Ha-Ha! I recalled something like that after I posted. So, you only top Barry's 
zero TM meditations by twenty thousand, or so. A pretty impressive delta, 
regardless. Let's watch Curtis wriggle, shall we?   

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > "This is compared to [Judy's] nemesis Barry who was not only certified to 
> > teach it, but promoted through the ranks to supervise other teacher's 
> > presentation of the programs."
> > 
> > Your statement above, Curtis, is both disingenuous, and pretty arrogant. 
> > Doesn't begin to approach the standards of your much vaunted science-y 
> > approach. Here's da fax, jack:
> > 
> > Judy's actual *experience* with TM, since 1970 (43 years ago)
> 
> Doesn't affect your conclusion, DrD, but actually only 
> since 1975, and I can't claim to have been 100 percent
> regular in my practice (although I have been on quite a
> few rounding courses--whether that makes up for the
> sessions I've missed, I have no idea).
> 
> 
>  - Not speculation, not bullshit, not conjecture - 
> > Daily practice x 2 = 31,390 sessions since 1970.
> > 
> > Barry's actual *experience* with TM, since 1970 (43 years ago) - Not 
> > speculation, not bullshit, not conjecture - 
> > Daily practice x 2 = ZERO sessions since 1970.
> > 
> > ZERO TM by Barry in the last *43* years, vs. thirty one thousand, three 
> > hundred and ninety TM sessions by Judy, and yet, you continue to hold up 
> > Barry, as THE EXPERT? 
> > 
> > Now, perhaps you see what I mean about belief (which is all your stance on 
> > Barry's TM expertise is based on), being unhelpful in a current assessment 
> > of reality. 
> > 
> > Barry may be the most prolific bullshitter on here regarding what he thinks 
> > about TM, etc. but despite your supposed focus on how to validate 
> > knowledge, it is plainly obvious to the rest of us, that given his complete 
> > absence of experience with TM over the last four and a half decades, he 
> > does not *know* what he is talking about. Literally.
>


Reply via email to