--- In [email protected], "nablusos108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], bob_brigante no_reply@
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "nablusos108" <nablusos108@>
> > wrote:
> > > This little thing, changing a word here and there in a silly
> article,
> > > and all the TM-haters goes bananas. They seem to become more and
> more
> > > desperate as the success from the Invincible America course grows
> > > stronger.
> > >
> > > There is a great purification going on worldwide, and the TM-
> haters
> > > are just in the middle of it.
> > >
> >
> > **************
> >
> > It is because I am not a TM-hater that I object to the pointless
> > rewriting of an article in order to give TMers a distorted view of
> what
> > is going on in the press. This sort of suppression of actual facts
> is
> > typical of weak regimes, like North Korea and other Communist or
> 3rd
> > world dictatorships.
> >
> > The WP article was read by lots of people (their print Sunday
> edition
> > goes to one million, plus however many read their free web
> edition).
> > The invincibleamerica.org site is read by a handful of TMers. So
> > editing out material that the TM PR guys found objectionable has no
> > effect on the public, but is intended merely to make TMers feel
> good
> > about what a great job they are doing spreading good news about TM.
> > This false and self-congratulatory attitude does the TMO no good,
> and
> > sooner or later, when these Scientology-like gimmicks become well-
> known
> > in the media world, TM PR efforts will be derided, just as Stalin's
> > airbrushing of photos to eliminate enemies.
> >
> > Logical and adult people would have written a letter to the editor
> of
> > the WP explaining what TM is (certainly not a breath-control
> technique
> > as described in the article) and ignored mentions of homeopathic
> > remedies,etc. What the TMO gets instead of logical and adult is Bob
> > Roth's pathetic lying...
>
> Agreed. My point is only that it is not much of a big deal. This
> fellow makes a small mistake in his eagerness and them he apologies.
> Why all this agitation over a small thing ?
>
Is the 'corrected' version still posted?
Or has the original been put up?
