[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Barry has really missed your fluffing services, navashok. I'm sure he's very glad to see you. (mercy snip of navashok's catastrophic own-goal) Except that my knowledge is more than just superficial beginner level, and my understanding is better than that of some teachers. Then talk about it, and don't always withdraw to the most official and most common texts from the TM websites. I do and have done so often, as you know. In this case it was appropriate for me to document my points. No, you don't document your points, you *escape* with standard stereotype phrases. You neglect valid points which come from a place of greater knowledge and play stupid innocent. That's what you do. Gosh, that's an impressive-sounding analysis. Too bad it isn't true. You can never compare the type of involvement she has and had with that of some more dedicated people, who were involved on the organizational level, for several years, had direct interactions with a teacher (Maharishi), even if this is decades ago, it is more revealing and rich than just plain-vanilla- TM-consumerism and I-know-all-TM-teachings-by-heart. And I've never claimed my knowledge goes beyond what is taught to the rank-and-file and what I've picked up from teachers on this and other Web forums. Oh, and during my stay at the TM facility in Asbury Park back in '95-'96. That always makes me laugh when you mention that. Keep mentioning it in 10 more years. You should only know how it makes *me* laugh when you pretend something is funny but decline to say why. Do you have *any* idea how transparent you are? Well, if it's so transparent, Not it, *you*. why don't you laugh with me? I guess you don't understand what transparent means in this context. Another way of saying it is that you're very easy to see through. Make sense now? I mean do you still keep track of time somehow? You know, even Robin was clear about this: you not having been a TM teacher, can not really fathom what the TM movement was then and now. Of course I can't. I've never disputed this (and nobody had to tell me about it either). Robin obviously felt he had to. You thought he was saying this for *my* benefit, because *I* needed to hear it? LOL. Because TM teachers had a better insight into the movement, they couldn't be as naive as the 'rank and file', and were therefore more easily disillusioned. I have no doubt. Then you should give both Curtis and Barry some credit for it, rather than supporting the utterly dump arguments of Doc and little Nabby. (Dumb, not dump.) Actually (as you know) I rarely support DrD's and Nabby's arguments. And in any case, it isn't Barry's and Curtis's disillusionment I go after; they have a right to that. It's their arrogance and hubris. You just couldn't look at the whole thing the same way, if you knew more, Not only do you not know how I'm looking at it, you don't even know what my dispute with Curtis was about. Even though this may come as a surprise to you, but I am able to read. Your comprehension of written English isn't anywhere near as good as you think it is. If you disagree, tell us how you think I'm looking at the whole thing, and what my dispute with Curtis was about. Oh, yeah, I know, you try to make these exchanges unreadable, you try very hard at it, sometimes somebody still reads it. LOL. and were let into more secrets, and Maharishi would sometimes let those secrets out, sometimes in the middle of the night in Noida, when everybody was half asleep. These self-classification tests were being done, as to being clear or hazy transcendence, or clear ritam or hazy ritam. The problem is not, that you weren't there, or that you didn't have the opportunity to be on those courses. The problem is really that you play the movement spokesman on the basis of those superficial public statements, that you play out the PR spin. Now that is superficial. Not true on any count. I don't play movement spokesman, I play a long-time TMer who watches the movement from afar; I rarely cite TMO public statements; my interest isn't in PR but in accuracy; and since none of what you say is even *true*, it can't be said to be superficial. I'll get to your silly sutra post later. There is really nothing you have in hand about it. In hand about it? I don't know what that's supposed to mean. It's a silly post with nothing substantive in it. If I may say something more esoteric here, for me Judy is still a young soul, despite
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
Judy - And in any case, it isn't Barry's and Curtis's disillusionment I go after; they have a right to that. It's their arrogance and hubris. Thank you for clarifying that, not that I needed just stressing it hoping it helps others - especially those who are hell bent on twisting and manipulating your words - yeah you know who you are.. bastards..LOL.. On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 4:42 PM, authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Barry has really missed your fluffing services, navashok. I'm sure he's very glad to see you. (mercy snip of navashok's catastrophic own-goal) Except that my knowledge is more than just superficial beginner level, and my understanding is better than that of some teachers. Then talk about it, and don't always withdraw to the most official and most common texts from the TM websites. I do and have done so often, as you know. In this case it was appropriate for me to document my points. No, you don't document your points, you *escape* with standard stereotype phrases. You neglect valid points which come from a place of greater knowledge and play stupid innocent. That's what you do. Gosh, that's an impressive-sounding analysis. Too bad it isn't true. You can never compare the type of involvement she has and had with that of some more dedicated people, who were involved on the organizational level, for several years, had direct interactions with a teacher (Maharishi), even if this is decades ago, it is more revealing and rich than just plain-vanilla- TM-consumerism and I-know-all-TM-teachings-by-heart. And I've never claimed my knowledge goes beyond what is taught to the rank-and-file and what I've picked up from teachers on this and other Web forums. Oh, and during my stay at the TM facility in Asbury Park back in '95-'96. That always makes me laugh when you mention that. Keep mentioning it in 10 more years. You should only know how it makes *me* laugh when you pretend something is funny but decline to say why. Do you have *any* idea how transparent you are? Well, if it's so transparent, Not it, *you*. why don't you laugh with me? I guess you don't understand what transparent means in this context. Another way of saying it is that you're very easy to see through. Make sense now? I mean do you still keep track of time somehow? You know, even Robin was clear about this: you not having been a TM teacher, can not really fathom what the TM movement was then and now. Of course I can't. I've never disputed this (and nobody had to tell me about it either). Robin obviously felt he had to. You thought he was saying this for *my* benefit, because *I* needed to hear it? LOL. Because TM teachers had a better insight into the movement, they couldn't be as naive as the 'rank and file', and were therefore more easily disillusioned. I have no doubt. Then you should give both Curtis and Barry some credit for it, rather than supporting the utterly dump arguments of Doc and little Nabby. (Dumb, not dump.) Actually (as you know) I rarely support DrD's and Nabby's arguments. And in any case, it isn't Barry's and Curtis's disillusionment I go after; they have a right to that. It's their arrogance and hubris. You just couldn't look at the whole thing the same way, if you knew more, Not only do you not know how I'm looking at it, you don't even know what my dispute with Curtis was about. Even though this may come as a surprise to you, but I am able to read. Your comprehension of written English isn't anywhere near as good as you think it is. If you disagree, tell us how you think I'm looking at the whole thing, and what my dispute with Curtis was about. Oh, yeah, I know, you try to make these exchanges unreadable, you try very hard at it, sometimes somebody still reads it. LOL. and were let into more secrets, and Maharishi would sometimes let those secrets out, sometimes in the middle of the night in Noida, when everybody was half asleep. These self-classification tests were being done, as to being clear or hazy transcendence, or clear ritam or hazy ritam. The problem is not, that you weren't there, or that you didn't have the opportunity to be on those courses. The problem is really that you play the movement spokesman on the basis of those superficial public statements, that you play out the PR spin. Now that is superficial. Not true on any count. I don't play movement spokesman, I play a
