"was in a very, very, *very* low state of attention-" That's a new one. Is this like when a chick points to her eyes and says, "My eyes are up here buster"?
The one positive aspect to it was that it exposed > the ugly depths of this person's habitual state of > attention. Is this the same as having a lower state of consciousness? Or is it more like slouching? Or should I just sod off now? --- 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. >
