--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for confirming just about everything > I've said, Barry, including in your compiled > quotes. Open-and-shut case.
I think so. In every quote, you were commenting on ME (or Rick, or some other of your "enemies" here), not on any of the issues I/we raised. You rarely even *bother* to address any of the actual points I raise any more; you just use them as a springboard to attack ME again. In the case of the blurb I wrote about the discrimination technique I described today, you seem to not even *diagree* with it. What you did was use it as an excuse to attack my character and ME again. So did Lawson. ( Llundrub at least had the courtesy to disagree with *what* I said, *before* having a bash at ME. :-) Do you honestly feel that this trend -- and it IS a trend; ask anyone here, including your supporters -- reflects well upon all that you've supposedly learned from Maharishi and your own TM practice for over thirty years? If so, I wish you a long and happy life pursuing this trend, and hope that it takes you where you think it will. Me, I have my doubts that you'll end up where -- and as what -- you're expecting. > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> 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." > > >
