Oh please Barry, come on. You got your favorite subject back.
Your Buck, the guy who's "launched a thousand rants". Now, listen, be sure to take everything he says with the utmost seriousness. That's important you know. I mean, you could just ignore him, but what fun would that be! (-: ---In [email protected], <turquoiseb@...> wrote : What was I saying about "cultists," and their self-important ranting against anyone who dares to criticize anything they believe is true? One wonders whether Buck's next step will be to declare them fair game for fatwas and kill a bunch of them, like in the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. He has already said in the past that the people on this forum who say things he doesn't like should have killer drones sent after them. Only weak people and cult fanatics feel that they need to be "protected" from others on a forum that was *created* as a platform for free speech. Those whose beliefs are actually strong would look upon criticism as an opportunity to present those beliefs. From: "dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 3:32 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The title of this article pretty much nails it Yes, Rick Archer should do more to protect Transcendentalists on his FFL yahoo-groups community. Rick does nothing to protect this board here from the abuse and piracy that has gone on here by a few anti-TM-at-all-cost fanatics taking it over acting like those fanatics hammering down those ancient cities... “Militants have recently bulldozed ruins at the Assyrian city of Nimrud and destroyed museum artifacts in Mosul. The destruction of Hatra marks a turning point in the appalling strategy of cultural cleansing under way in Iraq," said Unesco head Irina Bokova in a statement on Saturday. Unesco condemned the destruction of the ancient city and said that it showed the "contempt" that IS has for the history and heritage of the Arab people. IS 'demolishes' ancient Iraqi site http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31779484 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31779484 IS 'demolishes' ancient Iraqi site http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31779484 Islamic State militants are destroying the ruins of the ancient city of Hatra, according to Iraq's tourism and antiquities ministry. View on www.bbc.com http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31779484 Preview by Yahoo ---In [email protected], <richard@...> wrote : There is no denying that these dedicated and diehard nihilists present a distorted view of spiritual FFL, by virtue of their ready availability and eagerness to testify against their former associates and their activities, while at the very same time, indulging in their own brand of cult activity and witholding this information from the group. It's just outrageous! Such respondents always act out of a scenario that vindicates themselves by shifting responsibility for their actions to the others in the conversation. Indeed, such discredited informants can hardly be regarded as reliable sources of news by respondents, readers, or lurkers. In fact many anti-cult cultists are just outright tricksters, and if they lied to you in the past, why would anyone believe them now? LoL! ---In [email protected], <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : Yeah right,, the cultist pot-heads themselves calling the other pots, cultist. Except as the hate-cultists of TM they engage in the same tactics of fanatics waging an assumption about all of those of us who in fact are well adjusted to the dissonances as meditators, dismissing us all as cultists. The irony is large. steve.sundur@...> wrote : You and Michael work from the same playbook on that one, Barry. (-: oh, please don't piss on my leg, Barry, and tell me it's raining. (-: , (-:, (-: Beautiful, beautiful. Spoken by the guy, who on daily basis likes to point out all the inadequacies of India, (for example), not because he gives a rat's ass, about, say rape, (for example), but only because it gives him an opportunity to impugn the spiritual teacher he left 40 years ago. mjackson74@...> wrote : Once again you have expressed it eloquently. turquoiseb@...> wrote : Michael, they *have* to keep asserting that people like you (and me, and Curtis, and Sal) "hate"Maharishi BECAUSE THEY'RE CULTISTS. When they hear someone like us talking about him as if he were not only an ordinary human being, but one for whom we have ZERO respect, it pushes their cultist buttons. They can't help it. Because they still identify so heavily with Maharishi as "their teacher" or Maharishi as "enlightened," they perceive everything negative said against him as hatred and AS AN ATTACK ON THEM PERSONALLY. This is just how cultists think. But interestingly, this unconscious reaction on their part is how the rest of the world *identifies* them *as* cultists. This "gotta shoot the messenger...just gotta...because by attacking us he's attacking ME" reaction is how everyone realizes that $cientologists are cultists, because they simply can't help it. They *always* react this way. Well, so do TMers who haven't gotten over belonging to a cult sufficiently to be comfortable admitting that they belonged to a cult. Attack the cult itself (the TMO), attack its leader (MMY), and for them it's the same as attacking *them*. And the only reason they can come up with for doing that is "hatred." The fascinating thing is that many of the people doing this would say similar things about L. Ron Hubbard that you say about Maharishi -- that he was an unprincipled charlatan who lied to his followers from Day One. They would never for an instant consider themselves "hating" L. Ron Hubbard by doing that...they're just unemotionally stating the facts as they see them. But these SAME people, when we unemotionally say the same things about Maharishi, persist in calling it "hatred" on our part. It's not. It's just facing facts. From: "Michael Jackson mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The title of this article pretty much nails it How is it over the top to say that Borque and Larson's affection for M is misplaced given what he did and specifically to them personally? To characterize someone as an idiot may be over the top, but I didn't say it because you disagreed with me, I said it because you people