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: (snip) Nabby, from my side, Judy doesn't need to have any 'serious work' at all with us, she should just leave us alone, relax and enjoy life. I have other things to do, than engage her in meaningless discussions, or be engaged by her. And he wonders why I say he's dishonest... If you don't want to engage with me, Fluffy my boy, try leaving *me* alone. Your most recent attempt to engage with me didn't end so well for you, after all. I'll get to your stupid sutra post tomorrow. Oh thaat one, well, in the olden TM days they used to say, I have transcended it already, it went out of my mind. Judy, do you ever transcend? I think not. Now get your mouth as full as you want, I won't play with you this week. Feel free to speak your soul, say any contrived and twisted bullshit you like, from you brezel mind, feel that you have won every argument, tell lies to your hearts content. I give you free license and won't come back to it, promise. I'd rather ping pong with Share :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxnfBTI3Bzc
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Who's making all that noise over there ?? Oh yes, it's the wannabe-negro :-) LOL! I should form a band with the other two wannabe negroes, and I'll perform with my top hat and shades. Dibs on reincarnating as T-Pain, next time around: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avaSdC0QOUM Haha, there you certainly got two professional wannabe-negros. You see the same thing over here, white kids so desperate wanting to sound and look like hip negros they'll do anything. And I'm sure they think they are artists too :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
Uh oh. navashok, do I owe you an apology? sigh...Anyway, I don't know about eating marshmallows with a mouth full of braces. Could get very sticky. Which is sort of the opposite of fluffy (-: From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 4:43 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: (snip) Nabby, from my side, Judy doesn't need to have any 'serious work' at all with us, she should just leave us alone, relax and enjoy life. I have other things to do, than engage her in meaningless discussions, or be engaged by her. And he wonders why I say he's dishonest... If you don't want to engage with me, Fluffy my boy, try leaving *me* alone. Your most recent attempt to engage with me didn't end so well for you, after all. I'll get to your stupid sutra post tomorrow. Oh thaat one, well, in the olden TM days they used to say, I have transcended it already, it went out of my mind. Judy, do you ever transcend? I think not. Now get your mouth as full as you want, I won't play with you this week. Feel free to speak your soul, say any contrived and twisted bullshit you like, from you brezel mind, feel that you have won every argument, tell lies to your hearts content. I give you free license and won't come back to it, promise. I'd rather ping pong with Share :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxnfBTI3Bzc
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Uh oh. navashok, do I owe you an apology? No, not at all. How comes you think that? sigh...Anyway, I don't know about eating marshmallows with a mouth full of braces. Could get very sticky. Which is sort of the opposite of fluffy (-: Yep, no I just thought you like those 'It's so fluffy references', and regarding the stuffing marshmallows and talking with a full mouth to the point of vomiting, I had somebody else in mind. You could say it is an allegory. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 4:43 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: (snip) Nabby, from my side, Judy doesn't need to have any 'serious work' at all with us, she should just leave us alone, relax and enjoy life. I have other things to do, than engage her in meaningless discussions, or be engaged by her. And he wonders why I say he's dishonest... If you don't want to engage with me, Fluffy my boy, try leaving *me* alone. Your most recent attempt to engage with me didn't end so well for you, after all. I'll get to your stupid sutra post tomorrow. Oh thaat one, well, in the olden TM days they used to say, I have transcended it already, it went out of my mind. Judy, do you ever transcend? I think not. Now get your mouth as full as you want, I won't play with you this week. Feel free to speak your soul, say any contrived and twisted bullshit you like, from you brezel mind, feel that you have won every argument, tell lies to your hearts content. I give you free license and won't come back to it, promise. I'd rather ping pong with Share :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxnfBTI3Bzc
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
I LOVE those fluffy references! And was thinking about ping pong when 2 deer ran in front of my car. I think it's a sign (-: Hmmm, or maybe it's another allegory. Anyway, I'm glad I don't owe apology. I think it was the spewing comment that had me wondering. Not that I think I'm the best FFL spewer by any stretch! From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 7:12 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Uh oh. navashok, do I owe you an apology? No, not at all. How comes you think that? sigh...Anyway, I don't know about eating marshmallows with a mouth full of braces. Could get very sticky. Which is sort of the opposite of fluffy (-: Yep, no I just thought you like those 'It's so fluffy references', and regarding the stuffing marshmallows and talking with a full mouth to the point of vomiting, I had somebody else in mind. You could say it is an allegory. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 4:43 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: (snip) Nabby, from my side, Judy doesn't need to have any 'serious work' at all with us, she should just leave us alone, relax and enjoy life. I have other things to do, than engage her in meaningless discussions, or be engaged by her. And he wonders why I say he's dishonest... If you don't want to engage with me, Fluffy my boy, try leaving *me* alone. Your most recent attempt to engage with me didn't end so well for you, after all. I'll get to your stupid sutra post tomorrow. Oh thaat one, well, in the olden TM days they used to say, I have transcended it already, it went out of my mind. Judy, do you ever transcend? I think not. Now get your mouth as full as you want, I won't play with you this week. Feel free to speak your soul, say any contrived and twisted bullshit you like, from you brezel mind, feel that you have won every argument, tell lies to your hearts content. I give you free license and won't come back to it, promise. I'd rather ping pong with Share :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxnfBTI3Bzc
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: If I may say something more esoteric here, for me Judy is still a young soul, despite of the age of her physical body. There will be always a conflict with older souls here, who draw from a wider field of experience and thinking, who have come a longer way, and that manifests usually early on in this life. If it wasn't a sad and arrogant statement from the above I'd say it will qualify for: JOKE of week ! No, no, no. get it right Nabby. BOLLOCKS of the week. Jeez, talk about self-aggrandisement... With opponents like navashok, the neurotic ex-pat and the wannabe-negro who thinks he's an artist, Judy hasn't much serious work to do these days. Then again, this is quite common in debate these days, no? You don't just *disagree* with someone. You also wheel in some pseudo- crappy theory about WHY they disagree with you. e.g. The wrong bits of the brain light up, or they are in denial, etc etc. It's a nice short cut to avoid dealing with the very messy nitty-gritty of logic, argument and evidence. PaliGap's Thought-de-Jour: Treat with great suspicion anyone who uses the word brain when any perfectly serviceable English word such as me or mind is available to do the job at hand. And also watch out for the word epistemology. It does NOT mean how we justify belief (Karl Popper would be rotating in his grave at a rate of knots). It means the theory of knowledge (as Emily correctly ascertained). Just sayin' BTW Is Virish (or whatever his name is) guilty until proved innocent? I say this as someone who whilst once running a small organisation, got accused of sexual harrassment myself. It's not nice. In my case the biddy was a nutter, we were not in the public eye, and it came to nothing. At least that's my story!
