--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > > > "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > why you refuse to do such a simple
> > > > > thing as supply some URLs that you claim
> > > > > already to have found.
> > > > 
> > > > And this is important, or even interesting, because ?
> > > 
> > > Oh, if blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy are of
> > > no concern to you, I guess it wouldn't be.
> > 
> > Thats a pretty big disconnect. If blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy
> > were manfiestly core issues here, it might be of interest. Though
> > labeling people, just for the sake of labeling, can get to be quite
> > boring and IMO non-productive. 
> > 
> > In my view I don't see "blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy" -- but
> > oddly, I do see some petty obsessions. I remember when Vaj first 
> > made the statement. It was not exactly earth shattering. A quick
> > observation of some momentary interest. Not the kind of thing that
> > would affect ones world view.
> > 
> > Then I remember your correction: it wasn't a bunch of quick rich
> > schemes after all, it was Fred G.s book. Curious, I did a search
> > myself. The first page was filled with what looked like get rich 
> > quick schemes based on do less accomplish more (or do nothing 
> > accomplish everything). Upon closer examination, I saw they all 
> > related to Fred's book. So my take away was, you were both correct 
> > in reporting your perceptions. You, Judy, were technically correct. 
> > Vaj, it was clear to me, made a perceptual or cognitive error, as
I initially did, and reported what he thought he saw. Not a big deal.

> Mm-hm.  And yet, had it been just a mistake, after
> I made my post reporting on Gratzon's book, you'd
> think Vaj would have double-checked and then retracted
> his claim.  *Then* it would not have been a big deal;
> anybody can make a careless mistake like that.
> But he didn't.  Instead he came up with all kinds of
> crap, 

I took it as Vaj playing with you. Knowing that if he obsuficated a
bit, you would tend towards imploding in obsession. Barry enjoys such
toying also. Perhaps not the noblest of traits, but maybe they are
students of the behavioral sciences and love to see small pieces of
bait repeatedly taken and watch the predictable drama unfold.


> (The point of the exercise,
> of course, having been to suggest that TMers are
> greedily preoccupied with making money and thus
> vulnerable to get-rich-quick schemes, especially if
> they're advertised using TM slogans.)

>From I have seen in 35+ years,in and around the movement:

1) TM teachers and govs are often preoccupied with making money quickly.

2) TM teachers and govs are often open to "magical thinking", often 
lack much critical evaluation, logic and analytical skills,  and
therefore are vulnerable to get-rich-quick schemes.  

3) TM teachers and govs are often have talked the talk of incredible
undemonstrated stuff for so long, using TM slogans and lingo, that BS
 can often make great sense to them "hey its just like ....". They do
draw parallels and analogies as if this were a proof. And worse yet,
often the analogies are to nebulous, abstract unproven stuff to begin
with from TMO-world.

> What we know *for sure* is that having been informed
> of his error, Vaj first threw down a red herring of
> Fairfield get-rich-quick schemes, then when that   
> didn't work, attempted to stonewall and pretend that
> there indeed were such sites but that somehow I was
> too incompetent to find them.

Or he was playing with you. Lots of possible interpretations here. You
may know it "for sure" -- just as we all claim to believe our
interpreation of things, becasue they so clearly "makes sense", it
obviously (to us) is correct.
> Now, I don't know what your standards are for blatant
> dishonesty, but the above more than meets mine, even
> if Vaj's original claim was just a dumb mistake.

Yes, your threshold is way way lower than mine.

> It's not like anybody here is testifying on such
> important matters.  But Vaj *does* "testify" about
> matters that are important to many here, quite a 
> few of whom seem to consider him to be a font of
> authoritative information.

And we all take what he says, as with what anyone else says, with some
grains of salt, based on OUR own appraisal of their tendency towards
veracity. How you evealuate Vaj's tendency towards veracity is really
of little consequence and interest to me. And I would guess most. We 
can and do make our own appraisals. 

> So it appears to me to be important to know that he
> is willing to lie in the service of his agenda, 

Or he sometimes plays with people, throws out some bait to see if the
age old patterns emerge.

> and
> accordingly take other pronouncements that he makes
> about MMY and TM and the TMO --and quite possibly
> other things as well--with a good-sized salt shaker
> handy.

We all have our salt shakers. But if anything, your focus on this
incident gives Vaj more credibiliy not less, in my view of him. It
makes me think, "if this is the worst she an dig up on Vaj, and this
seems so trivial, he must be pretty clean".

> I'm happy to have it "revealed" that I am intolerant
> of deliberate falsehood.  

Or your perception of "deliberate falsehood". Belief doesn't
neessarily make it (deliberate falsehood) so. 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to