Hi Robin, As a long term point of perspective, I have been reading "valve job"'s posts here for about six years, both on FFL and a forum where he used to post but was kicked off for revealing personal info (mine).
These claims of his to be a TM teacher and now having met you previously, are fairly recent. He wouldn't have dared make them to the group that booted him - It is a small knowledgeable group and they would have called BS on him immediately. Why he is doing it now is as some sort of distraction from a blocked area of his life, sexual, spiritual, economic, social, who knows? The point being it has a lot to do with "valve job", and nothing to do with you, though you appear to be the target for his self-distraction. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 17, 2012, at 2:25 AM, maskedzebra wrote: > > RESPONSE: No, Vaj, the only possible response here should have been: "Robin, > you are wrong. I *have* met you. I know you. And you will have to take back > these words." > > Vaj: That fact should be already obvious, at least it is to several here. It > doesn't matter to me if you take them back or not. > > RESPONSE 2: No, no, no, Vaj: for what you say here to be true must mean that > everyone but three persons at FFL are deliberately and wilfully refusing to > grant you the chance to prove that you are not lying. In other words, only > these three persons are sufficiently non-biased and impartial to be able to > apprehendboth intuitively and objectivelythat you are in fact telling the > truth about TM, Maharishi, me, and those seminars. The rest of the FFL > posters have some need *not* to believe you. > > Now what could that be? > > Not one poster at FFLand there must have been hundreds and hundreds since > the beginning of FFLhas ever conceived of the scenario whereby people at FFL > would be scrupulous and skeptical about anyone claiming to be a TM meditator, > claiming to be a TM initiator, claiming to know Maharishi personally. > > The issue simply would never come up. After all, being initiated into TM is > not some Secret Society with elaborate handshakes and a Skull & Bones > harrowing initiation [where you have to give a complete account of your > sexual history]. Your comments about TMand everyone here has commented on > TM: there must be 5,000 such comments that have been made since Rick first > created this forum*drew attention to themselves", as they almost invariably > exhibited the evidence of someone who had never done TM, let alone taught TM. > > Let us say that all the posters at FFL not only attended a specific play on > Broadway but eventually auditioned for that play and acted in it. FFL, in > this analogy, was formed to essentially talk about that play and what it was > like not just to see it, but to be in itand even to meet the playwright. > > Along comes someone who professes to have seen the production of the play, > acted in that production, and yes, known the author personally. > > But in everything he says he conspicuously reveals that he could not have > seen the play, because it was not mounted the way he says it was; he has the > plot all wrong; and he discusses the leading actors in a way that is > separated from the experience of having seen these actors live and on stage. > > Now three persons, for reasons only known to them, seek to burnish the > credentials of this controversial drama critic who has been highly critical > of this production, but who suspiciously appears never to have seen the > production. Evidently the supporters of this critic (who is disbelieved by > the majority of posters at FFL as having seen the production, let alone acted > in the Broadway company associated with the play) find him useful in their > determination to pan the artistic integrity of the playeven as there are > other critics of the play who believe the play to have some severe even fatal > weaknessesbut who can examine the play's flaws without necessarily > suspending their critical faculties when it comes to believing in the bona > fides of this singular critic. > > You are referring here to those three critics. Your response, then, Vaj, > makes no sense. It isif we take you at your wordnot just that you don't > care if you are believed or not (whether you have even been on Broadway; you > go much further than this: You wish to impugn your own credibility by > deliberately giving the impression that you have not seen the play, acted in > it, met the author by making sure whenever you talk about the production you > say things which no other member of the audience would say, let along someone > who has acted in the production. Or who has discussed the play with its > author. > > Either this, or you are making the whole thing up. > > Now there has been someone who has posted recently here at FFL who I > recognize as a person who really did attend those seminars, someone who would > presumably be familiar with you. Would you like me to ask them point-blank > whether they remember you or not? > > IIf any of what you say is true, Vaj, what's the game here? We have seen > snow; we have played in the snow; we have built snowmen. You say you have > stomped through the snow as well; but it is as if you keep telling us that > snow is green and makes a lot of noise when it falls from the sky. In fact TM > is not like this at all. > > Be sure that we find your comments about other productions on Broadway [which > you have indeed seen] to be interesting; but we wonder why you continue to > pretend to have been a part of a production which leaves a particular > impression on everyone who saw the production and especially those who acted > in it, when you do not bear that impression upon your person whatsoever. > > Same goes for the play I wrote and mounted. You either saw the play or were a > cast member, or you didn't see the play and did not appear on stage. > > Those who profess to believe in your testimony have to work a lot harder to > make the case for your credibility than those who find themselves continually > ambushed by evidence you have never seen the play, a play which often is the > center of discussion and argument here. > > Beats me, the whole damn thing, Vaj. You're intelligent, you're witty, you're > knowledgable, you have a life, why dress up and pretend to play house? >