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: If I may say something more esoteric here, for me Judy is still a young soul, despite of the age of her physical body. There will be always a conflict with older souls here, who draw from a wider field of experience and thinking, who have come a longer way, and that manifests usually early on in this life. If it wasn't a sad and arrogant statement from the above I'd say it will qualify for: JOKE of week ! No, no, no. get it right Nabby. BOLLOCKS of the week. Jeez, talk about self-aggrandisement... With opponents like navashok, the neurotic ex-pat and the wannabe-negro who thinks he's an artist, Judy hasn't much serious work to do these days. Nabby, from my side, Judy doesn't need to have any 'serious work' at all with us, she should just leave us alone, relax and enjoy life. I have other things to do, than engage her in meaningless discussions, or be engaged by her. I'm actually very busy, so please relax, play with somebody else. Then again, this is quite common in debate these days, no? You don't just *disagree* with someone. You also wheel in some pseudo- crappy theory about WHY they disagree with you. e.g. The wrong bits of the brain light up, or they are in denial, etc etc. It's a nice short cut to avoid dealing with the very messy nitty-gritty of logic, argument and evidence. PaliGap's Thought-de-Jour: Treat with great suspicion anyone who uses the word brain when any perfectly serviceable English word such as me or mind is available to do the job at hand. And also watch out for the word epistemology. It does NOT mean how we justify belief (Karl Popper would be rotating in his grave at a rate of knots). It means the theory of knowledge (as Emily correctly ascertained). Just sayin' BTW Is Virish (or whatever his name is) guilty until proved innocent? I say this as someone who whilst once running a small organisation, got accused of sexual harrassment myself. It's not nice. In my case the biddy was a nutter, we were not in the public eye, and it came to nothing. At least that's my story!
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
Should that have been, the wannabe-artist who thinks he's a negro?? Quick, so who's worse, Mr. Bleeding Heart: 1) A guy who says he is enlightened, but you believe is not. 2) A guy who calls you a negro. 3) A guy who thinks of women as cunts and bitches when they disagree with him. Obviously #1 and 2, right? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: the wannabe-negro who thinks he's an artist the wannabe-negro who thinks he's an artist plus a million more times --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: If I may say something more esoteric here, for me Judy is still a young soul, despite of the age of her physical body. There will be always a conflict with older souls here, who draw from a wider field of experience and thinking, who have come a longer way, and that manifests usually early on in this life. If it wasn't a sad and arrogant statement from the above I'd say it will qualify for: JOKE of week ! No, no, no. get it right Nabby. BOLLOCKS of the week. Jeez, talk about self-aggrandisement... With opponents like navashok, the neurotic ex-pat and the wannabe-negro who thinks he's an artist, Judy hasn't much serious work to do these days. Then again, this is quite common in debate these days, no? You don't just *disagree* with someone. You also wheel in some pseudo- crappy theory about WHY they disagree with you. e.g. The wrong bits of the brain light up, or they are in denial, etc etc. It's a nice short cut to avoid dealing with the very messy nitty-gritty of logic, argument and evidence. PaliGap's Thought-de-Jour: Treat with great suspicion anyone who uses the word brain when any perfectly serviceable English word such as me or mind is available to do the job at hand. And also watch out for the word epistemology. It does NOT mean how we justify belief (Karl Popper would be rotating in his grave at a rate of knots). It means the theory of knowledge (as Emily correctly ascertained). Just sayin' BTW Is Virish (or whatever his name is) guilty until proved innocent? I say this as someone who whilst once running a small organisation, got accused of sexual harrassment myself. It's not nice. In my case the biddy was a nutter, we were not in the public eye, and it came to nothing. At least that's my story!
