--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2006, at 11:19 AM, authfriend wrote: > > >>> Again, we'd have to know exactly what MMY said, but > >>> it isn't inconceivable he meant the molecules were > >>> built from particles that were already available. > >>> > >>> Finally, at what point did MMY use this notion as > >>> a "sales ploy" for TM? > >> > >> Quantum physics is constantly used as a marketing ploy for the > >> TMO. > > > > No, you used "Substance M" as an example. I'm asking > > when MMY used that notion as a "sales ploy" for TM. > > Substance M was not used as an example of a marketing ploy.
C'mon, Vaj, you used it as an example of the TMO's thinking about quantum mechanics and spirituality, and you've characterized that thinking as a "sales ploy" for TM. > > See, this is why it's hard to take seriously anything > > you say about what somebody else has said or what they > > meant. Not only have I not claimed to "believe much of > > this," I said explicitly only that I found certain > > premises *plausible*. About others I've said explicitly > > only that I *don't rule them out*. > > Typical Judy response, play dumb. This is not what I was referring > to--I was referring to your admission that you accepted that TM was > a form of 'technology of the Unified Field'. If that is your > belief, why should I want to try to change that? I accept that this > is your belief. Sorry, Vaj, but this is you being disingenuous. Here's what you wrote that I was responding to (which --big surprise!--you snipped): "Quantum physics is constantly used as a marketing ploy for the TMO. It's been used for the siddhis, the doshas, TM, the TMSP, higher states of consciousness, world peace, economics, etc. It's a long list. "Since you already claim to believe much of this, it's senseless for me to try to convince you otherwise." After I pointed out that I had *not* claimed to believe "much of this," you went back over the exchange to try to find *one* thing I said that I didn't qualify, and cite it now as if it had been what you were referring to, when it obviously was not--it didn't even have anything to do with quantum mechanics. (Not only that, but the reason I didn't *have* to qualify that particular statement was that it's a matter of definition, of both terms. It doesn't really say anything in and of itself. Your question that I was responding to was essentially meaningless.) > With response such as these, why should I waste my time? That's always your cop-out, Vaj, when you're challenged about anything. You love to make sweeping accusatory statements, but you're never willing to do the mental work necessary to stand up for them when they're questioned. You evade and throw around non sequiturs and obfuscate and misrepresent until you find you've backed yourself into a corner, then you claim you don't want to "waste your time" having an actual discussion. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/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/
