[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TM belief system: People can't change
Doncha think that Dan Friedman and Judy Stein would make a lovely couple? Judy's in New Jersey, and Dan's just a couple of bridges away, in Harlem. They could get it on and then lay in bed afterwards and (because cigarettes are tamassic, doncha know) extend their afterglow by logging onto the Internet and trashing someone they've never met. :-) Another thing they've got in common is lack of control. Judy blew out for the week in two days (Yahoo's search engine shows Judy at 52 for the week, including this post, not 50), and Dan man- aged to do the same thing in one day. So they've got compulsions in common, too. Not to *mention* the fact that Judy is so addicted to FFL that she's out there compulsively following each of the posts, even when she can't post. How many think that Dan is going to be doing the exact same thing the rest of this week and that, like Judy, he'll walk through the swingin' doors of the FFL Saloon next week with an even bigger chip on his shoulder and a shitload of anger in his gut that he has to aim at someone, anyone. A match made in heaven, I tell you... :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought I'd had my 50, but according to Bhairitu's count, I've got one left. Barry's the lucky target, er, recipient. He claims Feste, Lawson, and I haven't changed our view of Knapp in the 10-plus years since we encountered him on on alt.m.t because *we* haven't changed, and therefore we can't see the positive changes in Knapp. Barry's forgotten something, though. About a year and a half ago, Knapp started the TMFree blog for disaffected former TMers to complain about TM; and he put up his own Family Counseling site to advertise his cult-counseling services, with a particular focus on former TMers. (Couldn't be any connection between the two, of course.) I've been checking the blog regularly; I even participated as a commenter in its first months. And I've browsed around Knapp's Family Counseling site. Reading one or the other or both gives you a *very* clear idea of where Knapp's head is at currently. There's no need to extrapolate from the thinking and behavior he demonstrated back on alt.m.t and Trancenet more than a decade previously. He hasn't changed. He's become more sophisticated in the way he trashes TM/the TMO/MMY, making extensive use of professional therapeutic jargon so as to sound more authoritative, but the substance is the same as it was over a decade ago. It's just as poisonously negative, and just as dishonestly presented. The Knapp Family Counseling site includes a page headed Why I Believe the Transcendental Meditation Org Is Dangerous. It has many links to articles on the revived Trancenet Web site, including to the notorious German study he pushed so assiduously back in the '90s on alt.m.t, despite being told by professional researchers-- including one who was a strong TM critic and another who was neutral--that the study was completely unscientific. (And no, for various reasons it's not even useful as anecdotal material; I may post on that next week.) As to the TMFree blog, if you think FFL is negative concerning TM/TMers/TMO/MMY, the views expressed here are benignly rosy compared to Knapp's blog, both in the posts and the comments thereon. Anyone who dares say anything positive about TM/TMO/MMY is attacked by the commenters with a ferocity that makes the pro-TMers' comments about TM critics on FFL look like gentle caresses. (I haven't been reading all the comments there, but it appears from what I have read that the few pro-TMers that participated in the beginning have been driven off. At one point when I was still commenting there, Knapp made a half-hearted attempt to dial down the former TMers' hostility, but he didn't bother to keep an eye on things, and nobody paid any attention.) Having delivered himself of this blooper about Knapp, Barry goes on to dig himself an even deeper hole by pointing proudly to Curtis as another example of a former TM critic who has become much milder and more benign. Sez Barry, They [meaning Feste, Lawson, and me] don't believe that it is *possible* for someone they disliked in the past to change in the present. Once they have developed their first impression of them, that impression is fixed, immutable. But we have no problem seeing the changes in Curtis. Barry inadvertently steps on his own point again, as he so often does when he's more anxious to bash TMers than to make sense. Their belief system, Barry proclaims, does not seem to allow for the possibility of [Knapp] having changed over the years. Actually, we see no *evidence* of his having changed over the years, and much evidence, from his blog, his Web site, and his posts here, that he has not--in sharp contrast to the way we see Curtis. A couple more points: This covers Judy (who pretty much dwells in the past
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TM belief system: People can't change
Turqd, Interesting, you as the Matchmaker. You do spend a lot of time discussing images of you taking out your penis around other men, but yet are offended by gays. Conflicted? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doncha think that Dan Friedman and Judy Stein would make a lovely couple? Judy's in New Jersey, and Dan's just a couple of bridges away, in Harlem. They could get it on and then lay in bed afterwards and (because cigarettes are tamassic, doncha know) extend their afterglow by logging onto the Internet and trashing someone they've never met. :-) Another thing they've got in common is lack of control. Judy blew out for the week in two days (Yahoo's search engine shows Judy at 52 for the week, including this post, not 50), and Dan man- aged to do the same thing in one day. So they've got compulsions in common, too. Not to *mention* the fact that Judy is so addicted to FFL that she's out there compulsively following each of the posts, even when she can't post. How many think that Dan is going to be doing the exact same thing the rest of this week and that, like Judy, he'll walk through the swingin' doors of the FFL Saloon next week with an even bigger chip on his shoulder and a shitload of anger in his gut that he has to aim at someone, anyone. A match made in heaven, I tell you... :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I thought I'd had my 50, but according to Bhairitu's count, I've got one left. Barry's the lucky target, er, recipient. He claims Feste, Lawson, and I haven't changed our view of Knapp in the 10-plus years since we encountered him on on alt.m.t because *we* haven't changed, and therefore we can't see the positive changes in Knapp. Barry's forgotten something, though. About a year and a half ago, Knapp started the TMFree blog for disaffected former TMers to complain about TM; and he put up his own Family Counseling site to advertise his cult-counseling services, with a particular focus on former TMers. (Couldn't be any connection between the two, of course.) I've been checking the blog regularly; I even participated as a commenter in its first months. And I've browsed around Knapp's Family Counseling site. Reading one or the other or both gives you a *very* clear idea of where Knapp's head is at currently. There's no need to extrapolate from the thinking and behavior he demonstrated back on alt.m.t and Trancenet more than a decade previously. He hasn't changed. He's become more sophisticated in the way he trashes TM/the TMO/MMY, making extensive use of professional therapeutic jargon so as to sound more authoritative, but the substance is the same as it was over a decade ago. It's just as poisonously negative, and just as dishonestly presented. The Knapp Family Counseling site includes a page headed Why I Believe the Transcendental Meditation Org Is Dangerous. It has many links to articles on the revived Trancenet Web site, including to the notorious German study he pushed so assiduously back in the '90s on alt.m.t, despite being told by professional researchers-- including one who was a strong TM critic and another who was neutral--that the study was completely unscientific. (And no, for various reasons it's not even useful as anecdotal material; I may post on that next week.) As to the TMFree blog, if you think FFL is negative concerning TM/TMers/TMO/MMY, the views expressed here are benignly rosy compared to Knapp's blog, both in the posts and the comments thereon. Anyone who dares say anything positive about TM/TMO/MMY is attacked by the commenters with a ferocity that makes the pro-TMers' comments about TM critics on FFL look like gentle caresses. (I haven't been reading all the comments there, but it appears from what I have read that the few pro-TMers that participated in the beginning have been driven off. At one point when I was still commenting there, Knapp made a half-hearted attempt to dial down the former TMers' hostility, but he didn't bother to keep an eye on things, and nobody paid any attention.) Having delivered himself of this blooper about Knapp, Barry goes on to dig himself an even deeper hole by pointing proudly to Curtis as another example of a former TM critic who has become much milder and more benign. Sez Barry, They [meaning Feste, Lawson, and me] don't believe that it is *possible* for someone they disliked in the past to change in the present. Once they have developed their first impression of them, that impression is fixed, immutable. But we have no problem seeing the changes in Curtis. Barry inadvertently steps on his own point again, as he so often does when he's more anxious to bash TMers than to make sense. Their belief system, Barry proclaims, does
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TM belief system: People can't change
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, danfriedman2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turqd, Interesting, you as the Matchmaker. You do spend a lot of time discussing images of you taking out your penis around other men, but yet are offended by gays. Conflicted? Hey Dan, Since you have clearly taken the path of intentionally going over the posting limit so that you can claim in the future that you were banned by Fairfield Life, and thus feel more self-important, I've got something to ask you before you go. You can probably squeeze the answer in before Rick cuts off your posting privileges. I've noticed in the short time you've been here that you seem to share many of the same characteristics as one of our other posters, Jim Flanegin (sandiego108). For example, you tend to get a tad carried away in retaliating verbally against people who (in the immortal words of Rodney Danger- field) don't give you no respect. You also seem to have a fondness for gay slurs. So my question has to do with what *else* you share with Sandi Ego. Do you consider yourself enlightened, like he does? I ask because of some of the phrasings you have used, such as feeling that you are the instrument of karma, and that when you lash out at someone, that is 100% deserved. Jim seems to feel similarly, and so I was wondering whether you're enlightened like he is. If so, welcome. On July 5th, after you've finished your one-week timeout for dis- playing a Jim-like inability to count, please come back and do as good a job of explaining what it's like to be enlightened to us as you have done being demonstrating what it's like to be a representative of TM and Maharishi. We'll be waiting with 'bated breath.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TM belief system: People can't change
On Jun 24, 2008, at 9:18 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: If so, welcome. On July 5th, after you've finished your one-week timeout for dis- playing a Jim-like inability to count, please come back and do as good a job of explaining what it's like to be enlightened to us as you have done being demonstrating what it's like to be a representative of TM and Maharishi. When you're established in infinity, finite counting is just SO waking state. ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TM belief system: People can't change
TurquoiseB wrote: Another thing they've got in common is lack of control. Judy blew out for the week in two days (Yahoo's search engine shows Judy at 52 for the week, including this post, not 50), and Dan man- aged to do the same thing in one day. So they've got compulsions in common, too. Yahoos search count seems to be based on when they post to the web site not the actual time stamps in the message headers which is what my program reads. So unless I wasn't sent one or two of Judy's messages the count from email was 50. On the web site, logged out so I got UTC post times it showed 51 with the search which is 1 different from my count and 1 from yours. I look at the time stamps for when the email was sent to Yahoo not when it was finally posted. If Yahoo has a glitch a message could get posted there much later than it was sent and we've certainly seen that happen a number of times. :D I may do a check later today against the web search to see if I didn't receive a message she posted. Otherwise we're close enough for jazz. :D
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TM belief system: People can't change
Bhairitu wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: Another thing they've got in common is lack of control. Judy blew out for the week in two days (Yahoo's search engine shows Judy at 52 for the week, including this post, not 50), and Dan man- aged to do the same thing in one day. So they've got compulsions in common, too. Yahoos search count seems to be based on when they post to the web site not the actual time stamps in the message headers which is what my program reads. So unless I wasn't sent one or two of Judy's messages the count from email was 50. On the web site, logged out so I got UTC post times it showed 51 with the search which is 1 different from my count and 1 from yours. I look at the time stamps for when the email was sent to Yahoo not when it was finally posted. If Yahoo has a glitch a message could get posted there much later than it was sent and we've certainly seen that happen a number of times. :D I may do a check later today against the web search to see if I didn't receive a message she posted. Otherwise we're close enough for jazz. :D By comparing against my FFL email folder and the search on the web site I found 1 post of Judy's that was posted to the web site hours later than it was sent out via email. Judy's last post where she thought she already had 50 doesn't show up on the web search though it apparently does on Turqs. So there is some inconsistency between the web and email, the web sometimes delaying a post. Most people stay way under the limit so it is not a big deal.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TM belief system: People can't change
Good post. Glad you chimed in. Reality check has always been one of your great contributions. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought I'd had my 50, but according to Bhairitu's count, I've got one left. Barry's the lucky target, er, recipient. He claims Feste, Lawson, and I haven't changed our view of Knapp in the 10-plus years since we encountered him on on alt.m.t because *we* haven't changed, and therefore we can't see the positive changes in Knapp. Barry's forgotten something, though. About a year and a half ago, Knapp started the TMFree blog for disaffected former TMers to complain about TM; and he put up his own Family Counseling site to advertise his cult-counseling services, with a particular focus on former TMers. (Couldn't be any connection between the two, of course.) I've been checking the blog regularly; I even participated as a commenter in its first months. And I've browsed around Knapp's Family Counseling site. Reading one or the other or both gives you a *very* clear idea of where Knapp's head is at currently. There's no need to extrapolate from the thinking and behavior he demonstrated back on alt.m.t and Trancenet more than a decade previously. He hasn't changed. He's become more sophisticated in the way he trashes TM/the TMO/MMY, making extensive use of professional therapeutic jargon so as to sound more authoritative, but the substance is the same as it was over a decade ago. It's just as poisonously negative, and just as dishonestly presented. The Knapp Family Counseling site includes a page headed Why I Believe the Transcendental Meditation Org Is Dangerous. It has many links to articles on the revived Trancenet Web site, including to the notorious German study he pushed so assiduously back in the '90s on alt.m.t, despite being told by professional researchers-- including one who was a strong TM critic and another who was neutral--that the study was completely unscientific. (And no, for various reasons it's not even useful as anecdotal material; I may post on that next week.) As to the TMFree blog, if you think FFL is negative concerning TM/TMers/TMO/MMY, the views expressed here are benignly rosy compared to Knapp's blog, both in the posts and the comments thereon. Anyone who dares say anything positive about TM/TMO/MMY is attacked by the commenters with a ferocity that makes the pro-TMers' comments about TM critics on FFL look like gentle caresses. (I haven't been reading all the comments there, but it appears from what I have read that the few pro-TMers that participated in the beginning have been driven off. At one point when I was still commenting there, Knapp made a half-hearted attempt to dial down the former TMers' hostility, but he didn't bother to keep an eye on things, and nobody paid any attention.) Having delivered himself of this blooper about Knapp, Barry goes on to dig himself an even deeper hole by pointing proudly to Curtis as another example of a former TM critic who has become much milder and more benign. Sez Barry, They [meaning Feste, Lawson, and me] don't believe that it is *possible* for someone they disliked in the past to change in the present. Once they have developed their first impression of them, that impression is fixed, immutable. But we have no problem seeing the changes in Curtis. Barry inadvertently steps on his own point again, as he so often does when he's more anxious to bash TMers than to make sense. Their belief system, Barry proclaims, does not seem to allow for the possibility of [Knapp] having changed over the years. Actually, we see no *evidence* of his having changed over the years, and much evidence, from his blog, his Web site, and his posts here, that he has not--in sharp contrast to the way we see Curtis. A couple more points: This covers Judy (who pretty much dwells in the past full-time), Lawson, and feste. Their message is consistent: Why should we trust what John says in the present, because his past actions (as we see them, that is) have convinced us that he is not to be trusted. Now THINK about this statement, Note for the record that this statement is Barry's own version of what we said, even though he puts it in quotes as if he was directly quoting one of us. For me, it's not just Knapp's past actions, it's his current actions as well. snip WHY? And WHY do they act like this? My bet is that what *we* see as their anger at these TM critics is in reality anger at *them- selves* for their inability to change. They cling to the TM dogma, and talk, talk, talk about its supposed benefits and the changes it can supposedly enable people to make, but they never actually *make* any of these changes *themselves*. That must get them down after a while, seeing others change and evolve around them, while they do
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TM belief system: People can't change
Turq, You and John Knapp can't change. That's why you deserve each other's company so much. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The re-arrival of John Knapp on FFL, and the reaction of the TM TBs to his presence, has brought an issue into focus for me, so I figured I'd throw it out for others to react to. Or not, if you don't think it's relevant. Most of the people who have reacted so nega- tively and so *strongly* to John in the last few days are doing so based on their *past* interactions with him. They even say this. This covers Judy (who pretty much dwells in the past full-time), Lawson, and feste. Their message is consistent: Why should we trust what John says in the present, because his past actions (as we see them, that is) have convinced us that he is not to be trusted. Now THINK about this statement, and what it reveals about the persons making it and their belief system. They don't believe that it is *possible* for someone they disliked in the past to change in the present. Once they have developed their first impression of them, that impression is fixed, immutable. And WHY? Duh, because none of THEM have changed, in years. Sometimes decades. If you go back into the archives of FFL or a.m.t. and look up posts by Judy Stein or by Lawson or by feste, you could swap out the posts from a decade ago with today's posts, and no one would be able to tell the difference. There has been no change; they are still the same basic selves, with the same basic samskaras and same basic behavioral patterns, still posting the same basic ignorance and bigotry that they posted years ago. Nothing *ever* seems to changes for them. Compare and contrast to someone like Curtis. There was a time when he was pretty in-your- face on these forums, too (and he still can be, when it is deserved, although almost always with humor these days). But generally we see a kinder, gentler, more balanced Curtis in his posts these days, a veritable model of behavior that many of us look up to. John Knapp seems to have learned a few things along the Way, too. And I'm betting that the *majority* of people here notice the difference. Whereas the TM TB trio I'm discussing above do not. They see John as the same old demon they saw him as before; their belief system does not seem to allow for the possibility of him having changed over the years. WHY? And WHY do they act like this? My bet is that what *we* see as their anger at these TM critics is in reality anger at *them- selves* for their inability to change. They cling to the TM dogma, and talk, talk, talk about its supposed benefits and the changes it can supposedly enable people to make, but they never actually *make* any of these changes *themselves*. That must get them down after a while, seeing others change and evolve around them, while they do not. And seemingly cannot. So, being unable to address what's really bug- ging them, they lash out at anyone they can find an excuse (and, seemingly, *any* excuse) to lash out at, and project onto their victims the very inability to change that they see in themselves. I find it curious, and more than a little sad.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TM belief system: People can't change
Barry as near as I can tell you haven't changed in years either. Ken -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, danfriedman2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq, You and John Knapp can't change. That's why you deserve each other's company so much. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: The re-arrival of John Knapp on FFL, and the reaction of the TM TBs to his presence, has brought an issue into focus for me, so I figured I'd throw it out for others to react to. Or not, if you don't think it's relevant. Most of the people who have reacted so nega- tively and so *strongly* to John in the last few days are doing so based on their *past* interactions with him. They even say this. This covers Judy (who pretty much dwells in the past full-time), Lawson, and feste. Their message is consistent: Why should we trust what John says in the present, because his past actions (as we see them, that is) have convinced us that he is not to be trusted. Now THINK about this statement, and what it reveals about the persons making it and their belief system. They don't believe that it is *possible* for someone they disliked in the past to change in the present. Once they have developed their first impression of them, that impression is fixed, immutable. And WHY? Duh, because none of THEM have changed, in years. Sometimes decades. If you go back into the archives of FFL or a.m.t. and look up posts by Judy Stein or by Lawson or by feste, you could swap out the posts from a decade ago with today's posts, and no one would be able to tell the difference. There has been no change; they are still the same basic selves, with the same basic samskaras and same basic behavioral patterns, still posting the same basic ignorance and bigotry that they posted years ago. Nothing *ever* seems to changes for them. Compare and contrast to someone like Curtis. There was a time when he was pretty in-your- face on these forums, too (and he still can be, when it is deserved, although almost