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Should that have been, the wannabe-artist who thinks he's a negro?? Quick, so who's worse, Mr. Bleeding Heart: 1) A guy who says he is enlightened, but you believe is not. 2) A guy who calls you a negro. 3) A guy who thinks of women as cunts and bitches when they disagree with him. Obviously #1 and 2, right? It seems Mr.Angry and hater of Yoga just posted out. I didn't label him a negro because in my book a negro is a honorary title when it comes to the blues, a title Curtis probably has a few more lifetimes to reach, hence the word wannabe-negro. It could have read the wannabe-negro-artist as he doesn't fill either category, but it didn't sound right somehow :-) Curtis and the Turq are undoubtably lovers of art and there is a name for that also: Amateur, meaning lover of art, which ofcourse is a good thing. Mr. Angry is too generous when he calls himself an artist, a word reserved for those whose accomplishments are indesputable. Ironicly; by copying (which he's pretty good at) the word wannabe-negro a couple of thousand times today, that word will for quite some time be glued to curtisdeltablues; Who's making all that noise over there ?? Oh yes, it's the wannabe-negro :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: (snip) Nabby, from my side, Judy doesn't need to have any 'serious work' at all with us, she should just leave us alone, relax and enjoy life. I have other things to do, than engage her in meaningless discussions, or be engaged by her. And he wonders why I say he's dishonest... If you don't want to engage with me, Fluffy my boy, try leaving *me* alone. Your most recent attempt to engage with me didn't end so well for you, after all. I'll get to your stupid sutra post tomorrow.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
Who's making all that noise over there ?? Oh yes, it's the wannabe-negro :-) LOL! I should form a band with the other two wannabe negroes, and I'll perform with my top hat and shades. Dibs on reincarnating as T-Pain, next time around: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avaSdC0QOUM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Should that have been, the wannabe-artist who thinks he's a negro?? Quick, so who's worse, Mr. Bleeding Heart: 1) A guy who says he is enlightened, but you believe is not. 2) A guy who calls you a negro. 3) A guy who thinks of women as cunts and bitches when they disagree with him. Obviously #1 and 2, right? It seems Mr.Angry and hater of Yoga just posted out. I didn't label him a negro because in my book a negro is a honorary title when it comes to the blues, a title Curtis probably has a few more lifetimes to reach, hence the word wannabe-negro. It could have read the wannabe-negro-artist as he doesn't fill either category, but it didn't sound right somehow :-) Curtis and the Turq are undoubtably lovers of art and there is a name for that also: Amateur, meaning lover of art, which ofcourse is a good thing. Mr. Angry is too generous when he calls himself an artist, a word reserved for those whose accomplishments are indesputable. Ironicly; by copying (which he's pretty good at) the word wannabe-negro a couple of thousand times today, that word will for quite some time be glued to curtisdeltablues; Who's making all that noise over there ?? Oh yes, it's the wannabe-negro :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: If I may say something more esoteric here, for me Judy is still a young soul, despite of the age of her physical body. There will be always a conflict with older souls here, who draw from a wider field of experience and thinking, who have come a longer way, and that manifests usually early on in this life. If it wasn't a sad and arrogant statement from the above I'd say it will qualify for: JOKE of week ! No, no, no. get it right Nabby. BOLLOCKS of the week. Jeez, talk about self-aggrandisement... Then again, this is quite common in debate these days, no? You don't just *disagree* with someone. You also wheel in some pseudo- crappy theory about WHY they disagree with you. e.g. The wrong bits of the brain light up, or they are in denial, etc etc. It's a nice short cut to avoid dealing with the very messy nitty-gritty of logic, argument and evidence. PaliGap's Thought-de-Jour: Treat with great suspicion anyone who uses the word brain when any perfectly serviceable English word such as me or mind is available to do the job at hand. And also watch out for the word epistemology. It does NOT mean how we justify belief (Karl Popper would be rotating in his grave at a rate of knots). It means the theory of knowledge (as Emily correctly ascertained). Just sayin' BTW Is Virish (or whatever his name is) guilty until proved innocent? I say this as someone who whilst once running a small organisation, got accused of sexual harrassment myself. It's not nice. In my case the biddy was a nutter, we were not in the public eye, and it came to nothing. At least that's my story!
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Just for fun, isn't it fascinating how the person who jumps on any nitpick or error posted by the people she doesn't like seems to...uh...accidentally overlook the same thing when people on her side post...uh...less than factual statements here. *Especially* if they happen to be less than factual statements about one of her known enemies, the people she stalks here on a regular basis and encourages others to stalk, too. If one of *them* posted something this inaccurate (and she knows that it's inaccurate), she'd call them LIARS! at the top of her voice. But when one of her clique does it, especially in the course of dumping on someone she has actively encouraged them to dump on, it's just fine, and doesn't warrant either a correction or a comment. For example: Nabby, spinning another of his made-up fantasies: That's right, they shouldn't. Yet both Curtis and the Turq claim to be VERY special and in possession of knowledge not known to Sidhas because they were teachers decades ago. One of them was involved so long ago that the TMO didn't even have Sidhas at the time. Judy *knows* that this is not true, and that (as far as I know) both Curtis and myself learned the TM-Sidhis and practiced them. But she won't say anything, because Nabby is dissing US, as she feels he should. This shows how out of touch the Turq is and how much he has forgotten during the decades he was uninvolved in the TMO. SIDHAS were taught by Sidhi-administrators from 1978/79 and were not Governors, still are not, the SIDHIS were given to teachers of TM from a couple of years earlier. The issue the Turq is trying to avoid with this tirade is the obvious fact that Sidhas have no less knowledge of Maharishi's teaching than TM teachers except for the mantras and the Puja. The Turq probably knows this too but it makes him feel s SPECIAL fantasising that HE knows something the Sidhas doesn't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
Barry is pissed off because I called him on his egregious lies about my exchange with Curtis. So what does he do? He lies some more and claims I never commented on the post of Nabby's he goes on to quote. Did he think I'd have forgotten my own post? Did he think I wouldn't quote it? Why would he make a false claim that's so easily disproved? His brains have turned to mush. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Just for fun, isn't it fascinating how the person who jumps on any nitpick or error posted by the people she doesn't like seems to...uh...accidentally overlook the same thing when people on her side post...uh...less than factual statements here. *Especially* if they happen to be less than factual statements about one of her known enemies, the people she stalks here on a regular basis and encourages others to stalk, too. If one of *them* posted something this inaccurate (and she knows that it's inaccurate), she'd call them LIARS! at the top of her voice. But when one of her clique does it, especially in the course of dumping on someone she has actively encouraged them to dump on, it's just fine, and doesn't warrant either a correction or a comment. For example: From my response to the post of Nabby's that Barry quotes as an example: I don't know whether that's really the case, Nabs My familiarity with what teachers are taught that is *not* taught to the rank-and-file, however, is limited to the various beans that TM teachers (mostly former) have spilled in the TM forums I've been on, so I would never claim to have anything like complete knowledge of that (and I have no way of knowing how accurate the spilled beans are with regard to what Maharishi actually said). