[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Hey, Rick, Alex, gullible_fool, et al, The following claim by Judy has me curious. Has anyone unsubscribed or stalked off of FFL in a snit citing me as a reason recently? The only info I receive are system-generated notices that someone has unsubscribed. I have received no private emails containing reasons for unsubscribing. Thanks for replying. I was curious. And Jim's still finishing up his latest two weeks in the penalty box, Jim unsubscribed a couple days ago. That must be what Judy is referring to. Obviously, Jim is staying in contact via email with her. I formally apologize if he actually believes or said that he chose to bail because of my nastiness and dishonesty. But I suspect that Judy made that up. Jim doesn't talk that way, and she does. I wasn't trying to be nasty, and I was never in the least dishonest when dealing with him, or with anyone else here. The only thing I deal in is opinion, my own. I did, and do, have an opinion about anyone who claims the mantle of enlightenment and who doesn't walk the walk that history associates with enlightenment. And I have nothing to apologize for for feeling that way. Edg Duveyoung last posted back in May, but left with- out a goodbye or stating a reason for taking off, as I remember. Edg is still subscribed and config'd with the no email option. Hope he's doing well. Hope Jim is, too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip If my memory isn't faulty, t'would seem that Judy felt the need to...uh...stretch the truth a bit (if not... dare I say it...actually LIE) in the fervor of one of her Gotta Trash Barry moments. I'll be interested to see what she has to say about this claim when she returns. I don't have anything to say about it, other than that of course I stand by it. Unless Barry's REELY REELY STOOOPID, he ought to have been able to come up with an additional possibility, in which what I wrote is 100% accurate and the faultiness of his memory is completely irrelevant. In other words, either Judy's information came from Jim in email, and she reformulated his words about unsubscribing into her own claims of my nastiness and dishonesty, or she made it up and now resents being called on having made it up. You decide. Have you *ever* seen Judy shirk from providing a reference to back up what she'd claimed when there really was such a reference?
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip If my memory isn't faulty, t'would seem that Judy felt the need to...uh...stretch the truth a bit (if not... dare I say it...actually LIE) in the fervor of one of her Gotta Trash Barry moments. I'll be interested to see what she has to say about this claim when she returns. I don't have anything to say about it, other than that of course I stand by it. Unless Barry's REELY REELY STOOOPID, he ought to have been able to come up with an additional possibility, in which what I wrote is 100% accurate and the faultiness of his memory is completely irrelevant. Ok, I think that there will be no complaint from anyone here if I characterize Judy as the person who has most often demanded that people back up their claims on this forum. It's almost her trade- mark. Well, turnabout is fair play. Judy, please produce two things to back up the following claim: We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. 1. Please supply the name or screen name of the poster you claim left FFL because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. 2. Please supply documentation that this is the reason they gave for leaving. If it's a message on FFL, please give us the message number. If it is a private email, please ask for permission to repost that email here verbatim. (Or, when you give us the person's name, we can simply write to the person and ask them whether your representation of why they left FFL is accurate.) I'm really curious as to how you will respond to this, Judy. It really IS doing a Judy on YOU, and turnabout is fair play. Above you stand by the claim, but with no backup. I think everyone here knows that if anyone else did that when YOU had challenged them to back up one of their claims, the next words out of your mouth would be a variant of, See...I told you so...he/she is LYING! Try as I might, I am unable to substantiate your claim using the Yahoo Search Engine. Alex has failed to sub- stantiate it. The only references to 'nastiness' on this forum since June 1 (other than in this thread) have been one case of someone referring to the TMO, and another case of someone using that term to refer to YOU. Similarly, I can find no references to anyone bailing from FFL, citing me as a reason, even IF that reason was not precisely because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. You made a claim, Judy. And now the only thing you have to say when that claim is challenged is that you stand by it. I suppose we're supposed to take your word for it, because as you say so often, you never lie. Uh-huh. Aren't you the person who claimed that if Obama secured the nomination that as a good Democrat you would support him fully? Given some of the things you've said on this forum since and the negative nature of the articles you repost, I cannot help but assume that either you have a different definition of what support means than I do, or you have a different definition of what I never lie means than I do. Two simple questions, Judy. Questions that YOU would be asking of anyone who made a similarly negative claim about YOU to produce. If the person YOU challenged failed to respond to two such questions, you would assume that they were lying, and call them a LIAR! here. We've seen it happen dozens of times, if not hundreds. If you fail to answer these two questions, I think we have the right to respond similarly to you. Remember -- it has to be recent, it has to have been a long-time poster, and you have to be able to document that we lost them because of my nastiness and dishonesty. That was what you said. Back it up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And Jim's still finishing up his latest two weeks in the penalty box, Jim unsubscribed a couple days ago. I wasn't trying to be nasty, and I was never in the least dishonest when dealing with him, or with anyone else here. Quote of the week !
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip If my memory isn't faulty, t'would seem that Judy felt the need to...uh...stretch the truth a bit (if not... dare I say it...actually LIE) in the fervor of one of her Gotta Trash Barry moments. I'll be interested to see what she has to say about this claim when she returns. I don't have anything to say about it, other than that of course I stand by it. Unless Barry's REELY REELY STOOOPID, he ought to have been able to come up with an additional possibility, in which what I wrote is 100% accurate and the faultiness of his memory is completely irrelevant. Ok, I think that there will be no complaint from anyone here if I characterize Judy as the person who has most often demanded that people back up their claims on this forum. It's almost her trade- mark. Well, turnabout is fair play. Judy, please produce two things to back up the following claim: We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. 1. Please supply the name or screen name of the poster you claim left FFL because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. 2. Please supply documentation that this is the reason they gave for leaving. If it's a message on FFL, please give us the message number. If it is a private email, please ask for permission to repost that email here verbatim. (Or, when you give us the person's name, we can simply write to the person and ask them whether your representation of why they left FFL is accurate.) I'm really curious as to how you will respond to this, Judy. It really IS doing a Judy on YOU, and turnabout is fair play. Above you stand by the claim, but with no backup. I think everyone here knows that if anyone else did that when YOU had challenged them to back up one of their claims, the next words out of your mouth would be a variant of, See...I told you so...he/she is LYING! Actually, usually I just note that the person refuses to back up the claim and let others come to their own conclusions. In this case, I'd have to reveal a private communication, which I'm not going to do. And I can't recall ever having demanded that anybody else do so. Try as I might, I am unable to substantiate your claim using the Yahoo Search Engine. How much time have you spent on this so far, Barry? giggle snip You made a claim, Judy. And now the only thing you have to say when that claim is challenged is that you stand by it. I suppose we're supposed to take your word for it, because as you say so often, you never lie. Exactly. Uh-huh. Aren't you the person who claimed that if Obama secured the nomination that as a good Democrat you would support him fully? Given some of the things you've said on this forum since and the negative nature of the articles you repost, I cannot help but assume that either you have a different definition of what support means than I do, or you have a different definition of what I never lie means than I do. Well, one difference in our definition of lie, apparently, is that if one changes one's mind for some reason, that doesn't mean what one said to start with was a lie. Oh, and by the way, you've now documented that you're REELY REELY STOOOPID.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I wasn't trying to be nasty, and I was never in the least dishonest when dealing with him, or with anyone else here. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip If my memory isn't faulty, t'would seem that Judy felt the need to...uh...stretch the truth a bit (if not... dare I say it...actually LIE) in the fervor of one of her Gotta Trash Barry moments. I'll be interested to see what she has to say about this claim when she returns. I don't have anything to say about it, other than that of course I stand by it. Unless Barry's REELY REELY STOOOPID, he ought to have been able to come up with an additional possibility, in which what I wrote is 100% accurate and the faultiness of his memory is completely irrelevant. Ok, I think that there will be no complaint from anyone here if I characterize Judy as the person who has most often demanded that people back up their claims on this forum. It's almost her trade- mark. Well, turnabout is fair play. Judy, please produce two things to back up the following claim: We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. 1. Please supply the name or screen name of the poster you claim left FFL because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. 2. Please supply documentation that this is the reason they gave for leaving. If it's a message on FFL, please give us the message number. If it is a private email, please ask for permission to repost that email here verbatim. (Or, when you give us the person's name, we can simply write to the person and ask them whether your representation of why they left FFL is accurate.) I'm really curious as to how you will respond to this, Judy. It really IS doing a Judy on YOU, and turnabout is fair play. Above you stand by the claim, but with no backup. I think everyone here knows that if anyone else did that when YOU had challenged them to back up one of their claims, the next words out of your mouth would be a variant of, See...I told you so...he/she is LYING! Actually, usually I just note that the person refuses to back up the claim and let others come to their own conclusions. In this case, I'd have to reveal a private communication, which I'm not going to do. And I can't recall ever having demanded that anybody else do so. I note that Judy has refused to back up her claim. Others may draw their own conclusions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I suppose we're supposed to take your word for it, because as you say so often, you never lie. Exactly. Uh-huh. Aren't you the person who claimed that if Obama secured the nomination that as a good Democrat you would support him fully? Given some of the things you've said on this forum since and the negative nature of the articles you repost, I cannot help but assume that either you have a different definition of what support means than I do, or you have a different definition of what I never lie means than I do. Well, one difference in our definition of lie, apparently, is that if one changes one's mind for some reason, that doesn't mean what one said to start with was a lie. When I first encountered Judy Stein I thought, and said, that I considered her a shrewish old schoolmarm who argued incessantly about anything she could sucker people into arguing about because she was still trying to impress her dead Daddy with how strong she is. And she was a TM True Believer. In the years since, I have changed my mind. I now believe that she argues incessantly about anything she can lure people into arguing about because she is insane. And a TM True Believer. According to Judy, the fact that I have changed my mind does not make the first statement a lie. :-) And now, a fun comparison: I have in my hands a list of 205 [government employees] that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department. -- Senator Joseph McCarthy, 1950 The list was never made available to the Secy of State, or to anyone else. McCarthy later claimed that he could not reveal it because he had to protect a communication from a private source, exactly the same argument used by Judy Stein when refusing to back up the following quote: We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. -- Judy Stein, 17 July 2008 Photo of Joe: http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/02/04/icon_topic3_feb4,0.jpg Photo of Judy: http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4c65?b=27 Coincidence? Illicit affair? People coming to look like their heroes? You decide. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I'm really curious as to how you will respond to this, Judy. It really IS doing a Judy on YOU, and turnabout is fair play. Above you stand by the claim, but with no backup. I think everyone here knows that if anyone else did that when YOU had challenged them to back up one of their claims, the next words out of your mouth would be a variant of, See...I told you so...he/she is LYING! Actually, usually I just note that the person refuses to back up the claim and let others come to their own conclusions. I note that Judy has refused to back up her claim. Others may draw their own conclusions. In this case, I'd have to reveal a private communication, which I'm not going to do. And I can't recall ever having demanded that anybody else do so. Note that Barry *has* made that very demand. Snipped by Barry: You made a claim, Judy. And now the only thing you have to say when that claim is challenged is that you stand by it. I suppose we're supposed to take your word for it, because as you say so often, you never lie. Exactly. Also snipped by Barry: Try as I might, I am unable to substantiate your claim using the Yahoo Search Engine. How much time have you spent on this so far, Barry? giggle He's now wasted a good six posts on it, in addition to all the time he's taken to search and rack his brains (for evidence of something he could easily have figured out was a private communication and therefore not reflected either in his brains--such as they are--or the FFL traffic or emails to the moderators). Hope everybody is having as much fun with this latest meltdown of Barry's as I am... Oh, heck, let's just rub it in a little further. From an earlier post in the sequence: I wasn't trying to be nasty, and I was never in the least dishonest when dealing with him, or with anyone else here. Hey, Barry, I'll be *delighted* to provide evidence that you're being dishonest here about your chronic dishonesty. Whaddya say, would you like me to do that? Let's start with this: [Judy] follows me from Internet forum to Internet forum [trying to lure me into arguments]. She has done the same with several folks here, as they would be more than willing to tell you. Want more, Barry?
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hope everybody is having as much fun with this latest meltdown of Barry's as I am... Oh, heck, let's just rub it in a little further. From an earlier post in the sequence: I wasn't trying to be nasty, and I was never in the least dishonest when dealing with him, or with anyone else here. Hey, Barry, I'll be *delighted* to provide evidence that you're being dishonest here about your chronic dishonesty. Whaddya say, would you like me to do that? Let's start with this: [Judy] follows me from Internet forum to Internet forum [trying to lure me into arguments]. She has done the same with several folks here, as they would be more than willing to tell you. Want more, Barry? If it's of this quality, sure. Please note the way that Judy responded to this assertion of mine when it was first posted: This is a very old, tired lie Barry's told over and over, but, again, one he feels secure in telling Ruth because she has no way to know it's a lie. The ONLY Internet forum I ever followed Barry to was this one--and that was *at his invitation* to the folks on alt.m.t when he started posting here. A quick search of the following Google groups for posts made by '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' containing the word 'Barry' will find will find posts there from her responding to my posts to those groups, in most cases for no other purpose than to trash me. alt.religion.gnostic alt.meditation sci.skeptic comp.ai.philosophy alt.magick.tantra Her game seemed to have been that whenever I would get into a conversation with someone from one of these other groups that was cross-posted to alt. meditation.transcendental, she would follow up on the thread, even if she wasn't interested in the subject matter, and -- Surprise! -- attempt to undermine my credibility on the new forum. Add to that Fairfield Life and the TM-Free blog, where she did exactly the same thing, and I think you've got a few more groups that she's followed me to than this one. And yet she claimed in no uncertain terms that this was the only one. Go figure, eh? Want more, Judy?
