authfriend: > Barry, the reason you get smacked down so often is not > because of your criticisms of TM. It's because you're > a poisonous, low-vibe individual. You're chronically > dishonest, and you treat the people you don't agree > with like shit. > Barry just doesn't seem to get it - HE is the cult leader that sold us the snake oil - Barry is the TB that worked for the TMO, and he's the Lenz enabler. He got it all mixed up - Barry is supposed to be the informant, and apologize to us, not the otherway around. LoL!
> Proof: Many here make the same TM criticisms you do, > and they are generally treated with respect because > they're honest and they treat others with respect even > in disagreement. > > The only thing you've "stumbled upon"--and goodness > knows it was a long time ago, because you've been > saying this for years--is a way to foist the blame for > your own inexcusable behavior onto your critics, and > even more absurdly and dishonestly onto the TMO. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > I honestly don't know which is sadder -- that Judy > > > and Jimbo believe that FFL is all about a battle > > > between themselves and me, or that they think > > > they are winning. :-) > > > > I'll expand upon this, because in its 30 short words > > I think I finally stumbled upon the ultimate test of > > whether a spiritual or religious organization can be > > accurately called a CULT or not. > > > > Those who are "anti-cult" have all sorts of "definitions" > > of what constitutes "cult behavior," but they're often > > so generalized that they apply equally to corporations, > > sports fanatics, and political divisions such as Democrats > > vs. Republicans. But there is one phenomenon that seems to > > me to truly *define* cult thinking, and that's when people > > who believe in or follow a particular philosophy or religion > > or set of dogmatic beliefs take it upon themselves -- on > > a volunteer, unpaid basis -- to "do battle" against anyone > > who dares to criticize or demean or (the worst) laugh at > > the things they consider holy. > > > > This strikes me as a *completely* ego-based activity, > > which is why it seems so out of place in organizations > > that preach (if not actually teach) pathways to what > > they think of as enlightenment. The *dogma* of such > > organizations is almost always couched in the language > > of non-ego and non-attachment, but the activity of "doing > > battle" with that organization's critics is *totally* > > based on ego and attachment. Go figure. > > > > You all know the kinds of people I'm talking about. They > > are the $cientologists who will do or say *anything* to > > "get" the people who dare to criticize $cientology. They > > are the Catholics who are willing to do the same with > > those who criticize or lampoon *their* dogma. And, of > > course, they are the TMers who do the same thing here > > on Fairfield Life. > > > > Such people have clearly nominated themselves (in their > > own heads, that is) as "defenders of the faith," as some > > kind of "dharmic warrior" whose Purpose In Life is to > > find some way to demonize and perform character assassin- > > ation on those heretics who laugh at All Things TM. You > > can *tell* how *involved* they are with what they see as > > their "dharma," simply by watching the hatred creep into > > the comments they make, and by noticing the gloating > > behavior they trot out when they think they've delivered > > some "zinger" that makes them (and thus their "side") > > look good, and that makes the critic (and thus "the > > other side") look bad. > > > > Such people have a tendency to declare "victory" after > > having done something that most people would consider > > mere ego-preening, behavior that would be embarrassing > > in Jr. High School students. But to the unpaid volunteer > > dharmic warriors, getting into long, convoluted arguments > > with someone who represents "evil" while they represent > > "good" is as noble a pursuit as Arjuna going out to kill > > his own relatives on the equally ego-driven battlefields > > of the Bhagavad Gita, simply because he was told to by > > the leader of *his* cult. > > > > This behavior seems to me to be the ultimate definition > > of what it is to be a cultist. Anyone who thinks and acts > > like this is *by definition* more than a little attached > > to the things or people they believe they are "defending." > > Anyone who gets into pissing contests like this, and who > > bases their *own* self worth on how effectively they've > > put down one of their (and thus their org's) "enemies" > > has *by definition* a host of ego problems. > > > > It would be one thing if these people were actually being > > PAID by the organizations in question to do this. But > > they're not. They're doing it for their *own* ego reasons. > > *Their* egos are the ones inflated and made stronger every > > time they chalk up what they believe to be a "win." *Their* > > attachments get strengthened every time they "do battle." > > > > I think it's all very sad. And I've seen spiritual or > > religious organizations in which this behavior *would never > > be tolerated*. If anyone in a position of power with those > > organizations ever caught one of their followers doing > > such stuff, they would come down on them hard, and do > > everything in their power to get them to stop behavior > > that is, after all, perceived by most people without a > > "horse in the race" as Just Fucking Embarrassing. Such > > organizations I would not necessarily class as cults. > > > > But the organizations that actually support or *encourage* > > such behavior, and that *applaud* it (such as $cientology > > and the TMO), them I would definitely class as cults. > > > > How can you tell when you're in danger of becoming a cultist? > > > > When you believe that by doing verbal "battle" with someone > > who criticizes the things you believe, you're doing something > > "positive" or life-supporting. > > > > How can you tell that the organization in whose name you're > > doing these things is a cult? > > > > When the organization itself or its followers applaud you or > > hold you in some kind of esteem for doing them. > > >