always with humor these days). But generally we see a kinder, gentler, more balanced Curtis in his posts these days, a veritable model of behavior that many of us look up to. John Knapp seems to have learned a few things along the Way, too. And I'm betting that the *majority* of people here notice the difference. Whereas the TM TB trio I'm discussing above do not. They see John as the same old demon they saw him as before; their belief system does not seem to allow for the possibility of him having changed over the years. WHY? And WHY do they act like this? My bet is that what *we* see as their anger at these TM critics is in reality anger at *them- selves* for their inability to change. They cling to the TM dogma, and talk, talk, talk about its supposed benefits and the changes it can supposedly enable people to make, but they never actually *make* any of these changes *themselves*. That must get them down after a while, seeing others change and evolve around them, while they do not. And seemingly cannot. So, being unable to address what's really bug- ging them, they lash out at anyone they can find an excuse (and, seemingly, *any* excuse) to lash out at, and project onto their victims the very inability to change that they see in themselves. I find it curious, and more than a little sad.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TM belief system: People can't change
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The re-arrival of John Knapp on FFL, and the reaction of the TM TBs to his presence, has brought an issue into focus for me, so I figured I'd throw it out for others to react to. Or not, if you don't think it's relevant. Most of the people who have reacted so nega- tively and so *strongly* to John in the last few days are doing so based on their *past* interactions with him. They even say this. This covers Judy (who pretty much dwells in the past full-time), Lawson, and feste. Their message is consistent: Why should we trust what John says in the present, because his past actions (as we see them, that is) have convinced us that he is not to be trusted. Well, here's the thing... If John has changed, then why the hell does he feel a need to come and talk about TM at all? Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TM belief system: People can't change
On Jun 23, 2008, at 1:18 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The re-arrival of John Knapp on FFL, and the reaction of the TM TBs to his presence, has brought an issue into focus for me, so I figured I'd throw it out for others to react to. Or not, if you don't think it's relevant. Most of the people who have reacted so nega- tively and so *strongly* to John in the last few days are doing so based on their *past* interactions with him. They even say this. This covers Judy (who pretty much dwells in the past full-time), Lawson, and feste. Their message is consistent: Why should we trust what John says in the present, because his past actions (as we see them, that is) have convinced us that he is not to be trusted. Well, here's the thing... If John has changed, then why the hell does he feel a need to come and talk about TM at all? When you've had a bowel movement, didn't you ever take a gander at it before you flushed?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TM belief system: People can't change
Vaj, My bowel movement is exquisite when compared to your Personality. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 23, 2008, at 1:18 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: The re-arrival of John Knapp on FFL, and the reaction of the TM TBs to his presence, has brought an issue into focus for me, so I figured I'd throw it out for others to react to. Or not, if you don't think it's relevant. Most of the people who have reacted so nega- tively and so *strongly* to John in the last few days are doing so based on their *past* interactions with him. They even say this. This covers Judy (who pretty much dwells in the past full-time), Lawson, and feste. Their message is consistent: Why should we trust what John says in the present, because his past actions (as we see them, that is) have convinced us that he is not to be trusted. Well, here's the thing... If John has changed, then why the hell does he feel a need to come and talk about TM at all? When you've had a bowel movement, didn't you ever take a gander at it before you flushed?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TM belief system: People can't change
On Jun 23, 2008, at 1:37 PM, danfriedman2002 wrote: Vaj, My bowel movement is exquisite when compared to your Personality. So you are talking to it? How interesting! I know a developmental psychologist who'd love to meet you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TM belief system: People can't change
