There should be rules against posting willful malicious defamation like MJ quite evidently does publicly on the internet, as on FFL. Actually there are some group rules: “Don't be unkind. Exploitative or degrading comments are not welcome in Groups. Also not welcome are belligerence, insults, slurs, profanity.. ” Yep, MJ's is pure and methodical malicious defamation of a spiritual people and group, with intent.
Punditster writes MJ: You sound kind of defensive this morning! Why not just admit that you are a fink and an informant trying to cause trouble by planting false-flag messages and reporting to Barry the science writer? Go figure. His just saying that good peer-review published science on meditation and spirituality is no good is evident ignorant hogwash. It is part of his defaming of TM pure and simple. What he publishes is not even grey-water, it is pure straight manure runoff. -Buck Look, his first facts as premise in these recent attempts at historical fiction are simply wrong. For instance, Bevan actually has lost weight. -Buck MJ posts innuendo? Way more than that, what MJ posts is pure and straight defamation. -Buck sharelong60 writes: Michael, you used innuendo to make two very damaging allegations about a leader of the TMO. I simply asked if you were actually accusing that person of those allegations. punditster writes: salyavin808 wrote: sharelong60 writes: Michael, it sounds like you're accusing John Cowig of starting that fire. Are you? How would a court see it? If it wasn't just a load of mythologising crap dreamt up by someone in the TMO that is. I'm just going to accuse someone, somewhere of bullshitting. If Marshy could see into the future I think the TMO would have worked out a lot differently... Straw man argument. For those unfamiliar with the term, a straw man argument is a common type of argument that someone brings out to intentionally misrepresent the original topic of the argument. If two people are arguing and one person is losing dramatically, they may attempt to subtly change what the argument was about in the first place. The logic is that, if the person can't win the argument on his or her own merits while discussing the original topic, perhaps they would have better luck by changing the topic being talked about altogether. It's a common tactic among the anonymous people who argue about religion on social media. mjackson74 writes: 20 minutes before the fire started??? How the hell did he know it was going to start in 20 minutes unless he started it himself? And wasn't it nice of him to make sure the meditators got out but not the non-meditators? True age of enlightenment behavior. From: nablusoss1008 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 5:21 PM Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] The Meissner Effect of Consciousness and its spiritual Darshan The Dawn of a New Age "I don’t remember whether anyone died it in, but it was serious. People were clinging to balconies and had to be rescued with fire truck ladders." Some non-meditators were hurt in the fire. Forgot his name, but Maharishis smallish, friendly Canadian secretary rushed into the hotel 20 minutes before the fire started, ran through the corridors on all floors and ordered everyone out immediately. All meditators got out unhurt.
