--- In [email protected], "feste37" <feste37@...> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, in his zeal to denounce TM, MJ has become
> a bigot. He attacks Crowley simply because she is a TMer.
You mean sorta like the way that some people here are
defending her just because she is a TMer? :-)
Never get between a TMer and one of the celebrities
that they use to sell an overpriced relaxation technique.
I've stayed out of this because I don't even know who
the fuck Candy Crowley IS, and have no need to. She
(I assume it's a she) doesn't represent *anything* to
me. Why do you think (as you so obviously do in the
sentences below) that she represents TM? Could it
possibly be because she's one of the endless numbers
of celebrity shills the TMO has used to sell its
products for so many years?
I would think that the thing that should be questioned
is NOT what this person's views on rape are, but WHY
anyone should consider learning TM because she (or
anyone else) has become associated with it. That's
just DUMB. The Beatles *never* stopped doing drugs
(Paul finally claimed that he quit only about a year
ago), but people are still trying to use the surviving
ones to sell TM.
WHAT exactly differentiates TM from $cientology, which
*also* uses celebrity spokesidiots to sell its products?
All of this said, if a person is silly enough to *become*
the celebrity shill for some product that claims to
produce perfect thinking and perfect action, then if
their thinking and actions *aren't* anyone's idea of
perfect (like Girish's recently revealed endeavors),
t'would seem to me that one has a right to challenge
the product they're shilling for. You can't have it
both ways.
Seems to me that while MJ is admittedly more than a
little carried away by his overfocus on a dying
meditation movement, you are increasingly becoming
the classic example of a Cultist, attacking *him*
rather than dealing with some of his arguments. You
might consider a fishing trip of your own.
> Is that any better than attacking someone for being
> a Catholic, or Mormon, or a Jew? Let's suppose that
> someone is angry at the Catholic Church ("Those
> priests are all child molesters!") and then finds
> a news presenter who happens to be Catholic and
> attacks them for something innocuous they said,
> when his real purpose is to display anti-Catholic
> bigotry. Poor MJ seems to be in a state of
> permanent rage and righteous indignation, and
> bigotry is the result. I wish he would go fishing
> or something to calm down.
