--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Most of the responses here on Fairfield Life to what > > > you wrote had a clear and unmistakable intent. They > > > were intended to "shoot the messenger" and to demonize > > > you. > > > <snip> In three cases (the ravings of Frank Lotz and Peter > > > Klutz and Nablusos), they did this *literally*, saying > > > explicitly that you were in league with demonic forces. > > > The rest who railed against you here did *exactly* what > > > I suggested a few days ago that TMers With Baggage > > > *would* do in a situation like this, and tried to > > > portray you as somehow DAMAGED, and having something > > > WRONG with you because of what you said. > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > You seem to take the position that TM critics are > > by definition always blameless and always accurate, > > and that therefore any criticism of the critics > > that suggests they are "somehow DAMAGED" or have > > "something WRONG with" them is automatically just > > "baggage," illegitimate. Another absolute, in > > other words, that admits of no distinctions. > <snip> > > As far as you're concerned, the only behavior that > > would *not* reflect badly on MMY would be for his > > supporters either to accept the criticisms of him, > > or to remain silent. > > Agreed. Each of the criticisms of Maharishi and each of the praises > of him, or responses to the criticisms should be judged on their own > merits. I agree that Barry looks pretty one-sided sometimes, as if > he has already made up his mind regarding any responses to a > criticism of Maharishi and what that represents to him. > > I personally responded to Paul's stuff twice. Once to say his phony > question and answer format was what is commonly known as a 'hatchet > job', in other words selectively picking Q & A, designed to reveal > the subject in the worst possible light, and the second time as a > response to the final question and answer posed by Paul, suggesting > that he should perhaps change his name to "Perry Mason", a TV lawyer > who always got his man. Neither response could be characterized as > un-sane or extreme.
Both responses were intended to demonize Paul for writing what he wrote, and for having an opinion that you don't like. The point is, NO RESPONSE WAS NECESSARY. The things he's saying have been said by many for many years. There are a number of strong believers in Maharishi and TM here on this forum who saw the same URL posted that you did, and who were not bothered by it. They didn't respond. Why did you? And why are you now claiming that your intent was NOT to slam Paul, when it obviously was?