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Hope everybody is having as much fun with this latest meltdown of Barry's as I am... Oh, heck, let's just rub it in a little further. From an earlier post in the sequence: I wasn't trying to be nasty, and I was never in the least dishonest when dealing with him, or with anyone else here. Hey, Barry, I'll be *delighted* to provide evidence that you're being dishonest here about your chronic dishonesty. Whaddya say, would you like me to do that? Let's start with this: [Judy] follows me from Internet forum to Internet forum [trying to lure me into arguments]. She has done the same with several folks here, as they would be more than willing to tell you. Want more, Barry? If it's of this quality, sure. Please note the way that Judy responded to this assertion of mine when it was first posted: This was hardly the first time you'd posted it, Barry, as you well know. The first time was back in May 2005, and you've done so any number of times since. This is a very old, tired lie Barry's told over and over, but, again, one he feels secure in telling Ruth because she has no way to know it's a lie. The ONLY Internet forum I ever followed Barry to was this one--and that was *at his invitation* to the folks on alt.m.t when he started posting here. A quick search of the following Google groups for posts made by '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' containing the word 'Barry' will find will find posts there from her responding to my posts to those groups, in most cases for no other purpose than to trash me. alt.religion.gnostic alt.meditation sci.skeptic comp.ai.philosophy alt.magick.tantra Her game seemed to have been that whenever I would get into a conversation with someone from one of these other groups that was cross-posted to alt. meditation.transcendental, she would follow up on the thread, even if she wasn't interested in the subject matter, and -- Surprise! -- attempt to undermine my credibility on the new forum. Ah, now we see Barry's definition of follows from Internet forum to Internet forum: He includes participation in cross-posted conversations, even if the posts in question all came from a single forum. Of course, cross-posted conversations were standard on Usenet; nobody except Barry would ever try to portray participation in them as following someone from forum to forum. Add to that Fairfield Life and the TM-Free blog, where she did exactly the same thing Uh, no. I was posting to TMFree well before Barry was; and as I noted, I came to FFL *at Barry's invitation* on alt.m.t. (Besides which, I was already a member but had been only lurking; I didn't post to FFL until Barry and Vaj started lying about what went on on alt.m.t. My second post ever to FFL, #52346, has a good overview of what happened.) , and I think you've got a few more groups that she's followed me to than this one. And yet she claimed in no uncertain terms that this was the only one. Go figure, eh? It *is*, of course, the only one in terms of what virtually everyone except Barry would understand by the phrase he used. And again, even that was *at his explicit invitation*. And I might also note that this is the *first* time he's attempted to justify his lie by resorting to this definition, even though I've challenged him on it many times. So it's not as if he had this peculiar definition in mind all along. He just felt the need, finally, to come up with *something*. Oh, and one more thing: When I mentioned on alt.m.t that I had discovered Barry had been trashing me on FFL well before he'd issued his invitation for us to join him there, he threatened to accuse me of being a cyberstalker if I dared to speak up about it on FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Add to that Fairfield Life and the TM-Free blog, where she did exactly the same thing Uh, no. I was posting to TMFree well before Barry was Plus which, as I recall--I could be wrong, but I don't think so--my first comment addressed to Barry at TMFree was in response to one of his *trashing me*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip If my memory isn't faulty, t'would seem that Judy felt the need to...uh...stretch the truth a bit (if not... dare I say it...actually LIE) in the fervor of one of her Gotta Trash Barry moments. I'll be interested to see what she has to say about this claim when she returns. I don't have anything to say about it, other than that of course I stand by it. Unless Barry's REELY REELY STOOOPID, he ought to have been able to come up with an additional possibility, in which what I wrote is 100% accurate and the faultiness of his memory is completely irrelevant. Ok, I think that there will be no complaint from anyone here if I characterize Judy as the person who has most often demanded that people back up their claims on this forum. It's almost her trade- mark. Well, turnabout is fair play. Judy, please produce two things to back up the following claim: We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. 1. Please supply the name or screen name of the poster you claim left FFL because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. 2. Please supply documentation that this is the reason they gave for leaving. If it's a message on FFL, please give us the message number. If it is a private email, please ask for permission to repost that email here verbatim. (Or, when you give us the person's name, we can simply write to the person and ask them whether your representation of why they left FFL is accurate.) I'm really curious as to how you will respond to this, Judy. It really IS doing a Judy on YOU, and turnabout is fair play. Above you stand by the claim, but with no backup. I think everyone here knows that if anyone else did that when YOU had challenged them to back up one of their claims, the next words out of your mouth would be a variant of, See...I told you so...he/she is LYING! Actually, usually I just note that the person refuses to back up the claim and let others come to their own conclusions. In this case, I'd have to reveal a private communication, which I'm not going to do. And I can't recall ever having demanded that anybody else do so. Try as I might, I am unable to substantiate your claim using the Yahoo Search Engine. How much time have you spent on this so far, Barry? giggle snip You made a claim, Judy. And now the only thing you have to say when that claim is challenged is that you stand by it. I suppose we're supposed to take your word for it, because as you say so often, you never lie. Exactly. Uh-huh. Aren't you the person who claimed that if Obama secured the nomination that as a good Democrat you would support him fully? Given some of the things you've said on this forum since and the negative nature of the articles you repost, I cannot help but assume that either you have a different definition of what support means than I do, or you have a different definition of what I never lie means than I do. Well, one difference in our definition of lie, apparently, is that if one changes one's mind for some reason, that doesn't mean what one said to start with was a lie. Oh, and by the way, you've now documented that you're REELY REELY STOOOPID.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I wasn't trying to be nasty, and I was never in the least dishonest when dealing with him, or with anyone else here. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The interesting thing is that this Turk fellow actually believes everything he writes. As if he has a Mission, which ofcourse makes him believe he is a very, very important person. HaHaHa
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just for the fun of it: When I first encountered Judy Stein I thought, and said, that I considered her a shrewish old schoolmarm who argued incessantly about anything she could sucker people into arguing about because she was still trying to impress her dead Daddy with how strong she is. And she was a TM True Believer. Not in those words, you didn't. Google Groups search has no record of your ever having referred to me as shrewish (or a shrew), and you didn't get around to suggesting I was a schoolmarm until 2003. Plus which, I don't believe I had occasion to mention anything on alt.m.t about my father's death for some years. (And I'd be astonished if I'd ever referred to him on alt.m.t as Daddy.) In other words, Barry made this whole tale up, at least in terms of what he actually *said* about me. Oh, and he knows I'm not a True Believer, too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
Hey, Rick, Alex, gullible_fool, et al, The following claim by Judy has me curious. Has anyone unsubscribed or stalked off of FFL in a snit citing me as a reason recently? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And if you look back, you'll find that more than anyone else on FFL, it's been Barry who has attempted--and frequently succeeded--in driving people off the forum. We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. I'm trying to figure out what on EARTH Judy could be talking about here. Marek seems to be taking a break, but he and I were on the best of terms last time I checked. And Jim's still finishing up his latest two weeks in the penalty box, so it can't be him she's referring to. The last person that I remember who stalked off in a snit citing me as a reason was Lou Valentino. And yes, in that case, I plead guilty, and express some remorse. I took Lou to task over some incredibly sexist and misogynist things he said here, suggesting that this 'tude might explain his recent divorce, and he went ballistic and unsubscribed. For the record, Lou, I apologize for the personal inferences, but stand firm on calling you on your misogynist bullshit. But Lou bailed back in August 2007, hardly recently. Edg Duveyoung last posted back in May, but left with- out a goodbye or stating a reason for taking off, as I remember. But other than that, I really can't remember anyone bailing from FFL citing my nastiness and dishonesty as a reason for bailing, especially recently. If my memory is faulty, please clue me in so that I can post the appropriate Mea culpas and apologies. I *do* tend to be abrasive at times. If my memory isn't faulty, t'would seem that Judy felt the need to...uh...stretch the truth a bit (if not... dare I say it...actually LIE) in the fervor of one of her Gotta Trash Barry moments. I'll be interested to see what she has to say about this claim when she returns.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, Rick, Alex, gullible_fool, et al, The following claim by Judy has me curious. Has anyone unsubscribed or stalked off of FFL in a snit citing me as a reason recently? The only info I receive are system-generated notices that someone has unsubscribed. I have received no private emails containing reasons for unsubscribing. And Jim's still finishing up his latest two weeks in the penalty box, Jim unsubscribed a couple days ago. Edg Duveyoung last posted back in May, but left with- out a goodbye or stating a reason for taking off, as I remember. Edg is still subscribed and config'd with the no email option.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit -- question for Rick or the other moderators (since he's away)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip If my memory isn't faulty, t'would seem that Judy felt the need to...uh...stretch the truth a bit (if not... dare I say it...actually LIE) in the fervor of one of her Gotta Trash Barry moments. I'll be interested to see what she has to say about this claim when she returns. I don't have anything to say about it, other than that of course I stand by it. Unless Barry's REELY REELY STOOOPID, he ought to have been able to come up with an additional possibility, in which what I wrote is 100% accurate and the faultiness of his memory is completely irrelevant.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't worry, Curtis knows his scales. The only one he still has any trouble with is H-minor. Cuz all my humor is MAJOR! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues Get a checking curtis! And muscicians should always practice scales. It would do you much good; e-g-h-d-f, e-g-h-d-f ! Don't worry, Curtis knows his scales. The only one he still has any trouble with is H-minor.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't worry, Curtis knows his scales. The only one he still has any trouble with is H-minor. Cuz all my humor is MAJOR! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues Get a checking curtis! And muscicians should always practice scales. It would do you much good; e-g-h-d-f, e-g-h-d-f ! Don't worry, Curtis knows his scales. The only one he still has any trouble with is H-minor.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Don't worry, Curtis knows his scales. The only one he still has any trouble with is H-minor. Cuz all my humor is MAJOR! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues Get a checking curtis! And muscicians should always practice scales. It would do you much good; e-g-h-d-f, e-g-h-d-f ! Don't worry, Curtis knows his scales. The only one he still has any trouble with is H-minor. Oops! Did the siddhis this morning after quite a long time. The result seems to be aggravated ADHD. LOL!
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.G. Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:55 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit Besides, I have heard of someone who was actually levitating and was asked to leave the dome, because it was too disruptive to others. I doubt that's a true story (that they were levitating). We would have heard a lot more about it if it were. If (IF) anyone in the TMO is currently floating, I would expect it to be King Tony. MMY claimed to have examined Abu-Nader's state of consciousness in all aspects and found him worthy. He appeared to have tears in his eyes when he was talking on this subject, which is something I don't recall ever seeing before. Of course, I may be reading far too much into this, but it's an interesting thought, no? Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
(snip) Yes, schools have had trouble, there is chaos and these are problems that stem from our culture in general as well as parenting difficulties. I had and have no doubt that having students do TM twice a day, or even once a day, at school would be wonderfully beneficial. My concerns were: 1. once parents actually get wind of the puja and the other trappings of the TMO, there will a large number who object and the backlash against TM (snip) This already happened, so you don't have to worry. This whole thing was brought to Federal Court, concerning the Puja, and it being a religious thing- So, it was banned from being taught in schools. So, there you go; the chaos ensued from that stupid decision as well as others. The belief in God or a Higher Power or any universal principle, is not taught in school. There are obviously more important things. Very sad situation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
(snip) If (IF) anyone in the TMO is currently floating, I would expect it to be King Tony. MMY claimed to have examined Abu-Nader's state of consciousness in all aspects and found him worthy. He appeared to have tears in his eyes when he was talking on this subject, which is something I don't recall ever seeing before. Of course, I may be reading far too much into this, but it's an interesting thought, no? Lawson This is where I would differ with you. I'm not sure that if someone is enlightened, that they automatically have the ability to 'float'. There are many enlightened ones who don't have ths ability. This is one area of confusion- that in order to prove your enlightenment, you would have to be able to perform this siddhi. Even in Yogananda's book, 'Autobiography of a Yogi, he mentions someone who could levitate; But that was only one person, who seemed to have that as his concentration. Yogananda himself, didn't mention anything about him levitating himself. Just as Maharishi, had trouble answering a question, on one of the last TM shows, he did in the U.S. on the 'Dick Cavette Show'. When Mr.Cavette pressed Maharishi on whether he could levitate or not, Maharishi avoided the question, and said something like, that was not his thing, to levitate. I feel the group meditation and siddhi practice has more to do with the effect on the group, and outside the group; group coherence it is called. So, this whole thing, concerning the actual ability to float, is kind of a mystery... It would be nice to have someone who was actually having the experience, explain it from a personal vantage point. So far, it remains a puzzle.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Tue, 7/15/08, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I posted that I had spoken to a woman, I can't remember her name right now, hopefully I will remember... She was always regarded as having advanced experiences and I had no reason not to believe her. She told me that she had started to experience a more advanced form of levitition and was asked to leave the dome, because it was too destracting to other's in the dome. I will do research on this and report back when I can remember more. This conversation took place back around 1992... Sorry, Absolutely untrue. Nobody was flying in either the men's or women's domes in the early 90's. How the hell people can believe this is just amazing. Again, I'd love it if someone actually flew, but it has not happened. True lack of intellectual discrimination if you belief somebody has flown. It's more than a lack of discrimination. If you analyze the story of this woman that R.G. tells and Nabby's story, they have something in common. That something is I, an I with self-importance and elitism issues. In my experience in spiritual groups, NO ONE gets a rep for having advanced experiences unless they go out of their way TO get such a rep. And once one has started down that path (of feeding off the attention they get from others because of their specialness), the experiences just seem to get better and better, don't they? I would say that both this woman and Nabby firmly believe that they flew. I would also say that they believe this because they both have issues that render them terrified of being normal, and drive them to invent fantasies that make them special. Many spiritual teachers go out of their way to bust those fantasies, perceiving them correctly as ego, and thus *in the way* of the students' spiritual progress. Maharishi pandered to them and cultivated them. Is it any wonder that in some these fantasies escalated from I am saving the world by bouncing on my butt to I can fly?
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Nabby and Judy are my *research assistants*. Don't anyone drive them away. :-) Barry, when Andrew tried that ploy, it didn't *work*, remember? I dunno. You still seem pretty pissed off at him for creating the Junkyard Dog site, posting *your own words*. There is not a person on this forum who can't feel the hatred you have for him when you write about him. And you lost it heavily when I did the same in the series of Things TMers Believe posts. Besides, Andrew wasn't writing science fiction. :-) Suffice it to say that a publisher friend liked the early drafts of the stories, and was *horrified* by some of the things my future-cult-Inquisition characters were saying. He said, How could you possibly *imagine* anyone that insane, and that mean-spirited? I had to admit that I hadn't, that the dialog came from you, and that you were serious when you said it. Keep it up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This already happened, so you don't have to worry. This whole thing was brought to Federal Court, concerning the Puja, and it being a religious thing- So, it was banned from being taught in schools. So, there you go; the chaos ensued from that stupid decision as well as others. The belief in God or a Higher Power or any universal principle, is not taught in school. There are obviously more important things. Very sad situation. The sad situation is that there are people on this planet who think that a belief in God *should* be taught in schools, as if it were fact. What should be taught is an *overview* of world religions and spiritual beliefs, dispassionately and with NONE of them being presented as correct or right, much less best. Atheism and belief systems such as Buddhism that do not have a God concept should be taught right alongside the God- based systems. No *techniques* from any of these belief systems should ever be taught in the schools, only the dogma and theory that the belief systems espouse. IMO this would prepare students to *make their own decisions* about such things. They can decide to have something to do with one or more of these belief systems based on knowledge of *what they are*, and knowledge of what the other competing belief systems are. Anyone who wants only ONE belief system to be taught in school systems is a religious fanatic. America and its founding fathers had a dim view of such fanatics. It's good to remember that the famous quote by Thomas Jefferson that graces his memorial in Washington D.C. was written about an attempt by one religious group (Christian) to introduce its teachings into a school system. Jefferson was quite clear how he felt about that: I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man. Suffice it to say I share his hostility towards anyone from ANY religion or belief system who tries to have his beliefs -- and ONLY his beliefs -- taught in schools. In that sense, I am still an American, and despise those who would try to change it into the very opposite of what it was founded to be.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.G. Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:55 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit Besides, I have heard of someone who was actually levitating and was asked to leave the dome, because it was too disruptive to others. I doubt that's a true story (that they were levitating). We would have heard a lot more about it if it were. If (IF) anyone in the TMO is currently floating, I would expect it to be King Tony. MMY claimed to have examined Abu-Nader's state of consciousness in all aspects and found him worthy. He appeared to have tears in his eyes when he was talking on this subject, which is something I don't recall ever seeing before. Of course, I may be reading far too much into this, but it's an interesting thought, no? I think this is MMYs clever way of instructing all the TBs to place their unswerving obediance in King Tony. He did it with Hagelin too, If you want to know what I think, listen to John. It makes everyone think he is enlightened, a smart move in a group where having a representative of the absolute is of paramount importance. I'd love to see Tony Nader fly, it would make my day! I can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't want to demonstrate sidhi powers. The old I don't want to be remembered as a circus act excuse doesn't wash, if you want people to believe you know what you're talking about I can think of no better way.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
She probably wasn’t levitating, but making some noises or new contortions which she defined as “an advanced form of levitation.” Did her nickname rhyme with biss ninny? Heh Rick, where are you? I was looking for you. Just got back from darshan. Left around 3:30. Doing only the retreat or not making the trip after all? ...but mountain doesn't move! --- On Tue, 7/15/08, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 6:58 PM From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.G. Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 5:33 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit I posted that I had spoken to a woman, I can't remember her name right now, hopefully I will remember... She was always regarded as having advanced experiences and I had no reason not to believe her. She told me that she had started to experience a more advanced form of levitition and was asked to leave the dome, because it was too destracting to other's in the dome. She probably wasn’t levitating, but making some noises or new contortions which she defined as “an advanced form of levitation.”