Vaj = psych;, so save the recommendation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 23, 2008, at 1:37 PM, danfriedman2002 wrote: Vaj, My bowel movement is exquisite when compared to your Personality. So you are talking to it? How interesting! I know a developmental psychologist who'd love to meet you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TM belief system: People can't change
I thought I'd had my 50, but according to Bhairitu's count, I've got one left. Barry's the lucky target, er, recipient. He claims Feste, Lawson, and I haven't changed our view of Knapp in the 10-plus years since we encountered him on on alt.m.t because *we* haven't changed, and therefore we can't see the positive changes in Knapp. Barry's forgotten something, though. About a year and a half ago, Knapp started the TMFree blog for disaffected former TMers to complain about TM; and he put up his own Family Counseling site to advertise his cult-counseling services, with a particular focus on former TMers. (Couldn't be any connection between the two, of course.) I've been checking the blog regularly; I even participated as a commenter in its first months. And I've browsed around Knapp's Family Counseling site. Reading one or the other or both gives you a *very* clear idea of where Knapp's head is at currently. There's no need to extrapolate from the thinking and behavior he demonstrated back on alt.m.t and Trancenet more than a decade previously. He hasn't changed. He's become more sophisticated in the way he trashes TM/the TMO/MMY, making extensive use of professional therapeutic jargon so as to sound more authoritative, but the substance is the same as it was over a decade ago. It's just as poisonously negative, and just as dishonestly presented. The Knapp Family Counseling site includes a page headed Why I Believe the Transcendental Meditation Org Is Dangerous. It has many links to articles on the revived Trancenet Web site, including to the notorious German study he pushed so assiduously back in the '90s on alt.m.t, despite being told by professional researchers-- including one who was a strong TM critic and another who was neutral--that the study was completely unscientific. (And no, for various reasons it's not even useful as anecdotal material; I may post on that next week.) As to the TMFree blog, if you think FFL is negative concerning TM/TMers/TMO/MMY, the views expressed here are benignly rosy compared to Knapp's blog, both in the posts and the comments thereon. Anyone who dares say anything positive about TM/TMO/MMY is attacked by the commenters with a ferocity that makes the pro-TMers' comments about TM critics on FFL look like gentle caresses. (I haven't been reading all the comments there, but it appears from what I have read that the few pro-TMers that participated in the beginning have been driven off. At one point when I was still commenting there, Knapp made a half-hearted attempt to dial down the former TMers' hostility, but he didn't bother to keep an eye on things, and nobody paid any attention.) Having delivered himself of this blooper about Knapp, Barry goes on to dig himself an even deeper hole by pointing proudly to Curtis as another example of a former TM critic who has become much milder and more benign. Sez Barry, They [meaning Feste, Lawson, and me] don't believe that it is *possible* for someone they disliked in the past to change in the present. Once they have developed their first impression of them, that impression is fixed, immutable. But we have no problem seeing the changes in Curtis. Barry inadvertently steps on his own point again, as he so often does when he's more anxious to bash TMers than to make sense. Their belief system, Barry proclaims, does not seem to allow for the possibility of [Knapp] having changed over the years. Actually, we see no *evidence* of his having changed over the years, and much evidence, from his blog, his Web site, and his posts here, that he has not--in sharp contrast to the way we see Curtis. A couple more points: This covers Judy (who pretty much dwells in the past full-time), Lawson, and feste. Their message is consistent: Why should we trust what John says in the present, because his past actions (as we see them, that is) have convinced us that he is not to be trusted. Now THINK about this statement, Note for the record that this statement is Barry's own version of what we said, even though he puts it in quotes as if he was directly quoting one of us. For me, it's not just Knapp's past actions, it's his current actions as well. snip WHY? And WHY do they act like this? My bet is that what *we* see as their anger at these TM critics is in reality anger at *them- selves* for their inability to change. They cling to the TM dogma, and talk, talk, talk about its supposed benefits and the changes it can supposedly enable people to make, but they never actually *make* any of these changes *themselves*. That must get them down after a while, seeing others change and evolve around them, while they do not. And seemingly cannot. Barry may be the very *last* person who should be preaching about the inability to change--at least to change for the better. Over the years, his thinking and behavior have gotten progressively *worse*. His posts are angrier, nastier, more hostile, more self-important, more
