On Nov 25, 2006, at 6:08 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: > --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> Any way you look at it, it's seriously dishonest. >> I'm really even amazed that anybody from the TMO >> even bothered to address it. > > Bingo. > > That's the interesting part about this, isn't it? > > In all the years I was a part of the TM movement > (which admittedly is a long time ago), I never > saw any of the movement higher-ups the *least* > bit concerned about what the peons (those who > were not at the Center, in Seelisberg) thought > about their decisions and their policies. It > just wouldn't have come up.
And it pretty much still doesn't, for the most part. > > What I'm wondering -- out of curiosity, not > rancor -- is whether the recent inability of the > movement to inspire enough people to drop every- > thing and go to the IA course might have shaken > things up a bit? Probably that, and who knows what else. > > I mean, at least when I was a part of it, being > at the top meant that everyone below you in the > hierarchy pretty much did as they were told to > do. Call for a "drop everything" course and they > did, no questions asked. Sure, but usually not for the reasons the TMO advanced. They were big social bashes, and most of us wanted to go. > > Now the peons are asking questions. It must be > putting a few people at the top of the attention > chain through a few changes. Let's hope! Sal