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd love to see Tony Nader fly, it would make my day! I can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't want to demonstrate sidhi powers. The old I don't want to be remembered as a circus act excuse doesn't wash, if you want people to believe you know what you're talking about I can think of no better way. I can -- knowing what you're talking about. :-) Seriously, that is the component that was missing in many of Maharishi's pronouncements. He clearly had no grasp of the *issues*, much less his proposed solutions to them. Ok, I *know* that most folks here don't believe that I witnessed siddhis being performed. But I did, *whatever* caused me to witness them. So did liter- ally hundreds of other people who attended Rama's talks. So did having witnessed these things convince everyone that he knew what he was talking about? No, it didn't. I have seen someone I brought to a talk (a TMer) exclaim during the meditation He's levitating! or Shit...he just disappeared, and then, the next day, claim that she had seen and experienced nothing whatsoever out of the ordinary. In a matter of hours she had managed to blot out any memories of what she had seen and experienced and *admitted* seeing and experiencing the night before. The SAME thing would happen with a large percentage of people if someone in the TMO *could* fly, and demonstrated it. Only a small percentage of those witnessing the phenomenon would 1) believe that they had actually seen it, or 2) ascribe knowing what he's talking about-ness to the person who flew. It's just human nature, Richard. Over the years I have heard many, many people here say, All the TMO would have to do is demonstrate levitation and all of the doubts would stop. It's simply not true. It's something that people who have never witnessed such phenomena themselves believe. Those who have know better. In a remarkably short time, these phenomena become background, and assumed, and kinda ho-hum. I found myself sitting in lecture halls or out in the desert thinking, Oh...he's levitating again...big deal. Besides, as far as I can tell, there is NO RELATIONSHIP between being able to perform siddhis and one's state of consciousness, or one knowing what he's talking about. Apples and oranges. The non-enlightened can perform siddhis, and many of the enlightened cannot. Again, it is the *rarity* of these phenomena (together with self-serving dogma from spiritual traditions) that claims that there is a link between siddhis and enlightenment. I perceive no such link. Back in the early days of his teaching, neither did Maharishi. He gave several talks at Squaw Valley in which he said that being able to perform siddhis had NO relationship to one's state of consciousness. Later he changed his tune, coincidentally after he had found a way to make money by claiming to teach people siddhis. Bottom line is that my experience tells me that demonstrations of people flying -- REAL, unfaked demos of people flying -- would convince only a small percentage of people that the phenomenon was actually taking place. The others would find a way to make it go away, and to pretend that they had never seen what they saw. I've seen it happen over and over and over and over. Again, it's just human nature. A lot of the people HERE who claim that they would like to see siddhis being performed would wind up denying that they had seen them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: I'd love to see Tony Nader fly, it would make my day! I can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't want to demonstrate sidhi powers. The old I don't want to be remembered as a circus act excuse doesn't wash, if you want people to believe you know what you're talking about I can think of no better way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Besides, as far as I can tell, there is NO RELATIONSHIP between being able to perform siddhis and one's state of consciousness, or one knowing what he's talking about. Apples and oranges. The non-enlightened can perform siddhis, and many of the enlightened cannot. Absolutely. After all, the extraordinary achievements of savants do not lead us to think that such folks are enlightened. On the contrary they seem to balance out a disability. Also, strangely, those quite miraculous abilities don't seem to get the wonder and awe they deserve, or so it seems to me. It's as if they are just pigeon-holed into the box called prosaic commonplace as opposed to a phenomenon that points beyond itself to something profound. Everyday, common-as-muck levitation would go the same way perhaps (and on FFL the association with a disability would no doubt be made!).
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: I'd love to see Tony Nader fly, it would make my day! I can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't want to demonstrate sidhi powers. The old I don't want to be remembered as a circus act excuse doesn't wash, if you want people to believe you know what you're talking about I can think of no better way. I can -- knowing what you're talking about. :-) Fair enough, but I'm thinking more along the lines of the TMO claiming that the sidhis they teach are the real deal yet I haven't seen any evidence. If they produce a genuine flyer we wouldn't be able to critisize that the TMSP is all wishful thinking and that MMY knew what he was talking about at least as far as the sidhis are concerned. Actual enlightenment is another story and harder to measure than any sidhi. Seriously, that is the component that was missing in many of Maharishi's pronouncements. He clearly had no grasp of the *issues*, much less his proposed solutions to them. Ok, I *know* that most folks here don't believe that I witnessed siddhis being performed. But I did, *whatever* caused me to witness them. So did liter- ally hundreds of other people who attended Rama's talks. So did having witnessed these things convince everyone that he knew what he was talking about? No, it didn't. I have seen someone I brought to a talk (a TMer) exclaim during the meditation He's levitating! or Shit...he just disappeared, and then, the next day, claim that she had seen and experienced nothing whatsoever out of the ordinary. In a matter of hours she had managed to blot out any memories of what she had seen and experienced and *admitted* seeing and experiencing the night before. I wonder why? A feeling they were duped in some way? Cognitive dissonance due to jealousy that a non-TMer was doing something amazing? I know plenty who think that they are party to the ultimate knowledge and everyone else has only partial understanding at best. I'd be a bit different regarding this example, but I'd have to be very sure that I was witnessing an actual event. I said the other day that I'd seen people in flying rooms do stuff that appeared to be some sort of hang time but it's more likely the way they were moving when airborne giving the impression of being in the air just a *bit* too long as it was still just a parabolic curve they were on. Or am I just rationalising a genuine example of levitation to fit it into my unconscious idea of how reality should be? Hey, maybe it was Nablus I saw :-) The SAME thing would happen with a large percentage of people if someone in the TMO *could* fly, and demonstrated it. Only a small percentage of those witnessing the phenomenon would 1) believe that they had actually seen it, or 2) ascribe knowing what he's talking about-ness to the person who flew. It's just human nature, Richard. Over the years I have heard many, many people here say, All the TMO would have to do is demonstrate levitation and all of the doubts would stop. It's simply not true. It's something that people who have never witnessed such phenomena themselves believe. Those who have know better. In a remarkably short time, these phenomena become background, and assumed, and kinda ho-hum. I found myself sitting in lecture halls or out in the desert thinking, Oh...he's levitating again...big deal. I'm trying to decide how much a big deal levitation is than finding four-leaved clovers with the mind, they both involve some sort of extra addition to what we need to explain the general human experience. It's just that levitation requires rewriting the rule- book to such a larger extent that very little would remain and while people may get used to it as background I think a good few scentists would be more than a little interested, which is why I think a demonstration would be the best thing for the TMO as it demonstrates not just levitation but a mastery of currently understood physics. And unlike finding clovers it can't really be explained as simply luck by any sceptics. Besides, as far as I can tell, there is NO RELATIONSHIP between being able to perform siddhis and one's state of consciousness, or one knowing what he's talking about. Apples and oranges. The non-enlightened can perform siddhis, and many of the enlightened cannot. Again, it is the *rarity* of these phenomena (together with self-serving dogma from spiritual traditions) that claims that there is a link between siddhis and enlightenment. I perceive no such link. Back in the early days of his teaching, neither did Maharishi. He gave several talks at Squaw Valley in which he said that being able to perform siddhis had NO relationship to one's state of consciousness. Later he changed his tune, coincidentally after he had found a way to make money by claiming
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: I'd love to see Tony Nader fly, it would make my day! I can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't want to demonstrate sidhi powers. The old I don't want to be remembered as a circus act excuse doesn't wash, if you want people to believe you know what you're talking about I can think of no better way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Besides, as far as I can tell, there is NO RELATIONSHIP between being able to perform siddhis and one's state of consciousness, or one knowing what he's talking about. Apples and oranges. The non-enlightened can perform siddhis, and many of the enlightened cannot. Absolutely. After all, the extraordinary achievements of savants do not lead us to think that such folks are enlightened. On the contrary they seem to balance out a disability. Also, strangely, those quite miraculous abilities don't seem to get the wonder and awe they deserve, or so it seems to me. It's as if they are just pigeon-holed into the box called prosaic commonplace as opposed to a phenomenon that points beyond itself to something profound. Everyday, common-as-muck levitation would go the same way perhaps (and on FFL the association with a disability would no doubt be made!). A really good film that deals with what you are saying, Richard, is Phenomenon. IMO, John Travolta gave the performance of his life in this film. He plays an everyday guy who, one night, looks up into the sky and sees a bright and growing light, and is knocked unconscious by it. Soon afterward, he starts developing siddhis. He can learn faster, perceive earthquakes before they happen, find lost children psychically, and move objects around using only his mind. So what caused this? Was it Space Brothers visiting him and giving him new powers? Or is there some other explanation? The bottom line is that the movie deals really well with the BIGGER issue. It doesn't MATTER what caused these extraordinary powers. All that matters is that they exist, and thus that human beings can HAVE such powers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Tue, 7/15/08, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 7:49 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: (snip) For example, even back in the 70's I did not feel that TM should be taught in public schools, altho MMY was having Jerry Jarvis and others defend the TMO in court. I just saw that issue as an area where MMY and I did not agree, at least as far as the Relative goes. (snip) That worked out really well. Look at what has happened the schools; Meditation could have saved many kids in school from the chaos the schools have become. But, that's the way it goes... Thanks for posting this. If only 10% of all of Maharishis strong suggestions for implementing Vedic Science in America had been implemented in that country, it would face a very different karma than currently. You don't know that. Again you are confounding your wish with reality. You believe that such a thing would be so based on your huge investment in the dogma of the TMO. Nothing could ever prove the TMO wrong to you. Always an ad hoc explanation, always a rationalization to excuse the failure of the TMO to make good on its predictions or plans. I mean face it, Nabs, you believe in the fantasy of a perfect master who speaks through a very curious and idiosyncratic Englishman (and I'm being kind here). Why can't the alleged master speak for himself. Probably the first time in history a master speaks through someone else. You are not very well informed, as usual. To be stuck in intellectual reasoning certainly has it's drawbacks. He does speak for Himself on a daily basis, in disquise that is using so-called doubles, and He is also using Benjamin Creme who is one of several doing this service. If you wanted to learn more instead of simply exposing your ignorance of this field you could visit: http://shareintl.org/magazine/SI_current.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: I'd love to see Tony Nader fly, it would make my day! I can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't want to demonstrate sidhi powers. The old I don't want to be remembered as a circus act excuse doesn't wash, if you want people to believe you know what you're talking about I can think of no better way. I can -- knowing what you're talking about. :-) Fair enough, but I'm thinking more along the lines of the TMO claiming that the sidhis they teach are the real deal yet I haven't seen any evidence. If they produce a genuine flyer we wouldn't be able to critisize that the TMSP is all wishful thinking and that MMY knew what he was talking about at least as far as the sidhis are concerned. I'm glad you included that last phrase, Richard. That shows why I like you so much. Proof of flying would prove ONLY that Maharishi was right about ONE siddhi being possible. It would prove NOTHING about what benefits he perceived for being able to perform that siddhi, and it would prove NOTHING about anything else he said about anything. The problem with miracle groupies IMO is that they don't realize this. They think that if Jesus was able to walk on water that proves that *everything* he ever said was not only true, but Truth. They make an unconscious association in their minds between the ability to perform a siddhi and being RIGHT. I make no such association. Actual enlightenment is another story and harder to measure than any sidhi. Yup. Personally, I do not believe that it can be or ever will be measured and quantified. I'd like to be proven wrong about this, but so far I have not. Seriously, that is the component that was missing in many of Maharishi's pronouncements. He clearly had no grasp of the *issues*, much less his proposed solutions to them. Ok, I *know* that most folks here don't believe that I witnessed siddhis being performed. But I did, *whatever* caused me to witness them. So did liter- ally hundreds of other people who attended Rama's talks. So did having witnessed these things convince everyone that he knew what he was talking about? No, it didn't. I have seen someone I brought to a talk (a TMer) exclaim during the meditation He's levitating! or Shit...he just disappeared, and then, the next day, claim that she had seen and experienced nothing whatsoever out of the ordinary. In a matter of hours she had managed to blot out any memories of what she had seen and experienced and *admitted* seeing and experiencing the night before. I wonder why? A feeling they were duped in some way? In her case, I heard from mutual friends she talked to why she reacted the way she did. She was a diehard TM True Believer, sold out to Maharishi not only as her guru, but the *only* guru, The Best. What she found threatening at the talk I took her to was that she *liked* the teacher, and experienced some things around him that she had never experienced with Maharishi. She blotted out the memory of having done this out of a sense of GUILT over having been unfaithful to her guru. No shit. Isn't that amazing? Isn't it SAD? Cognitive dissonance due to jealousy that a non-TMer was doing something amazing? There was some of that, too. She turned into an anti- Rama fanatic. She also refused to go out with me again. :-) I know plenty who think that they are party to the ultimate knowledge and everyone else has only partial understanding at best. And, as I wrote about earlier, chances are that these SAME people tend to react to anything that suggests that their knowledge is not quite ultimate by lashing out or closing down. Right? I'd be a bit different regarding this example, but I'd have to be very sure that I was witnessing an actual event. As a proof of actual, violate-gravity levitation, absolutely. But to hearken back to your previous excellent post about savants, that's only part of the picture. If most of the people in a room witnessed levitation, even if it could not be scientifically proved to be an actual event, wasn't it still an *event*? Isn't the fact that hundreds of people witnessed it inter- esting in itself? I said the other day that I'd seen people in flying rooms do stuff that appeared to be some sort of hang time but it's more likely the way they were moving when airborne giving the impression of being in the air just a *bit* too long as it was still just a parabolic curve they were on. If you get a chance, try to see films of Nijinksi dancing. He was famous *because* of his ability to appear as if he was hanging in midair. Or am I just rationalising a genuine example of levitation to fit it into my unconscious idea of how reality should be? Hey, maybe it was Nablus I
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: I'd love to see Tony Nader fly, it would make my day! I can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't want to demonstrate sidhi powers. The old I don't want to be remembered as a circus act excuse doesn't wash, if you want people to believe you know what you're talking about I can think of no better way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Besides, as far as I can tell, there is NO RELATIONSHIP between being able to perform siddhis and one's state of consciousness, or one knowing what he's talking about. Apples and oranges. The non-enlightened can perform siddhis, and many of the enlightened cannot. Absolutely. After all, the extraordinary achievements of savants do not lead us to think that such folks are enlightened. On the contrary they seem to balance out a disability. Also, strangely, those quite miraculous abilities don't seem to get the wonder and awe they deserve, or so it seems to me. It's as if they are just pigeon-holed into the box called prosaic commonplace as opposed to a phenomenon that points beyond itself to something profound. Everyday, common-as-muck levitation would go the same way perhaps (and on FFL the association with a disability would no doubt be made!). A really good film that deals with what you are saying, Richard, is Phenomenon. IMO, John Travolta gave the performance of his life in this film. He plays an everyday guy who, one night, looks up into the sky and sees a bright and growing light, and is knocked unconscious by it. Soon afterward, he starts developing siddhis. He can learn faster, perceive earthquakes before they happen, find lost children psychically, and move objects around using only his mind. So what caused this? Was it Space Brothers visiting him and giving him new powers? Or is there some other explanation? The bottom line is that the movie deals really well with the BIGGER issue. It doesn't MATTER what caused these extraordinary powers. All that matters is that they exist, and thus that human beings can HAVE such powers. I'll look out for that. I like Travolta's stuff. I'm ashamed to admit it but I even enjoyed his homage to Ron Hubbard Battlefield Earth!