are telling me I have emotional energy towards an old fraud that I don't have. I am supposed to cozy up to you when you erroneously tell me what I am feeling even when I tell you it isn't so? Thinking about it I have to say you ARE idiots to maintain your stance. Why would I not say so if I did hate the old fraud? I would freely and happily admit it, but it just isn't so. There is a difference in disagreeing with something you say and disagreeing with you characterizing me personally in ways that are untrue. From: "Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:42 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The title of this article pretty much nails it What happens though when MJ calls you an "idiot" because he disagrees with something you post rather than just sayin' he disagrees? Some of the criticism was about MJ being over the top. Some of these were from people who are definitely not TB'ers. On 03/10/2015 12:34 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: From: "Michael Jackson mjackson74@... mailto:mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]> mailto:[email protected] You are so much a better writer than me Turq! You nailed it. This whole thing comes from a comment I made about Judith Borque and Conny Larson still loving Marshy and praising him all these years later and me saying I think their affection was misplaced. From that I was accused of hatred which just isn't true. That's why I chimed in. If you go back to the original post in this thread (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/411775 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/411775?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma&soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma&soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma&soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma) that was my original intention in what I said there, too. The woman writing that article wrote about how she gave Bill Cosby a free pass on having drugged and raped her because she was black and she felt that she'd be "letting black America down if she told the truth." THAT is what people like Feste and LG and Steve and the other cult apologists on this forum do. They *know* the kinds of shitty things that Maharishi did, and that his administrators did in his name. One cannot have been part of the TMO for as long as they were *without* knowing this. But they still can't bring themselves to admit it, IMO because part of them thinks they'll be "letting spirituality down if they tell the truth." So they continue to demonize the critics to try to divert attention away from anyone who *does* tell the truth about him. It's foolish, because by *not* telling the truth they allow shit like the stuff Maharishi pulled off to continue, and thus they *really* let spirituality down. I think they're all cowards. Spoken by the guy, who on daily basis likes to point out all the inadequacies of India, (for example), not because he gives a rat's ass, about, say rape, (for example), but only because it gives him an opportunity to impugn the spiritual teacher he left 40 years ago. mjackson74@...> wrote : Once again you have expressed it eloquently. turquoiseb@...> wrote : Michael, they *have* to keep asserting that people like you (and me, and Curtis, and Sal) "hate"Maharishi BECAUSE THEY'RE CULTISTS. When they hear someone like us talking about him as if he were not only an ordinary human being, but one for whom we have ZERO respect, it pushes their cultist buttons. They can't help it. Because they still identify so heavily with Maharishi as "their teacher" or Maharishi as "enlightened," they perceive everything negative said against him as hatred and AS AN ATTACK ON THEM PERSONALLY. This is just how cultists think. But interestingly, this unconscious reaction on their part is how the rest of the world *identifies* them *as* cultists. This "gotta shoot the messenger...just gotta...because by attacking us he's attacking ME" reaction is how everyone realizes that $cientologists are cultists, because they simply can't help it. They *always* react this way. Well, so do TMers who haven't gotten over belonging to a cult sufficiently to be comfortable admitting that they belonged to a cult. Attack the cult itself (the TMO), attack its leader (MMY), and for them it's the same as attacking *them*. And the only reason they can come up with for doing that is "hatred." The fascinating thing is that many of the people doing this would say similar things about L. Ron Hubbard that you say about Maharishi -- that he was an unprincipled charlatan who lied to his followers from Day One. They would never for an instant consider themselves "hating" L. Ron Hubbard by doing that...they're just unemotionally stating the facts as they see them. But these SAME people, when we unemotionally say the same things about Maharishi, persist in calling it "hatred" on our part. It's not. It's just facing facts. From: "Michael Jackson mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The title of this article pretty much nails it How is it over the top to say that Borque and Larson's affection for M is misplaced given what he did and specifically to them personally? To characterize someone as an idiot may be over the top, but I didn't say it because you disagreed with me, I said it because you people are telling me I have emotional energy towards an old fraud that I don't have. I am supposed to cozy up to you when you erroneously tell me what I am feeling even when I tell you it isn't so? Thinking about it I have to say you ARE idiots to maintain your stance. Why would I not say so if I did hate the old fraud? I would freely and happily admit it, but it just isn't so. There is a difference in disagreeing with something you say and disagreeing with you characterizing me personally in ways that are untrue. From: "Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:42 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The title of this article pretty much nails it What happens though when MJ calls you an "idiot" because he disagrees with something you post rather than just sayin' he disagrees? Some of the criticism was about MJ being over the top. Some of these were from people who are definitely not TB'ers. On 03/10/2015 12:34 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:
