"Curtis and Barry have a jolly good time bashing me by name." "Bashing you" huh? So much for your own "wonderfully > finely honed sense of ethics."
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > ><snip> > > I posted your message in FFL a few days ago. Here are > > some responses: > > Thanks so much, Rick, for forwarding to your > two FF correspondents a post in which Curtis > and Barry have a jolly good time bashing me > by name. Both of them, needless to say, had > egregiously misrepresented the post of mine > they were referring to, but not enough of my > post was quoted for your friends to discern > how off-base Curtis and Barry were. > > But I understand; it would have been way too > much trouble for you to take my name out. > After all, it occurs *three whole times*. > > Just another instance of your wonderfully > finely honed sense of ethics. > > > > <snip> > > > Judy: In my experience, Curtis tends to get all > > > hoity-toity about folks not sticking to the > > > evidence while he often does exactly the > > > same thing he's criticizing. > > > > > > ME: Yes Judy I am both hoity and toity. Your point about > > > evidence is, as I already pointed out, irrelevant since > > > I was using his own words as the basis for my opinions. > > > He was the one who suggested that even though Rick didn't > > > seem to express his list of negative emotions he still > > > had them. > > > > And that he has been TAUGHT -- systematically, for > > decades -- to think this way. That is part and parcel > > of Maharishi's teaching about "doubts" about him and > > about TM. It's a form of mind control in which the > > student is TAUGHT to regard any deviation from the > > dogma as "bad" and as some kind of "attack" against > > those who "know the truth." The guy is just DOING > > WHAT HE HAS BEEN TOLD TO DO. So, in my > > opinion, is Judy. That they don't *understand* this > > makes the behavior they are exhibiting even more > > pathetic, and even more deserving of pity. > > > > > You are the one who is making a big deal about evidence, my > > > point was about personal attacks instead of discussing ideas. > > > You missed my points completely in your weird focus on an > > > irrelevant point. > > > > But that is how they (anyone who regularly indulges > > in ad hominem when confronted with ideas they don't > > like) have been TAUGHT to act. They're *literally* > > doing what they have been taught to do by their > > spiritual teacher. They have seen *him* do it so > > many times over the years that they have come to > > believe that it is not only acceptable, but admir- > > able. They're mimicking *Maharishi's* behavior. > > > > > The most interesting thing for me from this exchange with you > > > is what you have chosen to focus on in an otherwise interesting > > > discussion. > > > > Bingo. What you focus on, you become. > > > > > Once again you have missed the main points of the discussion > > > while you pursue your own inexplicable agenda. > > > > The only point I'm trying to interject into the > > discussion is that the agenda here is NOT inexplicable. > > It's very clear. It has to do with a technique of mind > > control that can be described as, "Teach your students > > to regard and react to any ideas that are counter to > > the ones they've been taught to believe as if those > > ideas themselves are an 'attack,' as if the person who > > has those ideas is an 'attacker,' and as if the person > > has somehow declared 'war' on those who 'think rightly.' > > In war anything is permissible, so it's is not only 'Ok' > > to trash the person who has expressed these unacceptable > > ideas using ad hominem attacks, it is one's 'duty' as a > > spiritual being to do so." > > > > These people have been TRAINED to use ad hominem, and > > to view the use of it as a spiritual exercise. I'm sorry, > > but that's pathetic, as are they. >