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/337767 Opsie. *BIG* Oopsie. Nabby, spinning another of his made-up fantasies: That's right, they shouldn't. Yet both Curtis and the Turq claim to be VERY special and in possession of knowledge not known to Sidhas because they were teachers decades ago. One of them was involved so long ago that the TMO didn't even have Sidhas at the time. Judy *knows* that this is not true, and that (as far as I know) both Curtis and myself learned the TM-Sidhis and practiced them. But she won't say anything, because Nabby is dissing US, as she feels he should. Barry misunderstood what Nabby was saying, as he has pointed out. Jimbo, in one of his recent fits of jealousy: Barry's actual *experience* with TM, since 1970 (43 years ago) - Not speculation, not bullshit, not conjecture - Daily practice x 2 = ZERO sessions since 1970. Judy *knows* that this is not accurate, and that I kept practicing TM through 1979 or 1980, until I ran into a better and more effective form of meditation. But not a word. I actually don't keep mental track of your time in the movement, Barry, sorry if that hurts your feelings. Oh, wait. My bad. She *did* correct something: Judy's actual *experience* with TM, since 1970 (43 years ago) ... Doesn't affect your conclusion, DrD, but actually only since 1975 ... THAT was the only thing she felt it necessary to comment on. That's the self-appointed FFL arbiter of fairness and truth for you. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Just for fun, isn't it fascinating how the person who jumps on any nitpick or error posted by the people she doesn't like seems to...uh...accidentally overlook the same thing when people on her side post...uh...less than factual statements here. *Especially* if they happen to be less than factual statements about one of her known enemies, the people she stalks here on a regular basis and encourages others to stalk, too. If one of *them* posted something this inaccurate (and she knows that it's inaccurate), she'd call them LIARS! at the top of her voice. But when one of her clique does it, especially in the course of dumping on someone she has actively encouraged them to dump on, it's just fine, and doesn't warrant either a correction or a comment. For example: Nabby, spinning another of his made-up fantasies: That's right, they shouldn't. Yet both Curtis and the Turq claim to be VERY special and in possession of knowledge not known to Sidhas because they were teachers decades ago. One of them was involved so long ago that the TMO didn't even have Sidhas at the time. Judy *knows* that this is not true, and that (as far as I know) both Curtis and myself learned the TM-Sidhis and practiced them. But she won't say anything, because Nabby is dissing US, as she feels he should. Jimbo, in one of his recent fits of jealousy: Barry's actual *experience* with TM, since 1970 (43 years ago) - Not speculation, not bullshit, not conjecture - Daily practice x 2 = ZERO sessions since 1970. Judy *knows* that this is not accurate, and that I kept practicing TM through 1979 or 1980, until I ran into a better and more effective form of meditation. But not a word. And then you practiced meditation too, just a different form of meditation. I think, what Curtis was saying is related to the involvement and acquaintance with the organization, the TMO. There are in fact many practices and teachings which were never accessible to the general meditating public, but to only the people involved in the organization, or there were things purported at an earlier time when things still evolved. Basically all what Judy knows, which goes beyond superficial beginner level comes from what has been said by people *here* on one of these forums who were more involved in the past. You can never compare the type of involvement she has and had with that of some more dedicated people, who were involved on the organizational level, for several years, had direct interactions with a teacher (Maharishi), even if this is decades ago, it is more revealing and rich than just plain-vanilla-TM-consumerism and I-know-all-TM-teachings-by-heart. And above that, it gives you or anyone a decisive advantage if you can compare what you have learned in your TM days, with other methods, other organizations, and especially other teachers you knew face to face. It gives you the ability to think freely, not being bound to some surface regurgitating the always same stereotype models of meditation, the ability to look at things from a different angle, you could say a widening of mental space and perception. And above all, a *willingness* to think differently. But that is not for everybody. If I may say something more esoteric here, for me Judy is still a young soul, despite of the age of her physical body. There will be always a conflict with older souls here, who draw from a wider field of experience and thinking, who have come a longer way, and that manifests usually early on in this life. Oh, wait. My bad. She *did* correct something: Judy's actual *experience* with TM, since 1970 (43 years ago) ... Doesn't affect your conclusion, DrD, but actually only since 1975 ... THAT was the only thing she felt it necessary to comment on. That's the self-appointed FFL arbiter of fairness and truth for you. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
Ooopsie yourself, Jude. The post of Nabby's I quoted from was http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/337936 to which you have *still* never replied. Will you apologize? Yeah, right. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Barry is pissed off because I called him on his egregious lies about my exchange with Curtis. So what does he do? He lies some more and claims I never commented on the post of Nabby's he goes on to quote. Did he think I'd have forgotten my own post? Did he think I wouldn't quote it? Why would he make a false claim that's so easily disproved? His brains have turned to mush. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Just for fun, isn't it fascinating how the person who jumps on any nitpick or error posted by the people she doesn't like seems to...uh...accidentally overlook the same thing when people on her side post...uh...less than factual statements here. *Especially* if they happen to be less than factual statements about one of her known enemies, the people she stalks here on a regular basis and encourages others to stalk, too. If one of *them* posted something this inaccurate (and she knows that it's inaccurate), she'd call them LIARS! at the top of her voice. But when one of her clique does it, especially in the course of dumping on someone she has actively encouraged them to dump on, it's just fine, and doesn't warrant either a correction or a comment. For example: From my response to the post of Nabby's that Barry quotes as an example: I don't know whether that's really the case, Nabs My familiarity with what teachers are taught that is *not* taught to the rank-and-file, however, is limited to the various beans that TM teachers (mostly former) have spilled in the TM forums I've been on, so I would never claim to have anything like complete knowledge of that (and I have no way of knowing how accurate the spilled beans are with regard to what Maharishi actually said). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/337767 Opsie. *BIG* Oopsie. Nabby, spinning another of his made-up fantasies: That's right, they shouldn't. Yet both Curtis and the Turq claim to be VERY special and in possession of knowledge not known to Sidhas because they were teachers decades ago. One of them was involved so long ago that the TMO didn't even have Sidhas at the time. Judy *knows* that this is not true, and that (as far as I know) both Curtis and myself learned the TM-Sidhis and practiced them. But she won't say anything, because Nabby is dissing US, as she feels he should. Barry misunderstood what Nabby was saying, as he has pointed out. Jimbo, in one of his recent fits of jealousy: Barry's actual *experience* with TM, since 1970 (43 years ago) - Not speculation, not bullshit, not conjecture - Daily practice x 2 = ZERO sessions since 1970. Judy *knows* that this is not accurate, and that I kept practicing TM through 1979 or 1980, until I ran into a better and more effective form of meditation. But not a word. I actually don't keep mental track of your time in the movement, Barry, sorry if that hurts your feelings. Oh, wait. My bad. She *did* correct something: Judy's actual *experience* with TM, since 1970 (43 years ago) ... Doesn't affect your conclusion, DrD, but actually only since 1975 ... THAT was the only thing she felt it necessary to comment on. That's the self-appointed FFL arbiter of fairness and truth for you. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