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: These times are changing quickly. What is off the beaten path today could very well be regarded as mainstraim tomorrow. That is certainly likely to be. But your approach to spreading the word may be somewhat counter productive. On the other hand, I am sure you would be pleased to be viewed as a fool for the cause of Matrieya. But you are so often condescending and insulting to people that your comments are likely to be dismissed as just pounding on the same theme. MMY=All Good. Any one who questions=Lost Soul. I can see that and should try to be less insulting. This is certainly a valid point from you. The ability to speak the truth sweetly is certainly not the strongest amongst my abilities.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd be a bit different regarding this example, but I'd have to be very sure that I was witnessing an actual event. I said the other day that I'd seen people in flying rooms do stuff that appeared to be some sort of hang time but it's more likely the way they were moving when airborne giving the impression of being in the air just a *bit* too long as it was still just a parabolic curve they were on. Or am I just rationalising a genuine example of levitation to fit it into my unconscious idea of how reality should be? Hey, maybe it was Nablus I saw :-) Perhaps. What courses did you attend, when and where ?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- On Wed, 7/16/08, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 6:25 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Tue, 7/15/08, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 7:49 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: (snip) For example, even back in the 70's I did not feel that TM should be taught in public schools, altho MMY was having Jerry Jarvis and others defend the TMO in court. I just saw that issue as an area where MMY and I did not agree, at least as far as the Relative goes. (snip) That worked out really well. Look at what has happened the schools; Meditation could have saved many kids in school from the chaos the schools have become. But, that's the way it goes... Thanks for posting this. If only 10% of all of Maharishis strong suggestions for implementing Vedic Science in America had been implemented in that country, it would face a very different karma than currently. You don't know that. Again you are confounding your wish with reality. You believe that such a thing would be so based on your huge investment in the dogma of the TMO. Nothing could ever prove the TMO wrong to you. Always an ad hoc explanation, always a rationalization to excuse the failure of the TMO to make good on its predictions or plans. I mean face it, Nabs, you believe in the fantasy of a perfect master who speaks through a very curious and idiosyncratic Englishman (and I'm being kind here). Why can't the alleged master speak for himself. Probably the first time in history a master speaks through someone else. You are not very well informed, as usual. To be stuck in intellectual reasoning certainly has it's drawbacks. He does speak for Himself on a daily basis, in disquise that is using so-called doubles, and He is also using Benjamin Creme who is one of several doing this service. If you wanted to learn more instead of simply exposing your ignorance of this field you could visit: http://shareintl.org/magazine/SI_current.htm I assure you Nabs I have read all about this elusive master on this website and well before in the 1980's when Mr. Creme was working this fraud. When Charlie Lutes was asked about Creme he said that Creme was being deluded by an astral being. Sounds good to me. No master would use doubles or speak in disquise. Why? This is just silly nonsense. Perhaps there is a master called Maitrya, but he ain't speaking through Creme! To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If (IF) anyone in the TMO is currently floating, I would expect it to be King Tony. MMY claimed to have examined Abu-Nader's state of consciousness in all aspects and found him worthy. He appeared to have tears in his eyes when he was talking on this subject, which is something I don't recall ever seeing before. Of course, I may be reading far too much into this, but it's an interesting thought, no? Lawson, honestly, you should consider writing for Marvel. The could be the beginning of a great story line. Pick up the story where M dies, and then sprinkle in plenty of flashbacks, and history. But basically King Tony can be the super hero, drawing strength from his mentor and spiritual teacher.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
On Jul 16, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Peter wrote: I assure you Nabs I have read all about this elusive master on this website and well before in the 1980's when Mr. Creme was working this fraud. When Charlie Lutes was asked about Creme he said that Creme was being deluded by an astral being. Sounds good to me. No master would use doubles or speak in disquise. Why? This is just silly nonsense. Perhaps there is a master called Maitrya, but he ain't speaking through Creme! I remember the first time I heard of Creme, it was in FF in the early 80's where a course participant whispered about his proclamations and pronouncements. Later it was revealed that several of the sidhas were also channelling various entities and could, on the sly of course, be met in their rooms or in some secret location sub rosa for a consultation. It seemed admirers of La Creme often had a secret wish and motivation to be front men for some subconscious entity and had decided to enslave themselves to these beings with their questionable advice and integrity. Of course the TMO pseudoscience mythos encouraged us all be become salespeople, pimping Duh Ved (or our own channelled illusion). And thus they became subtle slaves to the siddhis, just like the sages so universally warned. There have always been paths of freedom and paths of enslavement, so this is hardly new. Just the same old, same old pattern of deep suffering overshadowing our innate authenticity. Some masters will enslave their students, while others will set theirs free.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
Wayback, great post. #2 is especially important, I think, given the apparent increasing permeability of church-state separation these days. Just FYI, though, with regard to #3, the New Jersey court case didn't have to do with students doing TM during school time as part of the curriculum, but rather with *teaching* TM on school property, outside of school hours. That was enough to invoke the First Amendment prohibition of government funding of religious teaching, as far as the courts were concerned. And properly so, in my opinion, because of your #2. TM arguably is not religious per se, but it's close enough that if it were granted access to school space for teaching purposes, it would make it difficult to deny such access to other groups that really *are* religious in nature. Too slippery a slope to even put a toe on it. If it comes to supporting TM vs. the U.S. Constitution, I'll go with the Constitution every time. There are plenty of other ways to learn TM, but we've only got one Constitution. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: (snip) For example, even back in the 70's I did not feel that TM should be taught in public schools, altho MMY was having Jerry Jarvis and others defend the TMO in court. I just saw that issue as an area where MMY and I did not agree, at least as far as the Relative goes. (snip) That worked out really well. Look at what has happened the schools; Meditation could have saved many kids in school from the chaos the schools have become. But, that's the way it goes... Yes, schools have had trouble, there is chaos and these are problems that stem from our culture in general as well as parenting difficulties. I had and have no doubt that having students do TM twice a day, or even once a day, at school would be wonderfully beneficial. My concerns were: 1. once parents actually get wind of the puja and the other trappings of the TMO, there will a large number who object and the backlash against TM would be harmful. it would be all over for the TM in the schools at that point. 2. or other less benign programs would then also begin to be offered, and the whole thing would become a mess. There was no way that public schools would allow only TM to be taught - others would jump on the bandwagon 3. Public (not private) schools should not be incorporating any sort of prayer or meditation during school time, unless it is something as generic as basic hatha yoga. TM is not like that, it is associated with a Holy Tradition. To say otherwise is not being honest. Tm may not be religious as the courts were claiming, but it sure is not secular either. Private schools can go ahead and allow all this, but not public, IMO. If kids want to do TM, they can do it after school or form a club, but not during public school time. Now, in an ideal world, students would begin and end their school day with yoga and pranayam and meditation, but I feel pretty convinced that big trouble would result if we tried that now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Nabby and Judy are my *research assistants*. Don't anyone drive them away. :-) Barry, when Andrew tried that ploy, it didn't *work*, remember? I dunno. You still seem pretty pissed off at him for creating the Junkyard Dog site, posting *your own words*. No, that isn't why I'm pissed off at him, but you knew that. In any case, what didn't work was the attempt at intimidation, both with his Junkyard Dog site and his earlier claim to be using quotes from the TMers on alt.m.t in something he was writing about the dangers of cults. There is not a person on this forum who can't feel the hatred you have for him when you write about him. And you lost it heavily when I did the same in the series of Things TMers Believe posts. By lost it heavily, Barry means I exposed his purpose: to intimidate TMers into keeping quiet. I also pointed out that he dishonestly took the quotes out of context (just as Andrew did on his site), and that by not revealing where he'd posted the quotes, he'd effectively prevented any of us who wanted to challenge what he'd posted from doing so. (It's not at all clear that he actually *did* post the quotes anywhere but alt.m.t and FFL but claimed he'd posted them in a number of other unnamed groups simply to amplify the intended intimidation factor.) And again, my point was that the attempted intimidation *didn't work*. TMers didn't shut up; we didn't stop criticizing Skolnick and Barry and other TM critics when they went overboard or just simply lied. It was a complete waste of effort, on both Andrew's and Barry's part. Besides, Andrew wasn't writing science fiction. :-) Suffice it to say that a publisher friend liked the early drafts of the stories, and was *horrified* by some of the things my future-cult-Inquisition characters were saying. He said, How could you possibly *imagine* anyone that insane, and that mean-spirited? I had to admit that I hadn't, that the dialog came from you, and that you were serious when you said it. Like I say, Barry, the intimidation ploy *doesn't work*. And I'd bet a substantial amount of money that what you describe above is pure fiction.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- On Wed, 7/16/08, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 9:18 AM There have always been paths of freedom and paths of enslavement, so this is hardly new. Just the same old, same old pattern of deep suffering overshadowing our innate authenticity. Some masters will enslave their students, while others will set theirs free. SSRS once mentioned this too. He said some masters enslave their students. Gee, I wonder who he was talking about?
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I'd love to see Tony Nader fly, it would make my day! I can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't want to demonstrate sidhi powers. The old I don't want to be remembered as a circus act excuse doesn't wash, if you want people to believe you know what you're talking about I can think of no better way. It seems to me that other aspects of MMY's teaching imply that for a siddhi to occur, Nature has to want it to occur. Or to put it another way, what the person in higher consciousness wants can only be what Nature wants. In other words, if Nature doesn't want a siddhi demonstrated at a given place and time--for whatever unfathomable reason--the person being asked to demonstrate it will simply find himself or herself not wanting to. He or she may come up with all kinds of lame excuses, not really knowing why s/he doesn't want to do the demonstration.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
On Jul 16, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Peter wrote: --- On Wed, 7/16/08, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 9:18 AM There have always been paths of freedom and paths of enslavement, so this is hardly new. Just the same old, same old pattern of deep suffering overshadowing our innate authenticity. Some masters will enslave their students, while others will set theirs free. SSRS once mentioned this too. He said some masters enslave their students. Gee, I wonder who he was talking about? The mechanics of such spiritual enslavement are actually quite interesting. A favorite way is to force kundalini up an aberrant path: the student thinks s/he is having some sort of awakening or profound unstressing but instead ends up trapped in some pattern which cannot culminate in unity, although they may receive the occasional glimpse. Terrorist groups throughout history have used similar techniques like scaring the person to death, it forces kundalini awake but the incredible fear guarantees an imbalanced awakening and a person stuck in limbo who is ready for whatever indoctrination the guru wants to imprint. The real life idea of zombification in Voudoun also relies on a similar technique where the person is paralyzed into a drug induced coma and then buried alive (an old African shamanic technique). The total fear of being buried alive, once again guarantees the kundalini will awaken, but in a way that leaves the person trapped and easily manipulable.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 16, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Peter wrote: --- On Wed, 7/16/08, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There have always been paths of freedom and paths of enslavement, so this is hardly new. Just the same old, same old pattern of deep suffering overshadowing our innate authenticity. Some masters will enslave their students, while others will set theirs free. SSRS once mentioned this too. He said some masters enslave their students. Gee, I wonder who he was talking about? The mechanics of such spiritual enslavement are actually quite interesting. A favorite way is to force kundalini up an aberrant path: the student thinks s/he is having some sort of awakening or profound unstressing but instead ends up trapped in some pattern which cannot culminate in unity, although they may receive the occasional glimpse. Terrorist groups throughout history have used similar techniques like scaring the person to death, it forces kundalini awake but the incredible fear guarantees an imbalanced awakening and a person stuck in limbo who is ready for whatever indoctrination the guru wants to imprint. The real life idea of zombification in Voudoun also relies on a similar technique where the person is paralyzed into a drug induced coma and then buried alive (an old African shamanic technique). The total fear of being buried alive, once again guarantees the kundalini will awaken, but in a way that leaves the person trapped and easily manipulable. Less occult and flashy :-) but equally effective is to put a person into an altered state of conscious- ness, one in which he is disoriented and unable to focus properly, and then forcing him to watch videos or listen to indoctrination lectures for hours a day. Does anyone here remember ever feeling spaced out on a TM residence course? Ever feel as if you couldn't quite focus properly, and were disoriented? When I worked in the Regional Office, this was such a known issue that we had received clear instruc- tions from Maharishi and International Staff that course participants were not to be allowed to leave the premises of the course, for any reason. The reason given was that it was felt that they'd wander off and get into trouble or have an accident as a result of being spaced out, and that trouble would reflect badly on the TMO. (No concern was ever expressed for the course participants themselves.) And so what did these spaced-out people DO on these courses when they weren't either meditating or eating or sleeping? They sat in front of TVs and lecturers and sat through hours and hours a day of indoctrination. Could there have been a bit of susceptibility to suggestion goin' down? I think there could have been. As a side note, Vaj, my experience on other non-TM in-residence courses and retreats is that I *never* felt spaced out. On the contrary, there was a marked *increase* in clarity of thought and action and the ability to focus and handle worldly tasks. This was noticed and remarked upon by all participants in the retreat, who were always allowed to go freely into town or anywhere they wanted, because there was no reason for them not to.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
It seems to me that other aspects of MMY's teaching imply that for a siddhi to occur, Nature has to want it to occur. Or to put it another way, what the person in higher consciousness wants can only be what Nature wants. This point (which I also appeal to concerning the lack of my 6-pack abs) is not one that I ever heard Maharishi himself make. Whenever he talked about performance of the sidhis it was always in terms of them being as natural as any other ability we have and that they would be commonplace and volitional, no big deal that nature would need to hide. It seems to give a sort of out, but then it makes all of Maharishi's claims about the virtues of enlightenment come into question. Like our discussions about whether or not an enlightened person can be an asshole or even homicidal killer if nature wants it that way as is often glorified in the Vedic literature. (Bhima made Ted Bundy look like a choir boy) I guess this reasoning might provide some solace to the TBs (I am not talking about Judy here especially after her excellent point about the Constitution in another post) but it is lame in the light of the many Yogic flying demonstrations and promotion of the special abilities gained by the sidhis at this point. I mean forget the flashy stuff, how about seeing that the movement is permeated with an extra dose of the virtue sidhis? Other than the superficial love bombing that goes on in many groups with visitors they what to impress with how great their group is, under the surface is at best an average group of people concerning their friendliness, compassion or even happiness. And if anyone can even get close to the strength of an elephant, could you send them over to my house to help me move a closet full of book boxes with their mighty trunk? My point is that Maharishi didn't think out the sidhis demonstration claims as carefully as you have Judy. He was selling the dream without qualification. I know that people don't do sidhis to become stronger, they do them for the mental enhancement, but rallly now, shouldn't there be even a hint that some of them are working a tad after 30 years? I don't mean one or two rumors but a bunch of interesting shit going on? Maharishi was wrong about the sidhis working and now the movement focuses on the stuff that can't really be objectively evaluated like the ME or that it makes people feel better. It may have never been emphasized for people in the field but Maharishis promised his slave laborers at sidhaland mastery of the sidhis in 3 years. It was not a claim about how we would feel inside or the world peace it would achieve, it was about mastery of sidhis. And all these years later we are left with people's wonderful coincidence stories as if no one else didn't have a thought of Aunt Martha who we haven't spoken to in years right before the phone rang with her on the line. Now I have grown up beyond a desire to fly through the air or do magical things. Life is far too rich without these things. Playing Freight Train straight through without any mistakes is the kind of special ability I seek, and it gives me all the joy I need in my life. But concerning the so called sidhis (trade mark registered internationally and subject to litigation for any infringement real or perceived by any of the conglomerated companies and or representatives of Maharishi Multi Mega Corp): I'm calling this one guys. Sidhis are not happening. Not behind closed doors of King Nader's palace, not in the mildew infested golden breasts of MIU (what, it's only me who sees them that way?) Not anywhere but in the imagination of people who spend a lot of time in a floaty meditative state of mind that makes such dreams seem more likely. Of course if that is what makes them happy, it isn't any of my business...I've got a bunch of boxes to move (It may get me closer to that 6-pack) and a few more hundred reps on Freight Train. http://youtube.com/watch?v=i4upnkwLOzY --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: snip I'd love to see Tony Nader fly, it would make my day! I can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't want to demonstrate sidhi powers. The old I don't want to be remembered as a circus act excuse doesn't wash, if you want people to believe you know what you're talking about I can think of no better way. It seems to me that other aspects of MMY's teaching imply that for a siddhi to occur, Nature has to want it to occur. Or to put it another way, what the person in higher consciousness wants can only be what Nature wants. In other words, if Nature doesn't want a siddhi demonstrated at a given place and time--for whatever unfathomable reason--the person being asked to demonstrate it will simply find himself or herself not wanting to. He or she may come up with all kinds of lame excuses, not really
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
On Jul 16, 2008, at 10:44 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: The mechanics of such spiritual enslavement are actually quite interesting. A favorite way is to force kundalini up an aberrant path: the student thinks s/he is having some sort of awakening or profound unstressing but instead ends up trapped in some pattern which cannot culminate in unity, although they may receive the occasional glimpse. Terrorist groups throughout history have used similar techniques like scaring the person to death, it forces kundalini awake but the incredible fear guarantees an imbalanced awakening and a person stuck in limbo who is ready for whatever indoctrination the guru wants to imprint. The real life idea of zombification in Voudoun also relies on a similar technique where the person is paralyzed into a drug induced coma and then buried alive (an old African shamanic technique). The total fear of being buried alive, once again guarantees the kundalini will awaken, but in a way that leaves the person trapped and easily manipulable. Less occult and flashy :-) but equally effective is to put a person into an altered state of conscious- ness, one in which he is disoriented and unable to focus properly, and then forcing him to watch videos or listen to indoctrination lectures for hours a day. Does anyone here remember ever feeling spaced out on a TM residence course? Ever feel as if you couldn't quite focus properly, and were disoriented? When I worked in the Regional Office, this was such a known issue that we had received clear instruc- tions from Maharishi and International Staff that course participants were not to be allowed to leave the premises of the course, for any reason. I know, I find that odd too. What's THAT about? I just haven't found this in other meditation techniques--in fact side effects were unusual or simply never occurred. I have to wonder if it's a subtle (or not so subtle) form of mood-making. Interestingly, some have reported that although SSRS teaches the same meditation technique, there's less moodmaking in the org and so less side effects in the practitioners. The reason given was that it was felt that they'd wander off and get into trouble or have an accident as a result of being spaced out, and that trouble would reflect badly on the TMO. (No concern was ever expressed for the course participants themselves.) The instructions not to leave a residence course under any circumstances were in place by the time of my first residence course back in 74. And so what did these spaced-out people DO on these courses when they weren't either meditating or eating or sleeping? They sat in front of TVs and lecturers and sat through hours and hours a day of indoctrination. Could there have been a bit of susceptibility to suggestion goin' down? I think there could have been. As a side note, Vaj, my experience on other non-TM in-residence courses and retreats is that I *never* felt spaced out. On the contrary, there was a marked *increase* in clarity of thought and action and the ability to focus and handle worldly tasks. This was noticed and remarked upon by all participants in the retreat, who were always allowed to go freely into town or anywhere they wanted, because there was no reason for them not to. Same here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: This already happened, so you don't have to worry. This whole thing was brought to Federal Court, concerning the Puja, and it being a religious thing- So, it was banned from being taught in schools. So, there you go; the chaos ensued from that stupid decision as well as others. The belief in God or a Higher Power or any universal principle, is not taught in school. There are obviously more important things. Very sad situation. The sad situation is that there are people on this planet who think that a belief in God *should* be taught in schools, as if it were fact. What should be taught is an *overview* of world religions and spiritual beliefs, dispassionately and with NONE of them being presented as correct or right, much less best. Atheism and belief systems such as Buddhism that do not have a God concept should be taught right alongside the God- based systems. No *techniques* from any of these belief systems should ever be taught in the schools, only the dogma and theory that the belief systems espouse. IMO this would prepare students to *make their own decisions* about such things. They can decide to have something to do with one or more of these belief systems based on knowledge of *what they are*, and knowledge of what the other competing belief systems are. Anyone who wants only ONE belief system to be taught in school systems is a religious fanatic. America and its founding fathers had a dim view of such fanatics. It's good to remember that the famous quote by Thomas Jefferson that graces his memorial in Washington D.C. was written about an attempt by one religious group (Christian) to introduce its teachings into a school system. Jefferson was quite clear how he felt about that: I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man. Suffice it to say I share his hostility towards anyone from ANY religion or belief system who tries to have his beliefs -- and ONLY his beliefs -- taught in schools. In that sense, I am still an American, and despise those who would try to change it into the very opposite of what it was founded to be. There is a belief that is taught primarily: God= Money
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
He does speak for Himself on a daily basis, in disquise that is using so-called doubles, and He is also using Benjamin Creme who is one of several doing this service. Damn Nabby, nice one outing me as a spokesperson for Maitreya! Oh wait, on re-reading I see you didn't mention me by name, but I'm pretty sure everyone here knew it was me you were talking about... So OK I speak for the perfect master to come and I myself...ahem...this is a little embarrassing...I'm pretty doggone special myself if I do say so myself...anyhoo The Lord has asked me to inform you that he is not gunna come out of his closet (poor choice of words I know) until he sees a form of faith and commitment from each and every one of you in the from of International Money orders (American Express checks must be signed people) in an amount that the master refereed to as Coke and hookers in Vegas in the top floor suite in the Ballagio large. (He wanted to put it in terms that Americans could understand) In return we are talking some major bennies when he does come out. (any implication that he is a fan of Cher is unintentional, although he does have the complete works of Barbara Streisand, that is because he is a democrat) will bring the following things to your pathetic mudhole: No more War. (Not the conflicts of violence but the disgusting big hair heavy metal band who is now planning a reunion tour.) Poverty will be a thing of the past. (For the master when your checks clear) No more hunger. (Think unlimited buffets on the strip baby. Again this if for the master and his nubile guests.) No more diseases. (All nubile guests must undergo a clinic check first.) No more homelessness. (With your checks he can move inside and out of his refrigerator box under the boardwalk in Atlantic City.) So unless you are FOR poverty, war, disease, hunger and homelessness please contact me immediately for the details on where to send your checks. I'm make sure the master gets them... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: --- On Tue, 7/15/08, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 7:49 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: (snip) For example, even back in the 70's I did not feel that TM should be taught in public schools, altho MMY was having Jerry Jarvis and others defend the TMO in court. I just saw that issue as an area where MMY and I did not agree, at least as far as the Relative goes. (snip) That worked out really well. Look at what has happened the schools; Meditation could have saved many kids in school from the chaos the schools have become. But, that's the way it goes... Thanks for posting this. If only 10% of all of Maharishis strong suggestions for implementing Vedic Science in America had been implemented in that country, it would face a very different karma than currently. You don't know that. Again you are confounding your wish with reality. You believe that such a thing would be so based on your huge investment in the dogma of the TMO. Nothing could ever prove the TMO wrong to you. Always an ad hoc explanation, always a rationalization to excuse the failure of the TMO to make good on its predictions or plans. I mean face it, Nabs, you believe in the fantasy of a perfect master who speaks through a very curious and idiosyncratic Englishman (and I'm being kind here). Why can't the alleged master speak for himself. Probably the first time in history a master speaks through someone else. You are not very well informed, as usual. To be stuck in intellectual reasoning certainly has it's drawbacks. He does speak for Himself on a daily basis, in disquise that is using so-called doubles, and He is also using Benjamin Creme who is one of several doing this service. If you wanted to learn more instead of simply exposing your ignorance of this field you could visit: http://shareintl.org/magazine/SI_current.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: I'd love to see Tony Nader fly, it would make my day! I can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't want to demonstrate sidhi powers. The old I don't want to be remembered as a circus act excuse doesn't wash, if you want people to believe you know what you're talking about I can think of no better way. I can -- knowing what you're talking about. :-) Seriously, that is the component that was missing in many of Maharishi's pronouncements. He clearly had no grasp of the *issues*, much less his proposed solutions to them. Ok, I *know* that most folks here don't believe that I witnessed siddhis being performed. But I did, *whatever* caused me to witness them. So did liter- ally hundreds of other people who attended Rama's talks. So did having witnessed these things convince everyone that he knew what he was talking about? No, it didn't. I have seen someone I brought to a talk (a TMer) exclaim during the meditation He's levitating! or Shit...he just disappeared, and then, the next day, claim that she had seen and experienced nothing whatsoever out of the ordinary. In a matter of hours she had managed to blot out any memories of what she had seen and experienced and *admitted* seeing and experiencing the night before. The SAME thing would happen with a large percentage of people if someone in the TMO *could* fly, and demonstrated it. Only a small percentage of those witnessing the phenomenon would 1) believe that they had actually seen it, or 2) ascribe knowing what he's talking about-ness to the person who flew. It's just human nature, Richard. Over the years I have heard many, many people here say, All the TMO would have to do is demonstrate levitation and all of the doubts would stop. It's simply not true. It's something that people who have never witnessed such phenomena themselves believe. Those who have know better. In a remarkably short time, these phenomena become background, and assumed, and kinda ho-hum. I found myself sitting in lecture halls or out in the desert thinking, Oh...he's levitating again...big deal. Besides, as far as I can tell, there is NO RELATIONSHIP between being able to perform siddhis and one's state of consciousness, or one knowing what he's talking about. Apples and oranges. The non-enlightened can perform siddhis, and many of the enlightened cannot. Again, it is the *rarity* of these phenomena (together with self-serving dogma from spiritual traditions) that claims that there is a link between siddhis and enlightenment. I perceive no such link. Back in the early days of his teaching, neither did Maharishi. He gave several talks at Squaw Valley in which he said that being able to perform siddhis had NO relationship to one's state of consciousness. Later he changed his tune, coincidentally after he had found a way to make money by claiming to teach people siddhis. Bottom line is that my experience tells me that demonstrations of people flying -- REAL, unfaked demos of people flying -- would convince only a small percentage of people that the phenomenon was actually taking place. The others would find a way to make it go away, and to pretend that they had never seen what they saw. I've seen it happen over and over and over and over. Again, it's just human nature. A lot of the people HERE who claim that they would like to see siddhis being performed would wind up denying that they had seen them. I would imagine that the same happened in Jesus' day. No matter what the sidhi was which was performed, Some wouldn't see it, understand it, etc. I do think this is true, what has been said above.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
Again, it's just human nature. A lot of the people HERE who claim that they would like to see siddhis being performed would wind up denying that they had seen them. I would imagine that the same happened in Jesus' day. No matter what the sidhi was which was performed, Some wouldn't see it, understand it, etc. I do think this is true, what has been said above. Isn't it intelligent to require that extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof? Understanding that we are often mislead by our perceptions seems like an appropriate epistemological humility considering how often humans are wrong. Even eyewitnesses to extraordinary events are wrong more often than not. When I was in high school in psych class the teacher staged an interesting experiment where he started the class with a loud heated argument with a student (acting) to raise our anxiety level. Then a person ran in and stabbed him with a banana and he fell down. Afterwards we were asked to tell what we saw and only a few students saw what really happened. (Some saw more than one assailant!) Believing everything you see is not an intelligent approach considering that some people have an agenda to fool you. The lack of this understanding is impeding scientific efforts to study the paranormal. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: I'd love to see Tony Nader fly, it would make my day! I can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't want to demonstrate sidhi powers. The old I don't want to be remembered as a circus act excuse doesn't wash, if you want people to believe you know what you're talking about I can think of no better way. I can -- knowing what you're talking about. :-) Seriously, that is the component that was missing in many of Maharishi's pronouncements. He clearly had no grasp of the *issues*, much less his proposed solutions to them. Ok, I *know* that most folks here don't believe that I witnessed siddhis being performed. But I did, *whatever* caused me to witness them. So did liter- ally hundreds of other people who attended Rama's talks. So did having witnessed these things convince everyone that he knew what he was talking about? No, it didn't. I have seen someone I brought to a talk (a TMer) exclaim during the meditation He's levitating! or Shit...he just disappeared, and then, the next day, claim that she had seen and experienced nothing whatsoever out of the ordinary. In a matter of hours she had managed to blot out any memories of what she had seen and experienced and *admitted* seeing and experiencing the night before. The SAME thing would happen with a large percentage of people if someone in the TMO *could* fly, and demonstrated it. Only a small percentage of those witnessing the phenomenon would 1) believe that they had actually seen it, or 2) ascribe knowing what he's talking about-ness to the person who flew. It's just human nature, Richard. Over the years I have heard many, many people here say, All the TMO would have to do is demonstrate levitation and all of the doubts would stop. It's simply not true. It's something that people who have never witnessed such phenomena themselves believe. Those who have know better. In a remarkably short time, these phenomena become background, and assumed, and kinda ho-hum. I found myself sitting in lecture halls or out in the desert thinking, Oh...he's levitating again...big deal. Besides, as far as I can tell, there is NO RELATIONSHIP between being able to perform siddhis and one's state of consciousness, or one knowing what he's talking about. Apples and oranges. The non-enlightened can perform siddhis, and many of the enlightened cannot. Again, it is the *rarity* of these phenomena (together with self-serving dogma from spiritual traditions) that claims that there is a link between siddhis and enlightenment. I perceive no such link. Back in the early days of his teaching, neither did Maharishi. He gave several talks at Squaw Valley in which he said that being able to perform siddhis had NO relationship to one's state of consciousness. Later he changed his tune, coincidentally after he had found a way to make money by claiming to teach people siddhis. Bottom line is that my experience tells me that demonstrations of people flying -- REAL, unfaked demos of people flying -- would convince only a small percentage of people that the phenomenon was actually taking place. The others would find a way to make it go away, and to pretend that they had never seen what they saw. I've seen it happen over and over and over and over. Again, it's just human nature. A lot of the people HERE who claim that they
