--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > I would think the more relevant question to the > > technique I've been talking about is what did YOU > > think of seeing your words alongside the others in > > that post, and presented as if you and your words > > represented TM and Maharishi? > > You didn't ask me, but I'll tell you: I thought > the person who presented the quotes, shorn of their > context, as if the posters and their words > represented TM and Maharishi, was in a very, very, > *very* low state of attention--far lower than the > posters themselves when they wrote what he posted, > and lower even than when he penned the vicious attacks > that many of the posters were responding to. > > The whole project was bottom of the barrel, state- > of-attention-wise, including his bleating and chest- > beating about it on FFL, which so clearly revealed > the real motivation behind it: to intimidate TM > supporters, especially his critics, into shutting up. > No, wait, the real motivation wasn't just bottom of > the barrel, it was way *beneath* the barrel. > > The one positive aspect to it was that it exposed > the ugly depths of this person's habitual state of > attention.
No comment. Quotes of yours from the next issue, when/if I ever feel like posting it. No comment on them, either: "He's [TM critic, the compiler of this list of quotes] never been able to handle challenges to his opinions; his freakouts typically occur when he's been getting more opposition than usual. This time I think there's just been too much of it for him to deal with. Whether alcohol is exacerbating things, who knows?" "I think he [the compiler of this list, on which her quotes appear consistently, and about which quotes he has made absolutely no comment] may be having a breakdown. He's always had periodic freakouts, but I've never seen him in such a manic, irrational tizzy." Same person: "Wanted to add that I'm pretty sure B doesn't behave like this [that is, quoting *her* words and those of others like her] in his everyday life. Internet forums are an outlet so that he *doesn't* behave like a monster otherwise." Same person, after writing dozens of lines 'analyzing' the person who had done nothing more than quote her, and other TMers like her, and who didn't respond to her 'analysis' except to collect more of her quotes: "I'm sure he'll 'intuit' some conclusions about me right back. Y'all can decide which of us has the clearer mind..." Responding to the person who suggested that this series of quotes be archived, two different long-term TMers: -- "You just outed yourself, R." -- "Just what I was thinking. Moral vacuum time." Responding to a person who had said: "No one has any higher moral ground here." -- "Only someone who, like R [founder of the TM-related forum on which criticism of TM is allowed], is living in a moral vacuum could say such a thing. P.S. Sod off." "B, all of us--including yourself--understand what you're attempting here: you're trying to shut your critics up and suppress the pro-TM viewpoint--the views of the people you have declared to be 'interlopers' on this forum. R approves of this tactic. That speaks for itself." Same person, a few minutes later: "Geez, I certainly don't think it will shut anyone up, least of all me! I'm pointing out that this is what *B* is hoping his quote-posting will accomplish." "B. Heads up, dood. What you're doing is *transparent*. You aren't fooling anybody. All your 'encouragement' for us to keep posting is part of the scheme. *Of course* you're going to deny you're trying to silence us." After having made over a dozen posts on three different Internet forums complaining about her words being supposedly being quoted out of context here: "But I'm not 'upset' about it, to the contrary. B hasn't identified the posters, and if anyone did a search on the words in the quotes to find out who wrote them, they'd also see the context. The point is that it's one of B's typically dishonest tactics. I mention it because it reflects so badly on *him*." Same person, a few minutes later, still not upset: "P.S.: He's even gone so far with some of the quotes as to provide what he *claims* to be context, except that it deliberately misrepresents the actual context. Most people are smart enough not to take seriously isolated quotes collected by someone who obviously has an axe to grind, even if they don't know how dishonest B is. And B's smart enough to know this too. It's just that he's not smart enough to realize his grandstanding here gives the game away and makes it clear that the exercise is aimed at the TMers on FFL, his critics in particular." Cross reference to this post of mine: In recent exchanges, Jim has suggested that I have some kind of "LIST" of enlightened behaviors, ways that the enlightened are "supposed" to act. I've been pondering that, and I really don't think that's the case. But I did notice that I have one criterion for non- enlightenment (not to mention not being a terribly interesting human being) that is pretty consistent. It may well *be* my own hangup or samskara or baggage, but there you jolly well are, aren't you? I make no apologies for it. The thing that I see as a tipoff that someone is not very evolved is when they react to ideas and beliefs that run counter to their own -- or that challenge their own -- by being ANGRY at the person who spoke or wrote these "heretical" ideas, and by wanting to HURT the person who spoke or wrote them. There is a LOT of this on Fairfield Life, and in the TM movement. Just look at the *trend* of the quotes I collected in THINGS TMers BELIEVE. The common denominator of most of those quotes is that the people who wrote them were reacting *angrily* to someone who had done nothing more than believe something that they don't believe, and these people were *reacting* to the things that were said by trying to cast aspersions on the character of the person who said them. Some expressed their anger by saying that the person who expressed these ideas was "damaged." The person who believes something different is characterized as a drunk, or addicted to coffee, or a demon, or in league with demonic forces, or on the payroll of some nefarious organization that wants to fuck with the beliefs of the "special" or more highly-evolved souls who are doing the char- acter assassination. Others expressed their anger by trying to make a case for the person who said some things that run counter to their beliefs as being a person who has no credibility. He's a chronic liar, his motives are to make money, he's stupid or non-logical, etc. But the bottom line is the anger and the hostility. And to me, Yes, that seems an inappropriate response to the fairly *normal* situation of encountering someone who believes different things than you do. The people I look up to or revere for their equan- imity *don't* react with anger and hostility when they encounter beliefs that run counter to their own, or that directly challenge their own. They're somehow *OK* with "different strokes for different folks." Yes, in one sense Jim is correct in that this is my own possibly artificial construct. But I'm content with it, and feel no need to apologize for it. If I were to create a spectrum of "being enlightened or close to it," or of "acting in a highly evolved manner," those who DO react angrily and with hostility to those who believe different things than they do are gonna be ranked at the low end of it. Whereas those who react with tolerance and humor are gonna be ranked at the high end of it. Me, I'm all over the spectrum, but then I make no claims to be either highly evolved or enlightened or Self Realized. I'm just an Ordinary Guy, trying to make sense of life as best I can. But when I encounter people who *do* claim to be somehow "special" or more highly evolved because they're TMers, or because they're Self Realized, and they *consistently* react to Other People's Beliefs with anger and hostility... well, sorry, but I'm always gonna react to their self-assessment of themselves as "special" or highly evolved with a hearty, "Yeah, right."