Oh, only THIRTY THREE YEARS without practicing TM. My apologies on the math, dude. It makes a HUGE difference. NOT. You continue to have no clue about TM. Your claim here is both stupid, and arrogant, as was Curtis's. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Just for fun, isn't it fascinating how the person who jumps on any nitpick or error posted by the people she doesn't like seems to...uh...accidentally overlook the same thing when people on her side post...uh...less than factual statements here. *Especially* if they happen to be less than factual statements about one of her known enemies, the people she stalks here on a regular basis and encourages others to stalk, too. If one of *them* posted something this inaccurate (and she knows that it's inaccurate), she'd call them LIARS! at the top of her voice. But when one of her clique does it, especially in the course of dumping on someone she has actively encouraged them to dump on, it's just fine, and doesn't warrant either a correction or a comment. For example: Nabby, spinning another of his made-up fantasies: That's right, they shouldn't. Yet both Curtis and the Turq claim to be VERY special and in possession of knowledge not known to Sidhas because they were teachers decades ago. One of them was involved so long ago that the TMO didn't even have Sidhas at the time. Judy *knows* that this is not true, and that (as far as I know) both Curtis and myself learned the TM-Sidhis and practiced them. But she won't say anything, because Nabby is dissing US, as she feels he should. Jimbo, in one of his recent fits of jealousy: Barry's actual *experience* with TM, since 1970 (43 years ago) - Not speculation, not bullshit, not conjecture - Daily practice x 2 = ZERO sessions since 1970. Judy *knows* that this is not accurate, and that I kept practicing TM through 1979 or 1980, until I ran into a better and more effective form of meditation. But not a word. Oh, wait. My bad. She *did* correct something: Judy's actual *experience* with TM, since 1970 (43 years ago) ... Doesn't affect your conclusion, DrD, but actually only since 1975 ... THAT was the only thing she felt it necessary to comment on. That's the self-appointed FFL arbiter of fairness and truth for you. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: If I may say something more esoteric here, for me Judy is still a young soul, despite of the age of her physical body. There will be always a conflict with older souls here, who draw from a wider field of experience and thinking, who have come a longer way, and that manifests usually early on in this life. If it wasn't a sad and arrogant statement from the above I'd say it will qualify for: JOKE of week !
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Ooopsie yourself, Jude. The post of Nabby's I quoted from was http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/337936 to which you have *still* never replied. As you know, I responded to the earlier one, #337752. Obviously no need for me to respond *twice* to the same claim. Barry, you always make it worse for yourself when you try to wiggle out of one of your lies. Will you apologize? Yeah, right. :-) No, I really don't think I'll be apologizing for *your* lies. Don't forget, there's also the huge one you told about my exchange with Curtis. Just imagine having to enter the Bardo with the countless malicious lies you've told in Web forums, and almost certainly in real life as well, all piled on your head. That won't be so very long from now, will it? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Barry is pissed off because I called him on his egregious lies about my exchange with Curtis. So what does he do? He lies some more and claims I never commented on the post of Nabby's he goes on to quote. Did he think I'd have forgotten my own post? Did he think I wouldn't quote it? Why would he make a false claim that's so easily disproved? His brains have turned to mush. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Just for fun, isn't it fascinating how the person who jumps on any nitpick or error posted by the people she doesn't like seems to...uh...accidentally overlook the same thing when people on her side post...uh...less than factual statements here. *Especially* if they happen to be less than factual statements about one of her known enemies, the people she stalks here on a regular basis and encourages others to stalk, too. If one of *them* posted something this inaccurate (and she knows that it's inaccurate), she'd call them LIARS! at the top of her voice. But when one of her clique does it, especially in the course of dumping on someone she has actively encouraged them to dump on, it's just fine, and doesn't warrant either a correction or a comment. For example: From my response to the post of Nabby's that Barry quotes as an example: I don't know whether that's really the case, Nabs My familiarity with what teachers are taught that is *not* taught to the rank-and-file, however, is limited to the various beans that TM teachers (mostly former) have spilled in the TM forums I've been on, so I would never claim to have anything like complete knowledge of that (and I have no way of knowing how accurate the spilled beans are with regard to what Maharishi actually said). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/337767 Opsie. *BIG* Oopsie. Nabby, spinning another of his made-up fantasies: That's right, they shouldn't. Yet both Curtis and the Turq claim to be VERY special and in possession of knowledge not known to Sidhas because they were teachers decades ago. One of them was involved so long ago that the TMO didn't even have Sidhas at the time. Judy *knows* that this is not true, and that (as far as I know) both Curtis and myself learned the TM-Sidhis and practiced them. But she won't say anything, because Nabby is dissing US, as she feels he should. Barry misunderstood what Nabby was saying, as he has pointed out. Jimbo, in one of his recent fits of jealousy: Barry's actual *experience* with TM, since 1970 (43 years ago) - Not speculation, not bullshit, not conjecture - Daily practice x 2 = ZERO sessions since 1970. Judy *knows* that this is not accurate, and that I kept practicing TM through 1979 or 1980, until I ran into a better and more effective form of meditation. But not a word. I actually don't keep mental track of your time in the movement, Barry, sorry if that hurts your feelings. Oh, wait. My bad. She *did* correct something: Judy's actual *experience* with TM, since 1970 (43 years ago) ... Doesn't affect your conclusion, DrD, but actually only since 1975 ... THAT was the only thing she felt it necessary to comment on. That's the self-appointed FFL arbiter of fairness and truth for you. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
