Dennis. Margaret.
Pigtails in the inkwell. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > There are times when being On The Road and thus > > unable to check FFL regularly is a real blessing. > > I've been back in Santa Fe, gazing at beautiful > > sunsets and sunrises (enjoying one of the latter > > at this very moment, outside the windows of this > > WiFi cafe), having wonderful conversations with > > wonderful people who truly enjoy life and its > > spiritual qualities, even if they're not on a > > formal spiritual path. > > > > And then I come here, and encounter this as the > > second post I read. > > > > What a recommendation for the spiritual path! Over > > 30 years on the path that she and many others con- > > sider the "fastest, most effective pathway to > > enlightenment," and this representative of that > > path comes off like a bitter old woman who has > > so little going on in her life that her idea of > > fun is insulting people and giving them a hard time > > on the Internet. Sure makes lurkers want to invest > > their time and money (especially money) into TM, eh? > > In any other context than dumping on me or another > committed TMer (as I've observed before in similar > contexts), Barry would insist that behavior is not > an indication of spiritual development. > > But when he's particularly unhappy with the way his > life is going and needs to discharge some of his > distress, he "forgets" this principle in order to > be able to craft a putdown of a TMer. > > <snip> > > P.S. In your mind, contrast the innocence and bright- > > ness and joy of the song that sparked this discussion > > with the state of attention manifested by this TM > > True Believer. Shocking, isn't it? > > Perhaps if, instead of this being the second post you > read and then felt moved to comment on, you had gone > back and first absorbed the progression and context, > you would have seen that it was the anti-True Believer > who introduced and perpetuated the ugliness. You > would also have seen that the anti-TB manifested the > qualities you and he and others of your ilk are pleased > to attribute to TBs to a far greater extent than the > TB you're dumping on. > > Not that seeing these things would have moved you > to make a different type of comment that actually > reflected the nature of the discussion, of course. > > Speaking of cognitive dissonance... > > > Thank goodness there are other posters here like Tom > > and Rick and Vaj > > Vaj being the anti-TB I'm referring to above, of > course--the one who claimed that Paul having visited > MMY in Vlodrop was just "unfounded rumor" and > "desperate disinformation," and who, presented with > evidence to the contrary, repeatedly attempted to > distort that evidence to make it conform to his > anti-TB agenda. > > And we all know what a brilliant example of "the > spiritual life" Tom represents. Innocence and > brightness and joy personified. From Tom's > latest: > > "Should you wish to make an ass out of yourself by > responding, do it amongst yourself. I don't read FFL > and I have the fools' email addresses blocked. I have > filters set up with my ISP such that if you try to do > an end run by sending me something nasty from another > email address, your email will get trashed when it > hits my ISP. Besides that, may God bless and keep you." > > > > and Dr. Pete and occasionally Kirk > > and a few others who really *do* seem to have a clue > > as to what constitutes a spiritual life. It makes > > having to don one's hipboots before wading through > > the shit almost worthwhile. :-) > > > > Unc > > > > P.S. In your mind, contrast the innocence and bright- > > ness and joy of the song that sparked this discussion > > with the state of attention manifested by this TM > > True Believer. Shocking, isn't it? > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Dec 2, 2005, at 2:21 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > >>> That doesn't mean he's right, of course, but it does > > > > >>> strongly suggest it's what he believes. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Hey, maybe Paul is a True Believer! > > > > > > > > > > At this point, your initial attempt to claim Paul had > > > > > "seen the light" and was no longer an admirer of MMY > > > > > having crashed and burned rather spectacularly, your > > > > > agenda would be a lot better served by doing a 180 and > > > > > scorning Paul as a TB. > > > > > > > > Uh, I didn't write that. > > > > > > No, dimwit, I did. Then I elaborated on it. > > > > > > > >>> (And maybe the notion of "spiritual incest" is a crock > > > > >>> to begin with, for reasons I've discussed extensively > > > > >>> elsewhere, to no response from Vaj.) > > > > >> > > > > >> If you have a hard time with the phrase, you should take it > up > > > > >> with the spiritual abuse groups who use the phrase. I did > not > > > > >> invent the phrase "spiritual incest", so what am I to > respond > > to? > > > > >> Your denial or your confusion? > > > > > > > > > > I've taken it up with you because you so obviously > > > > > wholeheartedly approve of it, having used it to > > > > > justify labeling MMY a "pervert." > > > > > > > > > > Who invented the phrase is irrelevant. It's a nitwit > > > > > notion, for reasons I've gone into at some length, as > > > > > noted. And unfortunately you won't be able to show > > > > > either denial or confusion in what I wrote. > > > > > > > > Of course it's not a nitwit notion. You've obviously not met > any > > > > of the men and women who were victims of spiritual incest. Very > > > > sad either way. > > > > > > Of course it *is* a nitwit notion, for the reasons I > > > went into at length on alt.m.t, and which, as I've > > > already pointed out, you are obviously completely > > > unable to deal with. Having met "victims" of sexual > > > exploitation by spiritual teachers would not somehow > > > make the notion more reasonable. > > > > > > > > (Just BTW, Vaj, your judicious snipping technique > > > > > may work to obscure context when you're having an > > > > > exchange with someone who gets FFL by email; but > > > > > you should really eschew it with those who read and > > > > > respond on the Web site, who can easily go back and > > > > > restore what you snipped from the earlier post. > > > > > Makes you look, you know, kinda shifty.) > > > > > > > > <sigh> Get a life Judy, you obviously haven't a clue. Please > see > > > > the above example of your own falacious snipping! > > > > > > And where would that be, pray tell? You mean the part > > > at the top where you mistakenly assumed (or claimed to > > > have assumed) *I* mistakenly thought I was quoting you? > > > > > > Speaking of cluelessness... > > > > > > For the record, here's what you snipped (without any > > > indication you had done so) from the post you were > > > responding to: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 2005, at 11:27 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > [Vaj wrote, then snipped:] > > > > > > Maybe you're right and he did not forgive the spiritual > > > > > > incest which took place. > > > > > > > > > > Or maybe he didn't think there had been any, given that > > > > > he has been willing to state in public, on national > > > > > television, that MMY wasn't into "chicks." He didn't > > > > > have to say that; he wasn't *asked* about it by Charlie > > > > > Rose. He volunteered it, in the course of explaining > > > > > why he felt MMY was "the real thing" (also something he > > > > > volunteered). > > > > > > > > Without asking P., we cannot say. I take it to mean he is a > monk, > > > > at least most of the time. > > > > > > He was comparing MMY to "fake" gurus--other monks, or > > > spiritual teachers from whom one would expect chastity. > > > In that context, obviously he was referring to hanky- > > > panky with women of the sort MMY has been accused of: > > > > > > "And he gave us his book, the great wise man, gave us his book, > > > because he was one of the ones that wasn't a fake. There were a > lot > > > of them around that time who were into Rolls Royces and chicks. > And > > > he wasn't one of them." > > > > > > Couldn't be a much clearer statement of Paul's belief > > > that the accusations were false. That you would suggest > > > otherwise is yet more confirmation of your problem with > > > objectivity (or maybe just with honesty). > > > > > > As I said, Paul didn't "forgive" MMY because he didn't > > > think there was anything *to* forgive. > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
