Xeno, I have zero interest in either Andrew Skolnick or John Knapp, or in discussing what you or anyone else thinks about them. Neither person has really been part of my life for many, many years. Don't you think it would be odd and kind of obsessive for me to still care about them, much less still care enough to try to convince people to think of them the same way I do?
Get it? That's what Judy is doing. She's still so obsessed with these people -- and with me -- that she cannot differentiate things that happened over a decade ago from what happened yesterday. Her obsession is such that in her mind these people who she once developed a grudge against are still "attacking her" in the present, even though they probably forgot her very existence years ago. A measure of how obsessed she really is is that whenever someone says the truth -- that these people have better things to do than remember Judy Stein -- she reacts by insisting that they're still as obsessed with her as she *obviously* is with them. The only person obsessed, as far as I can tell, is Judy Stein. It's as if these grudges based on a few arguments on a couple of forums that no one reads anyway were so important to her -- and to her image of who she is -- that she can't let go of them. Who, after all, has had a life so devoid of real accomplishments that she feels the need to consistently try to get other people to go back and reread stuff she posted ten or more years ago on an obscure Internet forum read by at most a couple of dozen people? These inane arguments are her *accomplishments* in life? That's pretty fuckin' sad. Indulge her continuing obsession with these people from the past and with the past itself all you want. Good luck with that. I'd rather treat her as the sad, lost-in-the-past old woman she really is and ignore her when she goes dumpster-diving for past glory that wasn't, even in the past. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > Barry, if I fall into hell it will be my own doing. Judy does make good > points as do you. My knowledge of 'our' subject here is not encyclopaedic. I > can be misled. But I do like to come to my own conclusions. Judy is good at > comparing what someone wrote at one time compared to another and dealing with > precise phraseology, but I am not sure she always is able to distinguish > between irony, malice, and simple missteps of the tongue. > > And you are not such a cheery fellow to deal with either. Your method is less > literal in interpreting situations and relies on reading 'between-the-lines', > subtext, and you are not concerned by post-to-post consistency normally, as > you jump from idea to idea, finding new things to talk about. > > As for Skolnick, I thought he approached his subject with vigour and did not > pull punches, but he seems to have researched his attacks well. Lying in the > movement is a well established technique, but as I said I think quite a few > simply no longer can tell that is what they are doing. > > Although I had not read it myself, a friend once told me how the war in the > Mahabharata starts off rather gentlemanly and then as it goes along it gets > darker and darker, ending up with Krishna suggesting lying to kill a > particular general they could not defeat (at which point his levitating > chariot falls to the ground), and fully armed warriors killing unarmed > children. > > Years before I was involved peripherally in one of the movement's legal > contests (the movement was the defendant, a state or federal law issue > brought by a non-meditating neighbour of a movement facility), and some of > the governors were talking aside during a break in the hearing and brought up > the incident in the Mahabharata of Krisha lying (the first time I ever heard > of it), and they thought maybe they could do that too as a way to divert > attention, though I think they said it in jest, that they really were earnest > about finding a reasonable solution to the predicament that had surfaced. The > issue was ultimately resolved another way, out of court, no settlement > required. > > All of us see black and white sometimes, when our buttons get pushed, but the > palette of greys in between the extremes varies quite a lot from individual > to individual, though Judy seems to see more black and white. And you just do > not seem to care much. I would treat her a bit more kindly though even though > she riles you; sometimes you seem to be the model of the caricature of men > that is the model for our sex in Dave Barry's writings. > > Judy does seem to hold on to feelings for a long time. I would think that is > a sign enlightenment is a long way off, but even if that is not true it is a > sign that a button is being pushed and the stress behind that has not > released; in movement terminology it might be a sign that the stress is > releasing constantly, and maybe one day it will pass away. > > You know you are in pretty good shape if the most virulent insult passes off > you as water on the back of a duck, and leaves almost no trace. I mean, in > the past 15, 20 years have you noticed the recovery time from emotional > bruises to get shorter and shorter? But we can always be surprised when one > of our buttons gets pushed even if years go by and nothing of the kind > happens; there is no guarantee we have unloaded all the dark patches in our > system. > > I actually was planning to write John Knapp a few years ago, ask him how he > was, what he was thinking, but as I am lazy, the idea faded away. I am not > even sure he would remember me. I know people who think the movement is nuts, > and I know lots of people in the movement still and I do not fault them for > what they think, but I like to challenge what they think, and sometimes, they > out-think me and I learn something. Judy has taught me a few things, and so > have you, and so have others here on this mad place. > > While you seem somewhat detached from the goings on here, are kind of gruff > sometimes, I do think you genuinely have a desire to get people here to look > at their experiences in a more expanded context. Whatever sense of that got > you into the movement has been recycled and has become more self-reflective > and self-sufficient. > > I have little to compare you to, I do not know what kind of bastard you were > when you were in the movement. It would be the difference between that time > and now that would enable perhaps a fair comparison to see how much you have > grown. > > But you know, as Dave Barry says, guys never really grow up. To see the world > with the innocence of of child. That must be our goal. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Careful, dude. You could be in danger of falling into the realm > > of mortal sin -- reading things for yourself and coming to your > > own conclusions about what you read, rather than accept the > > version presented to you by FFL's Arbiters Of Truth. > > > > I mention this only in passing because you really, really don't > > want to wind up on the receiving end of one of the Arbiters' > > vendettas. If that happens one day ten years from now there > > may still be posts being made to FFL on a regular basis about > > how evil *you* are, as if the evil had happened yesterday. Like > > an elephant, an official Arbiter Of Truth never forgets. And > > never forgives. :-) > > > > The problem with telling someone to "go back and read my Best > > Of in the archives" is that when someone does so, they might > > just realize that it's just more pontificating on a tiny Internet > > forum read by no more than a couple of dozen people, and that > > the pontificating looks remarkably like the stuff that the same > > people are doing today, preaching to another couple of dozen > > people. Plus, if the pontificators' act has not changed in all of > > that time -- only the targets for their ad hominems -- the "make > > work" exercise of sending them back to read the archives > > might actually backfire. > > > > From my perspective, Skolnick essentially beat the socks off of > > his TM-puppet opponents in almost every interaction, and > > they're not only still pissed off about it, they're still trying to > > somehow "wreak revenge" on someone who forgot about them > > entirely years ago. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 2011, at 7:46 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > ANdrew accused me of reverting an entire section when I > > > > > > first came into Wikipedia. He appolgized after I pointed > > > > > > out that I didn't even know HOW to revert at that point > > > > > > in time so he double checked and sure-'nuff... > > > > > > > > > > Andrew is probably one of the most insightful people when it > > > > > comes to � and valid criticism. It's that naked, raw insight > > > > > that so disturbs �-TB's. > > > > > > > > ROFL. "Raw, naked insight" unmixed with respect for accuracy. > > > > > > > > > And he has a real knack for spotting habitual liars and that > > > > > always gets their goat. > > > > > > > > Andrew is the worst liar I've ever come across, far worse > > > > than even Vaj, Barry, or John Knapp. The record is still in > > > > the Google archives of alt.meditation.transcendental. > > > > > > I do not know Vaj, I do not know Barry, although we cross paths here, > > but I did meet John Knapp very briefly, more than a decade and a half > > before he left the TM movement, and I really did not have much of an > > impression of him then, and all I know about his 'defection' is he > > started trancenet, and became a counselor. I found trancenet > > interesting. I have never thought that what John wrote on that site was > > out of the bounds of reality. But I cannot vouch for the truth or > > falsehood of most of what is on the site. > > > > > > This forum is like that battle in the Bhagavad-Gita. Former friends > > and relatives who once seemed to share the same perspective now are > > arrayed on the battle-field with opposing views. Maybe some mercenaries > > have joined in too. I just do not see it as black and white. There is a > > lot of subtle variation in the displeasure with TM and the TMO. I have > > experienced displeasure with TM on brief occasions; I never stopped and > > I have come out on the positive side of that release. More displeasure > > in the way the organisation behaved. > > > > > > I did a cursory search and came up with an assortment on > > alt.meditation.transcendental. Judy, you do use the term 'liar' a lot, > > and interpolating from then to today, perhaps for a long, long time. Why > > is it so important to use that term so frequently? If we consider a lie > > a bad thought, or an improper way to present information (since a lie is > > false information), we might remember that Maharishi said (something > > like this anyway - do not trust my memory that much), a bad thought is > > rotten to the core. If we postulate that everything is absolute being, > > exists because of that, then all lies come from the pure field of > > creative intelligence. And until enlightenment, our lives are a lie, a > > mistake perpetuated by our own mind in its inability to see what it > > itself has wrought. What is it that gets you so fired up? > > > > > > Skolnick seems to be a kind of crusader, and so do you, and you both > > seem to be rather precise in your targets and manner of speaking. And it > > seems you have interacted with him on that older forum, apparently not > > in agreement. Skolnick seems rather different from Barry, at least on my > > initial impression, but your mode of interaction seems similar. (That > > might not be significant, because my mode of interaction with everyone > > is similar, so it is a moot point) > > > > > >