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me that other aspects of MMY's teaching imply that for a siddhi to occur, Nature has to want it to occur. Or to put it another way, what the person in higher consciousness wants can only be what Nature wants. snip I guess this reasoning might provide some solace to the TBs (I am not talking about Judy here especially after her excellent point about the Constitution in another post) but it is lame in the light of the many Yogic flying demonstrations and promotion of the special abilities gained by the sidhis at this point. Or maybe those are what are lame.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: It seems to me that other aspects of MMY's teaching imply that for a siddhi to occur, Nature has to want it to occur. Or to put it another way, what the person in higher consciousness wants can only be what Nature wants. snip I guess this reasoning might provide some solace to the TBs (I am not talking about Judy here especially after her excellent point about the Constitution in another post) but it is lame in the light of the many Yogic flying demonstrations and promotion of the special abilities gained by the sidhis at this point. Or maybe those are what are lame. Sidhas have only one person to thank for this lameness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues Get a checking curtis! And muscicians should always practice scales. It would do you much good; e-g-h-d-f, e-g-h-d-f ! At least it would keep you away from troublesome thoughts about what Maharishi was doing and who Maitreya really is. About which you obviously know nothing. And considerations that seem to disinterest you. e-g-h-d-f!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- On Wed, 7/16/08, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 1:04 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: It seems to me that other aspects of MMY's teaching imply that for a siddhi to occur, Nature has to want it to occur. Or to put it another way, what the person in higher consciousness wants can only be what Nature wants. snip I guess this reasoning might provide some solace to the TBs (I am not talking about Judy here especially after her excellent point about the Constitution in another post) but it is lame in the light of the many Yogic flying demonstrations and promotion of the special abilities gained by the sidhis at this point. Or maybe those are what are lame. Sidhas have only one person to thank for this lameness. Nature insists that I respond to this post. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues Get a checking curtis! And muscicians should always practice scales. It would do you much good; e-g-h-d-f, e-g-h-d-f ! Don't worry, Curtis knows his scales. The only one he still has any trouble with is H-minor.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues Get a checking curtis! And muscicians should always practice scales. It would do you much good; e-g-h-d-f, e-g-h-d-f ! Don't worry, Curtis knows his scales. The only one he still has any trouble with is H-minor. Actually, as I understand it, in German notation there is an H. That's why Bach could make musical puns by composing things using the notes of his name.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
Don't worry, Curtis knows his scales. The only one he still has any trouble with is H-minor. Cuz all my humor is MAJOR! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues Get a checking curtis! And muscicians should always practice scales. It would do you much good; e-g-h-d-f, e-g-h-d-f ! Don't worry, Curtis knows his scales. The only one he still has any trouble with is H-minor.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jul 16, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Peter wrote: --- On Wed, 7/16/08, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: There have always been paths of freedom and paths of enslavement, so this is hardly new. Just the same old, same old pattern of deep suffering overshadowing our innate authenticity. Some masters will enslave their students, while others will set theirs free. SSRS once mentioned this too. He said some masters enslave their students. Gee, I wonder who he was talking about? The mechanics of such spiritual enslavement are actually quite interesting. A favorite way is to force kundalini up an aberrant path: the student thinks s/he is having some sort of awakening or profound unstressing but instead ends up trapped in some pattern which cannot culminate in unity, although they may receive the occasional glimpse. Terrorist groups throughout history have used similar techniques like scaring the person to death, it forces kundalini awake but the incredible fear guarantees an imbalanced awakening and a person stuck in limbo who is ready for whatever indoctrination the guru wants to imprint. The real life idea of zombification in Voudoun also relies on a similar technique where the person is paralyzed into a drug induced coma and then buried alive (an old African shamanic technique). The total fear of being buried alive, once again guarantees the kundalini will awaken, but in a way that leaves the person trapped and easily manipulable. Less occult and flashy :-) but equally effective is to put a person into an altered state of conscious- ness, one in which he is disoriented and unable to focus properly, and then forcing him to watch videos or listen to indoctrination lectures for hours a day. Does anyone here remember ever feeling spaced out on a TM residence course? Ever feel as if you couldn't quite focus properly, and were disoriented? Nope. Drowsy sometimes, but in that case I'd just nod off, or not attend the lecture at all but stay in my room and sleep. In my experience, nobody ever forced us to attend lectures if we wanted to sleep, nor was anyone ever forced to watch or listen to lectures or tapes if their mind was elsewhere or they dozed off right in their chair. snip As a side note, Vaj, my experience on other non-TM in-residence courses and retreats is that I *never* felt spaced out. On the contrary, there was a marked *increase* in clarity of thought and action and the ability to focus and handle worldly tasks. That's how I usually felt during TM courses (the only exception being occasional drowsiness, which was just ordinary drowsiness, not spaced-out drowsiness).
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
Judy wrote: By lost it heavily, Barry means I exposed his purpose: to intimidate TMers into keeping quiet. I also pointed out that he dishonestly took the quotes out of context (just as Andrew did on his site), and that by not revealing where he'd posted the quotes, he'd effectively prevented any of us who wanted to challenge what he'd posted from doing so. He's been getting some serious flak on FFL for his behavior, so he's decided to try to intimidate his critics into silence by taking quotes from their posts out of context and posting them to other forums as representative of TMers. He's tried other tactics to accomplish this in the past. None of them has worked, and this one isn't working either. Oh, and he won't say which forums he's posting his quotes to. I check in on this one occasionally, which is how I saw he was doing it here. He has become one very sick dude. Read more: Subject: THINGS TMers BELIEVE, Volume I From: Judy Stein Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: Tues, Mar 6 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2oxg4l
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jul 16, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Peter wrote: --- On Wed, 7/16/08, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: There have always been paths of freedom and paths of enslavement, so this is hardly new. Just the same old, same old pattern of deep suffering overshadowing our innate authenticity. Some masters will enslave their students, while others will set theirs free. SSRS once mentioned this too. He said some masters enslave their students. Gee, I wonder who he was talking about? The mechanics of such spiritual enslavement are actually quite interesting. A favorite way is to force kundalini up an aberrant path: the student thinks s/he is having some sort of awakening or profound unstressing but instead ends up trapped in some pattern which cannot culminate in unity, although they may receive the occasional glimpse. Terrorist groups throughout history have used similar techniques like scaring the person to death, it forces kundalini awake but the incredible fear guarantees an imbalanced awakening and a person stuck in limbo who is ready for whatever indoctrination the guru wants to imprint. The real life idea of zombification in Voudoun also relies on a similar technique where the person is paralyzed into a drug induced coma and then buried alive (an old African shamanic technique). The total fear of being buried alive, once again guarantees the kundalini will awaken, but in a way that leaves the person trapped and easily manipulable. Less occult and flashy :-) but equally effective is to put a person into an altered state of conscious- ness, one in which he is disoriented and unable to focus properly, and then forcing him to watch videos or listen to indoctrination lectures for hours a day. Does anyone here remember ever feeling spaced out on a TM residence course? Ever feel as if you couldn't quite focus properly, and were disoriented? Nope. Drowsy sometimes, but in that case I'd just nod off, or not attend the lecture at all but stay in my room and sleep. In my experience, nobody ever forced us to attend lectures if we wanted to sleep, nor was anyone ever forced to watch or listen to lectures or tapes if their mind was elsewhere or they dozed off right in their chair. On my sidhis course, they required you to attend certain lectures just because they needed to know where you were, but you were encouraged to bring a blanket and pillow and sleep in the back of the room if you felt sleepy. snip As a side note, Vaj, my experience on other non-TM in-residence courses and retreats is that I *never* felt spaced out. On the contrary, there was a marked *increase* in clarity of thought and action and the ability to focus and handle worldly tasks. That's how I usually felt during TM courses (the only exception being occasional drowsiness, which was just ordinary drowsiness, not spaced-out drowsiness). There were times when I fel spaced out after long periods or rounding, but there are times when I felt spaced out after one session of TM. I suspect its a matter of the condition of the nervous system. Given MY problems, I'm not surprised that I space out on occasion. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: --- On Mon, 7/14/08, nablusoss1008 wrote: This has already started happening and will soon be seen by the general public. Yeah, Mytria will demonstrate flying real soon. Nabs, you crack me up. You confuse your thoughts with reality. I'd love to see a TM-sidha fly, but it ain't happenin' unless you've been drinking the koolaid! Honestly, when I hear Nabby go on like this, it makes me feel fortunate that I chose the householder ashrama. (actually, the householder ashrama chose me) That's my feeling as well. There is a wealth of material there to make fun of, but it would be like mocking someone who is dying. That, actually, is my take on what's driving this last set of outbursts -- Nabby's having a mortality attack, has grown painfully aware that he'll die alone and probably penniless, and is angry at anyone who even suggests that he might have wasted his life believing the things that he believes, or who questions the things he believes. So he con- siders them less than beggars in the street and considers himself the only person who knows The Truth, and lashes out at those he perceives as his enemies, and less than he is. His choice. Both for setting up the circumstances of his own death, and his next life. It may just be me, but I think it's wiser to be perfectly comfortable with the possibility that I *have* wasted my life, and that *everything* I ever believed was wrong. There is freedom in that, and an openness to learning something *else* that's completely wrong in the future. :-) My path leaves me room to continue learning; Nabby's leaves him only room enough to shout to the fools he sees around him that he knows every- thing worth knowing already, and that they don't. I suspect that everyone here can see how happy that choice has made him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (snip) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: Thanks to almost all of you for being here to teach me bunches!� Anyone think that a 10 yard hop claim isn't a levitation claim? (snip) This is exactly the warning that the sutras warn about: Where is there a *warning* against performing teh siddhis in te samaadhaav upasargaa vyutthaane siddhayaH ?? IMO, it makes samaadhi *stronger* if it's challenged. A bit like evolution, survival of the fittest, in challenging circumstances: **prasaMkhyaane 'pi akusiidasya** sarvathaa viveka-khyaater *dharma-meghaH samaadhiH*
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks to almost all of you for being here to teach me bunches! Anyone think that a 10 yard hop claim isn't a levitation claim? Oh well. I can't seem to stay here on the terms I had set for myself, with no interaction with a certain poster, so I am outtahere. Ruth, you will be missed. As for that certain poster, she is merely doing what she has done on this forum and other forums for years. To put things in perspective for you -- and this is my OPINION -- Judy has this territory thang going on with the forums she participates in. She's like a dog going around peeing on trees to mark her territory. Her...uh...dogging of you and constant attempts to lure you into a head- to-head argument with her weren't necessarily personal, it's just what she DOES to mark her territory. In your case she tried to lure you into head-to- head arguments more than she does some others because 1) you make more sense than she does, 2) people believe what you say, whereas they don't believe what she says, and most important 3) you're a woman. Judy has a history of attempting to drive any strong woman off of any forum she is part of. It started back on a.m.t., and continues to this day. In this respect, she is in my opinion more of a guy than the guys are. It must be her butch side coming out. Anyway, I for one will be sorry to see you go. I understand that you don't believe that I really experienced some of the things I've talked about, and that's just fine in my opinion. I don't really expect anyone to believe them. But I do respect the integrity and the just-the-facts-maam 'tude you brought to Fairfield Life, and will miss it. On reflection, chalk up one more win for Judy Stein. Her tarbaby act -- trying ANYTHING she can think of to lure the people she's threatened by into head-to-head confrontations with her -- has claimed another victim. Who WOULDN'T get tired of some bitch dogging their every step and trying to provoke a fight? I commiserate. Judy Stein has been attempting to lure me into arguments for over 15 years. She follows me from Internet forum to Internet forum doing so. She has done the same with several folks here, as they would be more than willing to tell you. Most of us have found some way to deal with the fact that what WE are dealing with is a form of insanity, to not take it personally, and just keep posting anyway, trying to ignore her attacks and her provocations. But I completely understand the wisdom of the graceful retreat, and just leaving the barking bitch behind. Good luck to you, wherever you go...
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Mon, 7/14/08, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This has already started happening and will soon be seen by the general public. Yeah, Mytria will demonstrate flying real soon. Nabs, you crack me up. You confuse your thoughts with reality. I'd love to see a TM-sidha fly, but it ain't happenin' unless you've been drinking the koolaid! Fortunately you have no idea what is going on in certain flying-halls, because if you did you'd be quick in presenting wild rumours to make it fit into your petty, little reality.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- On Tue, 7/15/08, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 6:47 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Mon, 7/14/08, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This has already started happening and will soon be seen by the general public. Yeah, Mytria will demonstrate flying real soon. Nabs, you crack me up. You confuse your thoughts with reality. I'd love to see a TM-sidha fly, but it ain't happenin' unless you've been drinking the koolaid! Fortunately you have no idea what is going on in certain flying-halls, because if you did you'd be quick in presenting wild rumours to make it fit into your petty, little reality. No Nabs, my reality is not petty. I like the truth. If people were flying, that would be wonderful and great. And I hope they do fly someday. But after over 30 years..30 FRIGGIN' YEARS...of people practicing the siddhis, NOT A SINGLE ONE IS FLYING. Do you actually think the TMO would keep a lid on this? This would be the story that would shake the world. Tell me, have you actually seen someone fly in a TMO flying hall? No you haven't. So, end of story. And as far as that poster claiming the TMO kicked a guy out of the Fairfield flying hall because he was flying. Not even worth a response To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
Turq, I saw you pause, as it were, before you used the word dogging. Pretty funny my friend!!! --- On Tue, 7/15/08, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 3:43 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks to almost all of you for being here to teach me bunches! Anyone think that a 10 yard hop claim isn't a levitation claim? Oh well. I can't seem to stay here on the terms I had set for myself, with no interaction with a certain poster, so I am outtahere. Ruth, you will be missed. As for that certain poster, she is merely doing what she has done on this forum and other forums for years. To put things in perspective for you -- and this is my OPINION -- Judy has this territory thang going on with the forums she participates in. She's like a dog going around peeing on trees to mark her territory. Her...uh...dogging of you and constant attempts to lure you into a head- to-head argument with her weren't necessarily personal, it's just what she DOES to mark her territory. In your case she tried to lure you into head-to- head arguments more than she does some others because 1) you make more sense than she does, 2) people believe what you say, whereas they don't believe what she says, and most important 3) you're a woman. Judy has a history of attempting to drive any strong woman off of any forum she is part of. It started back on a.m.t., and continues to this day. In this respect, she is in my opinion more of a guy than the guys are. It must be her butch side coming out. Anyway, I for one will be sorry to see you go. I understand that you don't believe that I really experienced some of the things I've talked about, and that's just fine in my opinion. I don't really expect anyone to believe them. But I do respect the integrity and the just-the-facts-maam 'tude you brought to Fairfield Life, and will miss it. On reflection, chalk up one more win for Judy Stein. Her tarbaby act -- trying ANYTHING she can think of to lure the people she's threatened by into head-to-head confrontations with her -- has claimed another victim. Who WOULDN'T get tired of some bitch dogging their every step and trying to provoke a fight? I commiserate. Judy Stein has been attempting to lure me into arguments for over 15 years. She follows me from Internet forum to Internet forum doing so. She has done the same with several folks here, as they would be more than willing to tell you. Most of us have found some way to deal with the fact that what WE are dealing with is a form of insanity, to not take it personally, and just keep posting anyway, trying to ignore her attacks and her provocations. But I completely understand the wisdom of the graceful retreat, and just leaving the barking bitch behind. Good luck to you, wherever you go... To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- (snip) Where is there a *warning* against performing teh siddhis in (Snip) I was thinking that when Maharishi used the 'Capture the Fort' analogy, he was speaking of this. That there are many powers that one could concentrate and forget the goal... Enlightenment. So, in many ways, the siddis techniques which go have the effect you are saying... In many ways, one could be confused, in that 'are we here to levitate, to prove something to somebod... or Are we here to transcend, and become enlightened?
