--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> 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.
(Actually, Paul's post is not titled "My Opinion About MMY," it's titled "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - Separating Fact From Fiction.") > 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? Thanks, Barry. Couldn't ask for a better demonstration of the spot-on accuracy of what I said above: 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. > And why are you now claiming that your intent was > NOT to slam Paul, when it obviously was? That isn't what Jim said, Barry. Read it again.
