--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "geezerfreak" > <geezerfreak@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <rorygoff@> > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], 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.:-)
Wow, you high and mighty types sound like you're experiancing some roughness of awareness. Feel the body Jimbo. BTW the last time I saw Barry was nearly 30 years ago. We did not get high together...last time I did that was when I was in high school. My what assumptions you make for someone as fully realized as you claim to be.