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And as far as that poster claiming the TMO kicked a guy out of the Fairfield flying hall because he was flying. Not even worth a response 30 years is a long time for someone without perspective. As for the rumour about that flying fellow who was kicked out of the Dome ? It's an obvious lie but that should most definately not stop Rick Archer from perpetuating it since this is your main field of interest.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000 Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:33 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Mon, 7/14/08, nablusoss1008 wrote: This has already started happening and will soon be seen by the general public. Yeah, Mytria will demonstrate flying real soon. Nabs, you crack me up. You confuse your thoughts with reality. I'd love to see a TM-sidha fly, but it ain't happenin' unless you've been drinking the koolaid! Honestly, when I hear Nabby go on like this, it makes me feel fortunate that I chose the householder ashrama. (actually, the householder ashrama chose me) I don't know that I'd pin it on non-householders. The average Purusha guy is pretty sensible and would be embarrassed by much of what Nabby says.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.G. Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:55 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit Besides, I have heard of someone who was actually levitating and was asked to leave the dome, because it was too disruptive to others. I doubt that's a true story (that they were levitating). We would have heard a lot more about it if it were.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
I forwarded this to Ruth since she had unsubscribed. From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 2:44 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks to almost all of you for being here to teach me bunches! Anyone think that a 10 yard hop claim isn't a levitation claim? Oh well. I can't seem to stay here on the terms I had set for myself, with no interaction with a certain poster, so I am outtahere. Ruth, you will be missed. As for that certain poster, she is merely doing what she has done on this forum and other forums for years. To put things in perspective for you -- and this is my OPINION -- Judy has this territory thang going on with the forums she participates in. She's like a dog going around peeing on trees to mark her territory. Her...uh...dogging of you and constant attempts to lure you into a head- to-head argument with her weren't necessarily personal, it's just what she DOES to mark her territory. In your case she tried to lure you into head-to- head arguments more than she does some others because 1) you make more sense than she does, 2) people believe what you say, whereas they don't believe what she says, and most important 3) you're a woman. Judy has a history of attempting to drive any strong woman off of any forum she is part of. It started back on a.m.t., and continues to this day. In this respect, she is in my opinion more of a guy than the guys are. It must be her butch side coming out. Anyway, I for one will be sorry to see you go. I understand that you don't believe that I really experienced some of the things I've talked about, and that's just fine in my opinion. I don't really expect anyone to believe them. But I do respect the integrity and the just-the-facts-maam 'tude you brought to Fairfield Life, and will miss it. On reflection, chalk up one more win for Judy Stein. Her tarbaby act -- trying ANYTHING she can think of to lure the people she's threatened by into head-to-head confrontations with her -- has claimed another victim. Who WOULDN'T get tired of some bitch dogging their every step and trying to provoke a fight? I commiserate. Judy Stein has been attempting to lure me into arguments for over 15 years. She follows me from Internet forum to Internet forum doing so. She has done the same with several folks here, as they would be more than willing to tell you. Most of us have found some way to deal with the fact that what WE are dealing with is a form of insanity, to not take it personally, and just keep posting anyway, trying to ignore her attacks and her provocations. But I completely understand the wisdom of the graceful retreat, and just leaving the barking bitch behind. Good luck to you, wherever you go... Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1514 - Release Date: 6/23/2008 7:17 AM
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
Bob, how about, if you show it, they will come. Rather than try to explain in a long winded, tired explanation why it is not important. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (snip) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: Thanks to almost all of you for being here to teach me bunches! Anyone think that a 10 yard hop claim isn't a levitation claim? (snip) This is exactly the warning that the sutras warn about: It is not important for anyone to be able to accomplish any particular siddhi. Enlightenment is the goal, not certain 'powers'. Concentrating on powers is not the teaching. The siddhi's are just potentials of a person who is operating at a different level of self aware enlightenment. There are many enlightened people who do not levitate. I am really not sure why Maharishi put so much emphasis on levitation, myself. The goal is enlightenment, not levitation. Besides, I have heard of someone who was actually levitating and was asked to leave the dome, because it was too disruptive to others. Also, Maharishi never wanted to demonstrate the ability to levitate himself, when asked. It is a powerful technique, but I believe requires a certain kind of person to accomplish this for real, and also that the air would have to be rarefied enough, as on the top of a mountain somewhere. You need to remember that Iowa is not on top of a mountain, but is a place of the mundane, and it is ironic in itself, that this large group ended up in the middle of a corn field in Iowa..
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:49 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And as far as that poster claiming the TMO kicked a guy out of the Fairfield flying hall because he was flying. Not even worth a response 30 years is a long time for someone without perspective. As for the rumour about that flying fellow who was kicked out of the Dome ? It's an obvious lie but that should most definately not stop Rick Archer from perpetuating it since this is your main field of interest. Actually, I just refuted it in a previous post, before reading this one. In other words, no one was flying in the dome. I live here in FF, have many friends in the domes, and would have heard about it. So no one was kicked out for flying in the dome. And if someone were flying in the dome, that person would be made a TMO celebrity, not kicked out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
Bob, the same guy who brought you the capture the fort analogy also brought you the siddhis, The Natural Law Party, Ayur Ved, Stapatya Ved. He owned it figuratively and literally. I would say in this case the brand extension didn't work. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- (snip) Where is there a *warning* against performing teh siddhis in (Snip) I was thinking that when Maharishi used the 'Capture the Fort' analogy, he was speaking of this. That there are many powers that one could concentrate and forget the goal... Enlightenment. So, in many ways, the siddis techniques which go have the effect you are saying... In many ways, one could be confused, in that 'are we here to levitate, to prove something to somebod... or Are we here to transcend, and become enlightened?
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
Honestly, when I hear Nabby go on like this, it makes me feel fortunate that I chose the householder ashrama. (actually, the householder ashrama chose me) I don't know that I'd pin it on non-householders. The average Purusha guy is pretty sensible and would be embarrassed by much of what Nabby says. Yea, but Nabby is a tweener. He's out in the world, but he's got that strong straight and narrow, no deviation vibe. Yes, you're right. Of course it's not a householder-purusha thing. It's just that Nabby gives off such a strong devotee vibe. There is no deviation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I forwarded this to Ruth since she had unsubscribed. I don't suppose you told her, though, that virtually *nothing* in it is true, now, did you? (Ruth, BTW, will know for a fact that *some* of it isn't true. If she's as smart as I think she is, she'll be dubious about the rest as well.) From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 2:44 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: Thanks to almost all of you for being here to teach me bunches! Anyone think that a 10 yard hop claim isn't a levitation claim? Oh well. I can't seem to stay here on the terms I had set for myself, with no interaction with a certain poster, so I am outtahere. Ruth, you will be missed. As for that certain poster, she is merely doing what she has done on this forum and other forums for years. To put things in perspective for you -- and this is my OPINION -- Judy has this territory thang going on with the forums she participates in. She's like a dog going around peeing on trees to mark her territory. Her...uh...dogging of you and constant attempts to lure you into a head- to-head argument with her weren't necessarily personal, it's just what she DOES to mark her territory. In your case she tried to lure you into head-to- head arguments more than she does some others because 1) you make more sense than she does, 2) people believe what you say, whereas they don't believe what she says, and most important 3) you're a woman. Judy has a history of attempting to drive any strong woman off of any forum she is part of. It started back on a.m.t., and continues to this day. In this respect, she is in my opinion more of a guy than the guys are. It must be her butch side coming out. Anyway, I for one will be sorry to see you go. I understand that you don't believe that I really experienced some of the things I've talked about, and that's just fine in my opinion. I don't really expect anyone to believe them. But I do respect the integrity and the just-the-facts-maam 'tude you brought to Fairfield Life, and will miss it. On reflection, chalk up one more win for Judy Stein. Her tarbaby act -- trying ANYTHING she can think of to lure the people she's threatened by into head-to-head confrontations with her -- has claimed another victim. Who WOULDN'T get tired of some bitch dogging their every step and trying to provoke a fight? I commiserate. Judy Stein has been attempting to lure me into arguments for over 15 years. She follows me from Internet forum to Internet forum doing so. She has done the same with several folks here, as they would be more than willing to tell you. Most of us have found some way to deal with the fact that what WE are dealing with is a form of insanity, to not take it personally, and just keep posting anyway, trying to ignore her attacks and her provocations. But I completely understand the wisdom of the graceful retreat, and just leaving the barking bitch behind. Good luck to you, wherever you go... Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1514 - Release Date: 6/23/2008 7:17 AM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
On Jul 15, 2008, at 9:58 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I forwarded this to Ruth since she had unsubscribed. I don't suppose you told her, though, that virtually *nothing* in it is true, now, did you? (Ruth, BTW, will know for a fact that *some* of it isn't true. If she's as smart as I think she is, she'll be dubious about the rest as well.) I'm sure she'll hear the ring of truth in it (as many of us did) when we read it Judy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, when I hear Nabby go on like this, it makes me feel fortunate that I chose the householder ashrama. (actually, the householder ashrama chose me) Exactly, you are like a football kicked around by circumstances - at least that is how you come across. Yes, you're right. Of course it's not a householder-purusha thing. It's just that Nabby gives off such a strong devotee vibe. There is no deviation. I hope not, seeing what deviation has done to some of the confused guru-shoppers on this forum.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
(Rick, since you were so thoughtful as to forward Barry's post to Ruth, I'm sure you'll be happy to forward my response as well. Right?) Barry, you've really outdone yourself with this one. Anybody who's actually followed the traffic here for any length of time will recognize that your OPINION is not only wrong, it knowingly misrepresents the *facts*. Plus which, Ruth knows some facts that you don't. She and I had a number of very cordial email exchanges (she contacted me first, BTW). One of them involved you, as it happens. I'll just say that on that topic, she and I were in complete agreement. Others involved various topics that were being discussed on FFL, in particular the research on TM, for which I was able to give her a number of links. And then there was also just some personal chit-chat. Ruth and I were, in fact--and entirely contrary to your presentation in this post--on excellent terms, both publicly and privately, even if we didn't always agree on every point, up until the discussion we had about abduction experiences, which seemed to throw her for a loop. I have my own ideas as to why that was, which I posted earlier. (Then there was also a very funny exchange between Ruth and me concerning Barry's notion that I found her threatening, which left him in total confusion.) Anyway, on these points Ruth knows I'm telling the truth and you aren't, so I suspect she'll take the rest of what you say--the parts that she has no basis for knowing are lies--with the appropriate caveats. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: Thanks to almost all of you for being here to teach me bunches! Anyone think that a 10 yard hop claim isn't a levitation claim? Oh well. I can't seem to stay here on the terms I had set for myself, with no interaction with a certain poster, so I am outtahere. Ruth, you will be missed. As for that certain poster, she is merely doing what she has done on this forum and other forums for years. What's so funny about all this is that Barry has ranted a couple of times about how threatened I was by Ruth. But now it appears to be the case that in fact it was Ruth who began to find me threatening. To put things in perspective for you -- and this is my OPINION -- Judy has this territory thang going on with the forums she participates in. She's like a dog going around peeing on trees to mark her territory. Her...uh...dogging of you and constant attempts to lure you into a head- to-head argument with her weren't necessarily personal, it's just what she DOES to mark her territory. To start with, note that in Barry's mind, any comment I make that disagrees with the post it's commenting on constitutes an attempt to lure the poster into an argument. At least in my case; it doesn't with anybody else, as far as Barry's concerned. Certainly not with *him*. In Ruth's case, specifically--and this is the factual misrepresentation--many if not most of my comments to her were *in agreement*. (Of course, it's not impossible that Barry also considers any comment I make *agreeing* with a post to constitute an attempt to lure the poster into an argument as well. I wouldn't put such a notion past him.) In your case she tried to lure you into head-to- head arguments more than she does some others Actually, significantly less than I do with some others. because 1) you make more sense than she does, 2) people believe what you say, whereas they don't believe what she says, Uh, Barry's *OPINION*. and most important 3) you're a woman. Judy has a history of attempting to drive any strong woman off of any forum she is part of. It started back on a.m.t., and continues to this day. Totally factually false, both in general and in Ruth's case. And if you look back, you'll find that more than anyone else on FFL, it's been Barry who has attempted--and frequently succeeded--in driving people off the forum. We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. But he seems to have a particular penchant for driving off newbies, especially if they appear to be pro-TM. snip I commiserate. Judy Stein has been attempting to lure me into arguments for over 15 years. Too funny. Barry feels secure in telling this lie because Ruth wasn't around long enough to know Barry's game. But readers here are all too aware of it, especially those who used to participate on alt.m.t. She follows me from Internet forum to Internet forum doing so. This is a very old, tired lie Barry's told over and over, but, again, one he feels secure in telling Ruth because she has no way to know it's a lie. The ONLY Internet forum I ever followed Barry to was this one--and that was *at his invitation* to the folks on alt.m.t when he started posting here. Several others there took him up on it as well. This is a fact that Barry
