--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > Hmmm. So criticizing Maharishi means *by definition* > > > that one is "riled up." Did I get that correctly? > > > More below. > > > > Essentially, yes. > > > > > > For some reason, you still find him irritating enough to > > > > write about, in pretty much the same words, over and over and > > > > over again. What is the seed of your discontent? > > > > > > Again, you see "irritating" and "discontent" in the > > > act of criticizing either him or his ideas. To quote > > > you, is that the only choice? > > > > Yes. > > > > > Could it possibly be that I (I can't speak for Curtis) > > > am interested in spiritual groups *in general*, and > > > in the things that people on a spiritual path believe? > > > And, in general, I can talk Maharishi-speak (the TM- > > > specific jargon), so it is easier to talk with other > > > people on *this* spiritual path than, say, Scientology > > > or Sikhs or other groups that have a jargon all their > > > own. I find many of the things that people believe in > > > beyond criticism; but other things I find very definitely > > > deserving of criticism. And when they come up, I criticize > > > them, *just* as I would in a truck driver. > > > > Your choice! I hope you enjoy your Bardo :-) > > > > > > > > > Others on this forum often *perceive* this as an attack. > > > > > > > > Attack, criticism, call it what you will -- a surprisingly large > > > > expenditure of energy for a guy who claims to have left MMY and > > the > > > > movement 30 years ago, don't you think? It looks to me as if he > > is > > > > still very much on your back; very much "special" to you. > > > > > > And I think you're projecting. And here's a test to > > > see whether you are or not. > > > > > > Do me a favor -- go back and find three quotes of mine > > > and three quotes of Curtis' *during the last three > > > months* that you feel are overly critical of Maharishi, > > > and that display the "anger," the "attacks," the "irri- > > > tation" and the "discontent" you speak of. > > > > > > You have accused Curtis and I of speaking in generalities. > > > That's what I think you're doing. Put up or shut up. > > > > > *Don't* speak in generalities. Find three quotes from > > > each of us, during the time period specified, and repost > > > them here. *Then* go through for each one and present > > > the *reasons* that you find them "angry," "attacking," > > > "irritated" and/or "discontented." > > > > No, Barry, I won't. I already tried to do you a favor, to show you > > how to "fight fair" and make statements with personal integrity, and > > thus to avoid making an ass of youself. I've already said that I > > don't have Judy's patience or her tolerance for abuse, and I'm not > > going to go rummaging through the archives to bolster an obvious > > point, all the while ignoring your abuse -- calling my attempts to > > help "cowardly" and "schoolyard bullying," etc. To put it bluntly, I > > love you, but you're thinking and talking like a drunk, and I just > > don't have the time to waste arguing with a drunk. I've already shown > > you the difference between a relatively balanced and an unbalanced > > statement. If that's not good enough for you, so be it. > > > > > > > > I'll wait. > > > > > > I'm genuinely interested in what you find, and why you > > > see it that way. > > > > > > If you *don't* do this, I think I'm justified in ignor- > > > ing *your* criticism in the future, right? Without spec- > > > ifics, your claims are just as generalized as you claim > > > ours are. Produce the quotes you are talking about, not > > > from the distant past, not a general impression you've > > > gotten over a long period of time, but recently, during > > > the last three months. > > > > > > I can think of a couple of comments of mine that you > > > might choose; I'm having trouble remembering any of > > > Curtis' that you might choose. So do this, and then we > > > can continue the discussion. Don't do it, and you can > > > consider the subject dropped, and your comments on > > > this subject in the future ignored. > > > > Carry on in your ignorance regardless; I've apparently given you more > > of my attention than you merit already. > > > > :-) > > Yeah Barry. I wouldn't fuck with Rory. You see our man has DIRECTLY channeled the Avatar > of Synthesis and has achieved such an ultra high state that he can only call it THE RORIAN > TRADITION. > > You can read all about it and him, I mean HIM, at: http://www.artesmagicae.com/ > whatis.htm > > By failing to show HIM the respect due a person of his highness I bet we've screwed up all > chances of worshipping his Rorian feet and making something of ourselves. > > Damn! > You blithely disregard the arrogant and imperious tone of Barry's: "you can consider the subject dropped, and your comments on this subject in the future ignored." and instead focus in on Rory's response?
What's the payoff, because Barry has praised your record collection? Or the two of you have gotten high together? You're only seeing one side of the coin, and its making you into another "c" word, buddy-- chump.:-)
