I have been practising transcendental meditation regularly for well over three decades now, but that has not made me a 'true believer'. But, I am a firm believer about one thing at least and that is in using proper methodology for the purposes of detection work.
The whole sex scandal story about MMY has made extremelely dodgey reading since the first claims filtered through into the public domain, and the stories have sounded no more clear as time has gone on. Now to assume MMY's 'guilt' on the basis of third-hand material is very faulty. So for me the problem I have with the 'Sexy Sadie' file is not about whether it has been published, just that it does not 'scan' well. In fact many years ago I had the same feeling about Erik Von Daniken's books, and then I watched a documentary which took his claims apart and then confronted the man (who wriggled uncomfortably, made a few shifty comments and retreated into silence looking very frightened indeed). In the case of the allegations about MMYs sexuality it is not that I disbelieve all the claims made, just that I doubt MMY ever had actual sexual intercourse with a woman (however close he might have come). Actually, for the record, I suspect that most if not all the material currently circulating about MMYs alleged sexuality has been put about solely to discredit MMY, simple as that, a rather ramshackle attempt at cocking a snoot at him, rather than an orchestrated attack, but perhaps a mixture of both. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Mason" <premanandpaul@> > wrote: > > > > > But perhaps Peter is correct when he > > > suggested the problem lies in the fact that the core topics about > >> TM > > > & MMY have already been dealt with, over and over again. > > > > > > WEeelllll.... > > > The stuff that has already been dealt with is often dealt with in a > > piss-poor manner. > > Peter and Paul are referring to quite a large volume of posts written > prior to your arrival. Did you go through the archives and read them all? > > ... > > > My impression is, this turns out to be the quality of reference that > > people here use to hash > > out these points "over and over again." > > Opps. Your impression? You mean you are saying a generally wonderful > set of posts and exchanges, and/or their references, is piss-poor -- > and you have not even read them? Oh My! > > > BTW, Wiki isn't considered the most reliable of online sources of > info, and by Wiki rules, > > NONE of the Sexy Sadie files is admissable as a reference because > it's not published > > anywhere. > > I assume Wiki would not rely on your impressions either. Since they > are um "piss-poor". > > But your Wiki reference is instersting. Is your logic stream leading > you to conclude that if something is not published, it is unreliable? > If not, why did you bring up the Wiki reference? > > Do you know what is in your refrigerator? Or what your GF, if and when > you have one, likes? Are these things published anywhere? Is your > informatin for such matters relaible? > 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/