Barry has really missed your fluffing services, navashok. I'm sure he's very glad to see you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: snip Basically all what Judy knows, which goes beyond superficial beginner level comes from what has been said by people *here* on one of these forums who were more involved in the past. Says navashok, *citing what I myself just said* as if it were his own analysis. Except that my knowledge is more than just superficial beginner level, and my understanding is better than that of some teachers. You can never compare the type of involvement she has and had with that of some more dedicated people, who were involved on the organizational level, for several years, had direct interactions with a teacher (Maharishi), even if this is decades ago, it is more revealing and rich than just plain- vanilla-TM-consumerism and I-know-all-TM-teachings-by-heart. And I've never claimed my knowledge goes beyond what is taught to the rank-and-file and what I've picked up from teachers on this and other Web forums. Oh, and during my stay at the TM facility in Asbury Park back in '95-'96. (snip) If I may say something more esoteric here, for me Judy is still a young soul, despite of the age of her physical body. There will be always a conflict with older souls here, who draw from a wider field of experience and thinking, who have come a longer way, and that manifests usually early on in this life. Hilarious. Share will love it, though.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
Judy, Judy, Judy, I don't love it and actually I don't agree with it either. FWIW I think you are an old soul. As far as I can tell, no young soul would long survive FFL. What I did LOVE about this post was its shortness and ease of reading. I still don't follow the long back and forths very well. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:06 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes Barry has really missed your fluffing services, navashok. I'm sure he's very glad to see you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: snip Basically all what Judy knows, which goes beyond superficial beginner level comes from what has been said by people *here* on one of these forums who were more involved in the past. Says navashok, *citing what I myself just said* as if it were his own analysis. Except that my knowledge is more than just superficial beginner level, and my understanding is better than that of some teachers. You can never compare the type of involvement she has and had with that of some more dedicated people, who were involved on the organizational level, for several years, had direct interactions with a teacher (Maharishi), even if this is decades ago, it is more revealing and rich than just plain- vanilla-TM-consumerism and I-know-all-TM-teachings-by-heart. And I've never claimed my knowledge goes beyond what is taught to the rank-and-file and what I've picked up from teachers on this and other Web forums. Oh, and during my stay at the TM facility in Asbury Park back in '95-'96. (snip) If I may say something more esoteric here, for me Judy is still a young soul, despite of the age of her physical body. There will be always a conflict with older souls here, who draw from a wider field of experience and thinking, who have come a longer way, and that manifests usually early on in this life. Hilarious. Share will love it, though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Barry has really missed your fluffing services, navashok. I'm sure he's very glad to see you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: snip Basically all what Judy knows, which goes beyond superficial beginner level comes from what has been said by people *here* on one of these forums who were more involved in the past. Says navashok, *citing what I myself just said* as if it were his own analysis. Oh, come on, how silly is this? Just because we came to the same conclusion, as it is simply the TRUTH, doesn't mean I have copied or even seen your post, that was actually just sent 8 minutes before. Of course it's my own analysis. If I had seen your post I would have directly referenced it, and commented upon it, stooopid! How silly of you to try to score some points with this. Except that my knowledge is more than just superficial beginner level, and my understanding is better than that of some teachers. Then talk about it, and don't always withdraw to the most official and most common texts from the TM websites. You can never compare the type of involvement she has and had with that of some more dedicated people, who were involved on the organizational level, for several years, had direct interactions with a teacher (Maharishi), even if this is decades ago, it is more revealing and rich than just plain- vanilla-TM-consumerism and I-know-all-TM-teachings-by-heart. And I've never claimed my knowledge goes beyond what is taught to the rank-and-file and what I've picked up from teachers on this and other Web forums. Oh, and during my stay at the TM facility in Asbury Park back in '95-'96. That always makes me laugh when you mention that. Keep mentioning it in 10 more years. You know, even Robin was clear about this: you not having been a TM teacher, can not really fathom what the TM movement was then and now. Because TM teachers had a better insight into the movement, they couldn't be as naive as the 'rank and file', and were therefore more easily disillusioned. You just couldn't look at the whole thing the same way, if you knew more, and were let into more secrets, and Maharishi would sometimes let those secrets out, sometimes in the middle of the night in Noida, when everybody was half asleep. These self-classification tests were being done, as to being clear or hazy transcendence, or clear ritam or hazy ritam. The problem is not, that you weren't there, or that you didn't have the opportunity to be on those courses. The problem is really that you play the movement spokesman on the basis of those superficial public statements, that you play out the PR spin. Now that is superficial. (snip) If I may say something more esoteric here, for me Judy is still a young soul, despite of the age of her physical body. There will be always a conflict with older souls here, who draw from a wider field of experience and thinking, who have come a longer way, and that manifests usually early on in this life. Hilarious. Share will love it, though. She didn't, but I stick with it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Barry has really missed your fluffing services, navashok. I'm sure he's very glad to see you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: snip Basically all what Judy knows, which goes beyond superficial beginner level comes from what has been said by people *here* on one of these forums who were more involved in the past. Says navashok, *citing what I myself just said* as if it were his own analysis. Oh, come on, how silly is this? Just because we came to the same conclusion, as it is simply the TRUTH, doesn't mean I have copied or even seen your post that was actually just sent 8 minutes before. It was in the post you're responding to, you utter nitwit. Of course it's my own analysis. If I had seen your post I would have directly referenced it, and commented upon it, stooopid! You *quote* it below. How STOOPID can you *get*? How silly of you to try to score some points with this. Have you ever heard the term own goal? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=own+goal (Definition #1.) Except that my knowledge is more than just superficial beginner level, and my understanding is better than that of some teachers. Then talk about it, and don't always withdraw to the most official and most common texts from the TM websites. I do and have done so often, as you know. In this case it was appropriate for me to document my points. You can never compare the type of involvement she has and had with that of some more dedicated people, who were involved on the organizational level, for several years, had direct interactions with a teacher (Maharishi), even if this is decades ago, it is more revealing and rich than just plain- vanilla-TM-consumerism and I-know-all-TM-teachings-by-heart. And I've never claimed my knowledge goes beyond what is taught to the rank-and-file and what I've picked up from teachers on this and other Web forums. Oh, and during my stay at the TM facility in Asbury Park back in '95-'96. That always makes me laugh when you mention that. Keep mentioning it in 10 more years. You should only know how it makes *me* laugh when you pretend something is funny but decline to say why. Do you have *any* idea how transparent you are? You know, even Robin was clear about this: you not having been a TM teacher, can not really fathom what the TM movement was then and now. Of course I can't. I've never disputed this (and nobody had to tell me about it either). Because TM teachers had a better insight into the movement, they couldn't be as naive as the 'rank and file', and were therefore