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:50 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit (Rick, since you were so thoughtful as to forward Barry's post to Ruth, I'm sure you'll be happy to forward my response as well. Right?) Right. Done.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Rick, since you were so thoughtful as to forward Barry's post to Ruth, I'm sure you'll be happy to forward my response as well. Right?) Barry, you've really outdone yourself with this one. Anybody who's actually followed the traffic here for any length of time will recognize that your OPINION is not only wrong, it knowingly misrepresents the *facts*. I suspect that more people on this forum agree with my opinion of you, your actions, and your motives than agree with your own opinion of those things. I see no reason to argue any of them with you. You've stated your opinion, I've stated mine. End of story. Need I point out that any attempt on your part to continue this and to try lure me into a head- to-head argument with you supports *my* previously- expressed opinion of you and your tactics, and rebuts your own? Then again, you just rebutted my opinion that you consistently tried to start arguments with Ruth by throwing in a few zingers against Ruth, trying again to start *another* argument with her via email, so how sane can you be, eh? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Rick, since you were so thoughtful as to forward Barry's post to Ruth, I'm sure you'll be happy to forward my response as well. Right?) Plus which, Ruth knows some facts that you don't. She and I had a number of very cordial email exchanges (she contacted me first, BTW). One of them involved you, as it happens. I'll just say that on that topic, she and I were in complete agreement. Others involved various topics that were being discussed on FFL, in particular the research on TM, for which I was able to give her a number of links. And then there was also just some personal chit-chat. Ruth and I were, in fact--and entirely contrary to your presentation in this post--on excellent terms, both publicly and privately, even if we didn't always agree on every point, up until the discussion we had about abduction experiences, which seemed to throw her for a loop. I have my own ideas as to why that was, which I posted earlier. Zat so Judy? Ruth and I also have a cordial e-mail relationship. What you are describing does not jive with my conversations with her. You say all of this now that she's gone and cannot refute any of it of course. This is Ruth from an e-mail: I have been posting fairly regularly on FFL to try to get a feeling of the point of view of a wide variety of people, all of whom hold strong viewpoints. I have had very mixed feelings about it because I truly do not like the personal attacks that happen with regularity. But then people like Curtis entice me to post more. But I found myself saying f**k you too to Judy and I knew I could never engage her again. She is mean and clearly can hold a grudge for years. Is she a liar too Judy?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:50 AM, authfriend wrote: (Rick, since you were so thoughtful as to forward Barry's post to Ruth, I'm sure you'll be happy to forward my response as well. Right?) Wow, Barry really nailed the stalking thing, huh? Would you like her home address?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:39 AM, geezerfreak wrote: Zat so Judy? Ruth and I also have a cordial e-mail relationship. What you are describing does not jive with my conversations with her. You say all of this now that she's gone and cannot refute any of it of course. I had the same impression as you in off list emails with Ruthie.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (Rick, since you were so thoughtful as to forward Barry's post to Ruth, I'm sure you'll be happy to forward my response as well. Right?) Plus which, Ruth knows some facts that you don't. She and I had a number of very cordial email exchanges (she contacted me first, BTW). One of them involved you, as it happens. I'll just say that on that topic, she and I were in complete agreement. Others involved various topics that were being discussed on FFL, in particular the research on TM, for which I was able to give her a number of links. And then there was also just some personal chit-chat. Ruth and I were, in fact--and entirely contrary to your presentation in this post--on excellent terms, both publicly and privately, even if we didn't always agree on every point, up until the discussion we had about abduction experiences, which seemed to throw her for a loop. I have my own ideas as to why that was, which I posted earlier. Zat so Judy? Ruth and I also have a cordial e-mail relationship. What you are describing does not jive with my conversations with her. You say all of this now that she's gone and cannot refute any of it of course. She couldn't even if she wanted to, because it's true. This is Ruth from an e-mail: I have been posting fairly regularly on FFL to try to get a feeling of the point of view of a wide variety of people, all of whom hold strong viewpoints. I have had very mixed feelings about it because I truly do not like the personal attacks that happen with regularity. But then people like Curtis entice me to post more. But I found myself saying f**k you too to Judy and I knew I could never engage her again. She is mean and clearly can hold a grudge for years. Is she a liar too Judy? None of what you quote contradicts what I wrote. I said explicitly (see above) that the previous cordiality of our relationship changed with the discussion about abduction experiences, to which she reacted badly. Right in the middle of that discussion, she also got upset because several of us had pointed out that John Knapp didn't have TM's best interests at heart. That's what she's referring to about holding a grudge for years (except that she apparently wasn't aware that Knapp *is still at it* with his TMFree blog and his family therapy page). I had *never* personally attacked her until after she personally attacked *me* in the abduction experiences thread, and then subsequently at considerable length (and with precious little integrity) when she returned after her suspension for overposting. What you quote from her email, in other words, was all from *after* that reversal on her part, which, again, I described explicitly in the post of mine quoted above. I gather she's given you permission to quote from her emails so you can attempt to make readers think I'm lying. I doubt she would give me permission to quote her emails to me prior to our falling-out to document my own assertions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:50 AM, authfriend wrote: (Rick, since you were so thoughtful as to forward Barry's post to Ruth, I'm sure you'll be happy to forward my response as well. Right?) Wow, Barry really nailed the stalking thing, huh? Would you like her home address? What I liked was how she managed to include one last insult, designed to taunt Ruth into replying to it, and thus continue the arguments that Judy lives for: What's so funny about all this is that Barry has ranted a couple of times about how threatened I was by Ruth. But now it appears to be the case that in fact it was Ruth who began to find me threatening. In addition to the other traits I mentioned earlier, I think Judy has abandonment issues. NOTHING seems to piss her off more than someone writing her off as a bad bet and walking away. And she reacts the same way every time it happens, by throwing out a few last zingers and hoping that the person will take the bait and come back and interact with her again. Angela fell for it, but I suspect that Ruth is too smart to. Wouldn't it be fascinating to hear about the types of real-life relationships Judy has had over the years? My bet is that none of her ex's have maintained any contact with her whatsoever, for exactly this reason. If they even sent a birthday card, Judy would find some way to try to turn it into an argument, and suck them back into same old same old.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Barry, you've really outdone yourself with this one. Anybody who's actually followed the traffic here for any length of time will recognize that your OPINION is not only wrong, it knowingly misrepresents the *facts*. I suspect that more people on this forum agree with my opinion of you, your actions, and your motives than agree with your own opinion of those things. I see no reason to argue any of them with you. You have no *basis* to argue any of them with me, especially the opinions that are based on knowing misstatement of the facts, i.e., lies. You've stated your opinion, I've stated mine. And you've told a whole bunch of lies, too. End of story. Need I point out that any attempt on your part to continue this and to try lure me into a head- to-head argument with you supports *my* previously- expressed opinion of you and your tactics, and rebuts your own? I take you at your word that your present post is the end of the story on your part. I'm just correcting the record. Then again, you just rebutted my opinion that you consistently tried to start arguments with Ruth by throwing in a few zingers against Ruth, Only one zinger, actually, that having to do with her quitting FFL because she couldn't stand it that I continued to comment on her posts. And even if that were an attempt to start an argument with her, which it's not, it would hardly constitute my consistently trying to start arguments with her. trying again to start *another* argument with her via email, so how sane can you be, eh? :-) Ruth's been explicit that she's not going to have any more contact with me. I think she's telling the truth; apparently you don't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:50 AM, authfriend wrote: (Rick, since you were so thoughtful as to forward Barry's post to Ruth, I'm sure you'll be happy to forward my response as well. Right?) Wow, Barry really nailed the stalking thing, huh? Would you like her home address? What I liked was how she managed to include one last insult, designed to taunt Ruth into replying to it, and thus continue the arguments that Judy lives for: As I pointed out in my previous post, Ruth obviously has no intention of having anything more to do with me. I take her at her word. Don't you? (Actually that insult was more for the purpose of making fun of Barry's nitwit notion that I found Ruth threatening. But on the face of it, it's Ruth who left, not me.) What's so funny about all this is that Barry has ranted a couple of times about how threatened I was by Ruth. But now it appears to be the case that in fact it was Ruth who began to find me threatening. In addition to the other traits I mentioned earlier, I think Judy has abandonment issues. NOTHING seems to piss her off more than someone writing her off as a bad bet and walking away. And she reacts the same way every time it happens, by throwing out a few last zingers and hoping that the person will take the bait and come back and interact with her again. Angela fell for it, but I suspect that Ruth is too smart to. Note, by the way, that in Barry's immediately previous post attacking me, he declared that it was end of story. For the next two minutes, that was. But I agree, Ruth *is* too smart to come back. A lot smarter than Barry, in other words. Barry's problem here is that he can't stand it when I don't let him have the last word but reply to his end of story posts by refuting the lies therein. Folks have a *choice* of whether they to return after stalking off in high dudgeon, Barry. I'm not obliged to let them have the last word if their last word isn't accurate. Wouldn't it be fascinating to hear about the types of real-life relationships Judy has had over the years? My bet is that none of her ex's have maintained any contact with her whatsoever, for exactly this reason. If they even sent a birthday card, Judy would find some way to try to turn it into an argument, and suck them back into same old same old. I can't think of a single speculation Barry's indulged in about my private life that has been anywhere near accurate, and the above is no exception.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, when I hear Nabby go on like this, it makes me feel fortunate that I chose the householder ashrama. (actually, the householder ashrama chose me) I don't know that I'd pin it on non-householders. The average Purusha guy is pretty sensible and would be embarrassed by much of what Nabby says. Yea, but Nabby is a tweener. He's out in the world, but he's got that strong straight and narrow, no deviation vibe. Yes, you're right. Of course it's not a householder-purusha thing. It's just that Nabby gives off such a strong devotee vibe. There is no deviation. Could it be that Nabby is pulling everyone's collective leg on FFL? That he is not really a TB? Just getting everyone riled up with outrageous statements, and then sitting back and watching everyone reply? Most TB's I know are not like Nabby. And they would not engage on FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: Thanks to almost all of you for being here to teach me bunches! Anyone think that a 10 yard hop claim isn't a levitation claim? Oh well. I can't seem to stay here on the terms I had set for myself, with no interaction with a certain poster, so I am outtahere. A special thanks to Curtis who is both funny and perceptive, to Jim/Sandiego for answering every question I ever asked, Levitation is developed through roughly 3 steps. Ruth; 10 yard hops is not levitation, it's just the second phase; jumping like frogs. Third is when the real fun starts; staying in the air, moving at will ! :-) This has already started happening and will soon be seen by the general public. And yes, I also miss Jim. According to Bhoja's commentary the stages are, *if* I'm not mistaken (have not seen a translation, so these are based solely on my own take of the original Sanskrit): - walking on water - walking on a spider's web (uurNa-naabha[1]-tantu-jaalena) - ?walking on the rays of the Sun (aaditya-rashmibhiH) - going through the air as one wishes (yatheSTam aakaashena) [1] wool-navel(ed)? = spider FWIW, the whole comment seems to go like this: kaayaH paañca-bhautikaM shariiraM tasyaakaashenaavaakaasha- daayakena yaH saMbandhas tatra saMyamaM vidhaaya laghuni tuulaaudau samaapattiM tanmayiilakSaNaaM ca vidhaaya praaptaatilaghu-bhaavo yogii prathamaM yathaaruci jale saMcaran krameNorNa-naabha-tantu-jaalena saMcaramaaNa aaditya-rashmibhish ca viharan yatheSTam aakaashena gacchati. (pada-paaTha = word-reading, i.e, without sandhi: kaayaH paañca-bhautikam; shariiram; tasya+aakaashena+avakaasha- daayakena yaH saMbandhas tatra saMyamam; vidhaaya laghuni tuulaaudau samaapattim; tan-mayii-lakSaNaaM ca vidhaaya praapta+atilaghu-bhaavaH; yogii prathamam; yathaa-ruci jale saMcaran krameNa+uurNa-naabha-tantu-jaalena saMcaramaaNaH; aaditya-rashmibhiH; ca viharan yathaa+iSTam aakaashena gacchati.) One interesting detail above is that 'jale' (on? water) is the *locative* singular form from 'jalam' (water), but 'jaalena' is the *instrumental* singular from 'jaalam (cob-web), so perhaps it should rather be translated to 'with the help of...', or something like that. Same with 'aaditya-rashmibhiH' which is the *instrumental plural* from 'rashmi' (ray).
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Could it be that Nabby is pulling everyone's collective leg on FFL? That he is not really a TB? Just getting everyone riled up with outrageous statements, and then sitting back and watching everyone reply? Most TB's I know are not like Nabby. And they would not engage on FFL. My guess: He's a moderate TB but does like to stir things up from time to time by making outrageous claims. I think he frequently has his tongue firmly in his cheek and enjoys watching the TM critics fulminate. He clearly doesn't take himself as seriously as they do.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wayback71 Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 11:48 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit Could it be that Nabby is pulling everyone's collective leg on FFL? That he is not really a TB? Just getting everyone riled up with outrageous statements, and then sitting back and watching everyone reply? Most TB's I know are not like Nabby. And they would not engage on FFL. Could be, in which case he's a brilliant spoofer, but I think he's for real.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
My guess: He's a moderate TB but does like to stir things up from time to time by making outrageous claims. I think he frequently has his tongue firmly in his cheek and enjoys watching the TM critics fulminate. He clearly doesn't take himself as seriously as they do. So you think he might be fooling us about Lord Maytreya preparing to open a can of enlightened whup-ass on us all? Or that he flew further than people can broad jump? I'm with Rick on this. Nabby believes his own rap and that is what makes him so entertaining here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: snip Could it be that Nabby is pulling everyone's collective leg on FFL? That he is not really a TB? Just getting everyone riled up with outrageous statements, and then sitting back and watching everyone reply? Most TB's I know are not like Nabby. And they would not engage on FFL. My guess: He's a moderate TB but does like to stir things up from time to time by making outrageous claims. I think he frequently has his tongue firmly in his cheek and enjoys watching the TM critics fulminate. He clearly doesn't take himself as seriously as they do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: snip Could it be that Nabby is pulling everyone's collective leg on FFL? That he is not really a TB? Just getting everyone riled up with outrageous statements, and then sitting back and watching everyone reply? Most TB's I know are not like Nabby. And they would not engage on FFL. My guess: He's a moderate TB but does like to stir things up from time to time by making outrageous claims. I think he frequently has his tongue firmly in his cheek and enjoys watching the TM critics fulminate. He clearly doesn't take himself as seriously as they do. I think he is the classic example of the TM cultist. He attempts to parrot TM Speak in almost every response he gives on this forum. I also once got a private email from a lurker from Scandinavia who claimed that he knew Nabby and said that he had to leave the TMO because of mental problems and that he is well known in the movement in his country as being unbalanced and everyone in the movement there stays away from him as a result. That would explain why he hangs out here alot.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also once got a private email from a lurker from Scandinavia who claimed that he knew Nabby and said that he had to leave the TMO because of mental problems and that he is well known in the movement in his country as being unbalanced and everyone in the movement there stays away from him as a result. That would explain why he hangs out here alot. kaf, kaf, kaf...ka.. ???
[FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
I also once got a private email from a lurker from Scandinavia who claimed that he knew Nabby and said that he had to leave the TMO because of mental problems and that he is well known in the movement in his country as being unbalanced and everyone in the movement there stays away from him as a result. I'd like to defend Nabby on this point. Most everyone here would be shunned by true believers in the movement for our beliefs. Just Nabby's beliefs about Benjamin Creme would be enough to make him an outcast. One thing I know for sure, if the movement shuns you, the better chance I am going to have something in common with you. I take the taste of the movement as an inverse measure of how interesting a person is likely to be. Nabby is a valued part of the misfit bus here IMO. He represents a POV that no TB would dare to share with the likes of this pirate ship! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: snip Could it be that Nabby is pulling everyone's collective leg on FFL? That he is not really a TB? Just getting everyone riled up with outrageous statements, and then sitting back and watching everyone reply? Most TB's I know are not like Nabby. And they would not engage on FFL. My guess: He's a moderate TB but does like to stir things up from time to time by making outrageous claims. I think he frequently has his tongue firmly in his cheek and enjoys watching the TM critics fulminate. He clearly doesn't take himself as seriously as they do. I think he is the classic example of the TM cultist. He attempts to parrot TM Speak in almost every response he gives on this forum. I also once got a private email from a lurker from Scandinavia who claimed that he knew Nabby and said that he had to leave the TMO because of mental problems and that he is well known in the movement in his country as being unbalanced and everyone in the movement there stays away from him as a result. That would explain why he hangs out here alot.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of shempmcgurk Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:55 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I quit I also once got a private email from a lurker from Scandinavia who claimed that he knew Nabby and said that he had to leave the TMO because of mental problems and that he is well known in the movement in his country as being unbalanced and everyone in the movement there stays away from him as a result. That would explain why he hangs out here a lot. IOW, birds of a feather.
