That was a nice response Dan, thanks.

The funny thing is I didn't expect the book to have the effect on me it had.  
It surprised me.  I had as many or more preconceptions as you have raised here, 
so I really shouldn't be on some high horse about it with you.  I expected it 
to give me a blasphemous giggle and that was about it.

I think she took so long because it took her decades to find the right tone to 
express her complex and often conflicted feelings.  The last thing I expected 
was for the book to make me feel closer to the guy with this window on his more 
easy to relate to normal life.  Maharishi was a little older than I am now when 
he had this relationship, so I feel like I can understand him better than I 
could in my more idealistic 20's.  And since my own feelings about the guy are 
both complex and somewhat conflicted, it rang true for me and validated a lot 
of those feelings.

I appreciate your hearing me out.  




--- In [email protected], "danfriedman2002" <danfriedman2002@...> 
wrote:
>
> Curtis,
> 
> I appreciate your balanced review. I think I´ll hold off for now. I may be 
> one of those who you´ve honestly described as ¨it isn't everybody's cup of 
> tea for all sorts of legitimate reasons that don't involve mischaracterizing 
> it ahead of time.¨
> 
> Thank you for providing so much info. I´ll be sure to let you know if I 
> change my mind again (based on further info, it is not that I´m generally 
> indecisive).
> 
> 
> --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > I was just standing up to Judith and her book which deserves more than to 
> > be referred to as gossip out of hand.  It is a moving account and I think 
> > she was brave to come out with it knowing how people would prejudge her and 
> > her motivations for writiing it.
> > 
> > But it isn't everybody's cup of tea for all sorts of legitimate reasons 
> > that don't involve mischaracterizing it ahead of time.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In [email protected], "danfriedman2002" <danfriedman2002@> 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Curtis,
> > > 
> > > Based on your personal recommendation, I will get a copy soon after my 
> > > arrival back in NYC. I should add that I LOVE READING (a bit too much, 
> > > according to my optomitrist), and welcome our upcoming discussion.
> > > 
> > > But for the moment, I need to get back to today´s newspaper, here in 
> > > Morelia,MX, which is reporting on last night´s drug wars (I stayed away 
> > > from the shootouts last night, just too much adventure just now).
> > > 
> > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "danfriedman2002" 
> > > > <danfriedman2002@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I don´t chose books on (1) personal intimacies, or (2) gossip.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Then you are going to love Judith's book because it tastefully avoids 
> > > > any discussion of personal intimacies and she dosn't repeat any gossip 
> > > > in the book.
> > > > 
> > > > Remember Maharishi's book Love and God?  While this is a love story 
> > > > too.  I'm sorry if some of the gossip you heard about the book gave you 
> > > > a negative impression, but having read it myself I can report that your 
> > > > concerns are unfounded.
> > > > 
> > > > No personal intimacies, and gossip free!
> > > > 
> > > > Now that we've cleared that up I can't wait to hear your book report 
> > > > after you have read this important insight into an important man in all 
> > > > our lives, Maharishi. Most of the people I know who have read it report 
> > > > that they feel much closer to him as a person after reading it.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In [email protected], "wayback71" <wayback71@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "danfriedman2002" 
> > > > > > > <danfriedman2002@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But Curtis,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > What you are saying is that Rick reported gossip years ago, 
> > > > > > > > which later appeared in a book by the gossiper. That´s not 
> > > > > > > > fire, only Smoke.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Dan, Judithe is not the only woman to make these claims.  Several 
> > > > > > other women have as well.  Read the book and then let us know what 
> > > > > > you think.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So you are not a fan of first person histories are you?  Then how 
> > > > > > > do you learn about the past if you dismiss first person accounts 
> > > > > > > as gossip?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Of course if you read the book and found some specific places 
> > > > > > > where you question her credibility I would enjoy hearing them.  I 
> > > > > > > am assuming that you wouldn't be shallow enough to make this 
> > > > > > > judgement about her book without having read it.  You know kind 
> > > > > > > of prejudging it based on gossip you heard about what was in the 
> > > > > > > book.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm with Sal on this one Dan.  This request is not reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > And as far as Rick not coming through with facts, he backed 
> > > > > > > > > Judith's account for years, was way ahead of the curve, and 
> > > > > > > > > then the book came out. So I think we can drop the tired 
> > > > > > > > > "innuendo" routine now.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > What Rick is "prone" to is having an open mind. He has 
> > > > > > > > > created a place where atheist's can interact with the 
> > > > > > > > > formerly enlightened as well as the currently "whatever".  
> > > > > > > > > Not too shabby IMO.  
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Although we have come down in different places concerning 
> > > > > > > > > spirituality, I have respect for the integrity of the process 
> > > > > > > > > that lead him to his own different conclusions.  
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > And if he smells smoke, I'm betting on fire soon to come.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine 
> > > > > > > > > <salsunshine@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 2011, at 8:19 PM, danfriedman2002 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Your request for a picture of a sign is a good one. But 
> > > > > > > > > > > then we'd be dealing with facts. Rick's prone to 
> > > > > > > > > > > innuendo, not facts.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Um, Dan...Rick hasn't been in the Doom in years.
> > > > > > > > > > And, like most other people without badges,
> > > > > > > > > > has no way of getting in.  And do you really
> > > > > > > > > > think with all the paranoia in the TMO they'd
> > > > > > > > > > let someone take pictures?  You ask for
> > > > > > > > > > evidence that I'm pretty sure you know nobody
> > > > > > > > > > can supply.  Therefore, for you the situation 
> > > > > > > > > > doesn't exist.  If that works for you, great.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Sal
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


Reply via email to