more easily disillusioned. I have no doubt. You just couldn't look at the whole thing the same way, if you knew more, Not only do you not know how I'm looking at it, you don't even know what my dispute with Curtis was about. and were let into more secrets, and Maharishi would sometimes let those secrets out, sometimes in the middle of the night in Noida, when everybody was half asleep. These self-classification tests were being done, as to being clear or hazy transcendence, or clear ritam or hazy ritam. The problem is not, that you weren't there, or that you didn't have the opportunity to be on those courses. The problem is really that you play the movement spokesman on the basis of those superficial public statements, that you play out the PR spin. Now that is superficial. Not true on any count. I don't play movement spokesman, I play a long-time TMer who watches the movement from afar; I rarely cite TMO public statements; my interest isn't in PR but in accuracy; and since none of what you say is even *true*, it can't be said to be superficial. I'll get to your silly sutra post later. (snip) If I may say something more esoteric here, for me Judy is still a young soul, despite of the age of her physical body. There will be always a conflict with older souls here, who draw from a wider field of experience and thinking, who have come a longer way, and that manifests usually early on in this life. Hilarious. Share will love it, though. She didn't, but I stick with it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
doctordumbass: Your claim here is both stupid, and arrogant, as was Curtis's. Yes, stupid, and arrogant. LoL! Oh, only THIRTY THREE YEARS without practicing TM. My apologies on the math, dude. It makes a HUGE difference. NOT. You continue to have no clue about TM. Just for fun, isn't it fascinating how the person who jumps on any nitpick or error posted by the people she doesn't like seems to...uh...accidentally overlook the same thing when people on her side post...uh...less than factual statements here. *Especially* if they happen to be less than factual statements about one of her known enemies, the people she stalks here on a regular basis and encourages others to stalk, too. If one of *them* posted something this inaccurate (and she knows that it's inaccurate), she'd call them LIARS! at the top of her voice. But when one of her clique does it, especially in the course of dumping on someone she has actively encouraged them to dump on, it's just fine, and doesn't warrant either a correction or a comment. For example: Nabby, spinning another of his made-up fantasies: That's right, they shouldn't. Yet both Curtis and the Turq claim to be VERY special and in possession of knowledge not known to Sidhas because they were teachers decades ago. One of them was involved so long ago that the TMO didn't even have Sidhas at the time. Judy *knows* that this is not true, and that (as far as I know) both Curtis and myself learned the TM-Sidhis and practiced them. But she won't say anything, because Nabby is dissing US, as she feels he should. Jimbo, in one of his recent fits of jealousy: Barry's actual *experience* with TM, since 1970 (43 years ago) - Not speculation, not bullshit, not conjecture - Daily practice x 2 = ZERO sessions since 1970. Judy *knows* that this is not accurate, and that I kept practicing TM through 1979 or 1980, until I ran into a better and more effective form of meditation. But not a word. Oh, wait. My bad. She *did* correct something: Judy's actual *experience* with TM, since 1970 (43 years ago) ... Doesn't affect your conclusion, DrD, but actually only since 1975 ... THAT was the only thing she felt it necessary to comment on. That's the self-appointed FFL arbiter of fairness and truth for you. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Barry has really missed your fluffing services, navashok. I'm sure he's very glad to see you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: snip Basically all what Judy knows, which goes beyond superficial beginner level comes from what has been said by people *here* on one of these forums who were more involved in the past. Says navashok, *citing what I myself just said* as if it were his own analysis. Oh, come on, how silly is this? Just because we came to the same conclusion, as it is simply the TRUTH, doesn't mean I have copied or even seen your post that was actually just sent 8 minutes before. It was in the post you're responding to, you utter nitwit. Of course it's my own analysis. If I had seen your post I would have directly referenced it, and commented upon it, stooopid! You *quote* it below. How STOOPID can you *get*? Judy, quite honestly you should stop posting, you are getting a little old, don't you? can you count the arrows? Of course I quote it, but that wasn't *after* the post you were referring to, little stupid witch. Nice try at deception but no cigar. How silly of you to try to score some points with this. Have you ever heard the term own goal? Oh yes, that's what you just did now. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=own+goal (Definition #1.) Except that my knowledge is more than just superficial beginner level, and my understanding is better than that of some teachers. Then talk about it, and don't always withdraw to the most official and most common texts from the TM websites. I do and have done so often, as you know. In this case it was appropriate for me to document my points. No, you don't document your points, you *escape* with standard stereotype phrases. You neglect valid points which come from a place of greater knowledge and play stupid innocent. That's what you do. You can never compare the type of involvement she has and had with that of some more dedicated people, who were involved on the organizational level, for several years, had direct interactions with a teacher (Maharishi), even if this is decades ago, it is more revealing and rich than just plain- vanilla-TM-consumerism and I-know-all-TM-teachings-by-heart. And I've never claimed my knowledge goes beyond what is taught to the rank-and-file and what I've picked up from teachers on this and other Web forums. Oh, and during my stay at the TM facility in Asbury Park back in '95-'96. That always makes me laugh when you mention that. Keep mentioning it in 10 more years. You should only know how it makes *me* laugh when you pretend something is funny but decline to say why. Do you have *any* idea how transparent you are? Well, if it's so transparent, why don't you laugh with me? I mean do you still keep track of time somehow? You know, even Robin was clear about this: you not having been a TM teacher, can not really fathom what the TM movement was then and now. Of course I can't. I've never disputed this (and nobody had to tell me about it either). Robin obviously felt he had to. Because TM teachers had a better insight into the movement, they couldn't be as naive as the 'rank and file', and were therefore more easily disillusioned. I have no doubt. Then you should give both Curtis and Barry some credit for it, rather than supporting the utterly dump arguments of Doc and little Nabby. You just couldn't look at the whole thing the same way, if you knew more, Not only do you not know how I'm looking at it, you don't even know what my dispute with Curtis was about. Even though this may come as a surprise to you, but I am able to read. Oh, yeah, I know, you try to make these exchanges unreadable, you try very hard at it, sometimes somebody still reads it. and were let into more secrets, and Maharishi would sometimes let those secrets out, sometimes in the middle of the night in Noida, when everybody was half asleep. These self-classification tests were being done, as to being clear or hazy transcendence, or clear ritam or hazy ritam. The problem is not, that you weren't there, or that you didn't have the opportunity to be on those courses. The problem is really that you play the movement spokesman on the basis of those superficial public statements, that you play out the PR spin. Now that is superficial. Not true on any count. I don't play movement spokesman, I play a long-time TMer who watches the movement from afar; I rarely cite TMO public statements; my interest isn't in PR but in accuracy; and since none of what you say is even *true*, it