[FairfieldLife] Re: Analyzing the TM belief system: People can't change
That's a good reply, Judy. I read this piece by Barry earlier today and thought it an ingenious piece of fiction, complete with the required straw men, in this case the unholy triumvirate of me, you, and Lawson. Just for the record, though, I was never on alt.m.t. and I have not seen the TMFree blog. But I have looked at Knapp's sites, including his Family Counseling site, and I agree with your assessment of it. It presents a false and dishonest view of TM. Knapp is now on FFL claiming to be wiser and more balanced in his views, but his sites do not give that impression at all. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought I'd had my 50, but according to Bhairitu's count, I've got one left. Barry's the lucky target, er, recipient. He claims Feste, Lawson, and I haven't changed our view of Knapp in the 10-plus years since we encountered him on on alt.m.t because *we* haven't changed, and therefore we can't see the positive changes in Knapp. Barry's forgotten something, though. About a year and a half ago, Knapp started the TMFree blog for disaffected former TMers to complain about TM; and he put up his own Family Counseling site to advertise his cult-counseling services, with a particular focus on former TMers. (Couldn't be any connection between the two, of course.) I've been checking the blog regularly; I even participated as a commenter in its first months. And I've browsed around Knapp's Family Counseling site. Reading one or the other or both gives you a *very* clear idea of where Knapp's head is at currently. There's no need to extrapolate from the thinking and behavior he demonstrated back on alt.m.t and Trancenet more than a decade previously. He hasn't changed. He's become more sophisticated in the way he trashes TM/the TMO/MMY, making extensive use of professional therapeutic jargon so as to sound more authoritative, but the substance is the same as it was over a decade ago. It's just as poisonously negative, and just as dishonestly presented. The Knapp Family Counseling site includes a page headed Why I Believe the Transcendental Meditation Org Is Dangerous. It has many links to articles on the revived Trancenet Web site, including to the notorious German study he pushed so assiduously back in the '90s on alt.m.t, despite being told by professional researchers-- including one who was a strong TM critic and another who was neutral--that the study was completely unscientific. (And no, for various reasons it's not even useful as anecdotal material; I may post on that next week.) As to the TMFree blog, if you think FFL is negative concerning TM/TMers/TMO/MMY, the views expressed here are benignly rosy compared to Knapp's blog, both in the posts and the comments thereon. Anyone who dares say anything positive about TM/TMO/MMY is attacked by the commenters with a ferocity that makes the pro-TMers' comments about TM critics on FFL look like gentle caresses. (I haven't been reading all the comments there, but it appears from what I have read that the few pro-TMers that participated in the beginning have been driven off. At one point when I was still commenting there, Knapp made a half-hearted attempt to dial down the former TMers' hostility, but he didn't bother to keep an eye on things, and nobody paid any attention.) Having delivered himself of this blooper about Knapp, Barry goes on to dig himself an even deeper hole by pointing proudly to Curtis as another example of a former TM critic who has become much milder and more benign. Sez Barry, They [meaning Feste, Lawson, and me] don't believe that it is *possible* for someone they disliked in the past to change in the present. Once they have developed their first impression of them, that impression is fixed, immutable. But we have no problem seeing the changes in Curtis. Barry inadvertently steps on his own point again, as he so often does when he's more anxious to bash TMers than to make sense. Their belief system, Barry proclaims, does not seem to allow for the possibility of [Knapp] having changed over the years. Actually, we see no *evidence* of his having changed over the years, and much evidence, from his blog, his Web site, and his posts here, that he has not--in sharp contrast to the way we see Curtis. A couple more points: This covers Judy (who pretty much dwells in the past full-time), Lawson, and feste. Their message is consistent: Why should we trust what John says in the present, because his past actions (as we see them, that is) have convinced us that he is not to be trusted. Now THINK about this statement, Note for the record that this statement is Barry's own version of what we said, even though he puts it in quotes as if he was directly quoting one of us. For me, it's not just Knapp's past actions, it's his current actions as well. snip WHY? And
