[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[danfriedman2002]

Sal,

Read the post below:

"What was admirable, Jerry said, is what that one human person had 

become and achieved."

what Jerry was indicating was that growth from where we were to what 
we wanted to become, is possible.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2008, at 9:19 AM, danfriedman2002 wrote:
> 
> > Your first observation is supported by a talk that Jerry Jarvis 
had
> > given; explaining that MMY was a human person, like the rest of 
us.
> 
> Jerry actually needed to *explain* this, Dan?
> 
> >
> > What was admirable, Jerry said, is what that one human person had
> > become and achieved.
> 
> Sal
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 23, 2008, at 9:19 AM, danfriedman2002 wrote:


Your first observation is supported by a talk that Jerry Jarvis had
given; explaining that MMY was a human person, like the rest of us.


Jerry actually needed to *explain* this, Dan?



What was admirable, Jerry said, is what that one human person had
become and achieved.


Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[danfriedman2002]

Dear Do:

Clearly you cannot relate with categorizing people into pre-defined 
groups. That's the developmental stage of a five year old. Please 
advance before responding.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
>  wrote:
> >
> > From reading your post, it was evident to me that you are 
incoherent. 
> > Just trying to speak in the way that you're processing.
> 
> 
> Another true believer apologist with transparent defense mechanisms.
> Lovely.
> 
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > too mcu noise, i'll respond to content. now were we 
discussing 
> > > > spitituality?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Becoming incoherent doesn't help your POV, Dan. You expect a 
> > coherent
> > > response to that?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Being an "avid contibuter to FFL" does not make one 
spiritual.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Get off your high horse, Dan. Who established any standard 
for
> > > > > 'spirituality' here... you?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > M encouraged people to find themselves, not complain 
about 
> > the 
> > > > effort.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > What does that have to do with peoples' freedom to post 
their 
> > views 
> > > > here?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Maybe you should review your position, Dan. This forum 
isn't a 
> > forum
> > > > > to promote TM, the TMO or Maharishi. It's an unmoderated 
> > discussion
> > > > > forum, not an advocacy forum. Readers are rightfully going 
to 
> > slam 
> > > > you
> > > > > for acting the way you are acting.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From reading your post, it was evident to me that you are incoherent. 
> Just trying to speak in the way that you're processing.


Another true believer apologist with transparent defense mechanisms.
Lovely.



> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > too mcu noise, i'll respond to content. now were we discussing 
> > > spitituality?
> > 
> > 
> > Becoming incoherent doesn't help your POV, Dan. You expect a 
> coherent
> > response to that?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Being an "avid contibuter to FFL" does not make one spiritual.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Get off your high horse, Dan. Who established any standard for
> > > > 'spirituality' here... you?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > M encouraged people to find themselves, not complain about 
> the 
> > > effort.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > What does that have to do with peoples' freedom to post their 
> views 
> > > here?
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe you should review your position, Dan. This forum isn't a 
> forum
> > > > to promote TM, the TMO or Maharishi. It's an unmoderated 
> discussion
> > > > forum, not an advocacy forum. Readers are rightfully going to 
> slam 
> > > you
> > > > for acting the way you are acting.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[danfriedman2002]

>From reading your post, it was evident to me that you are incoherent. 
Just trying to speak in the way that you're processing.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
>  wrote:
> >
> > too mcu noise, i'll respond to content. now were we discussing 
> > spitituality?
> 
> 
> Becoming incoherent doesn't help your POV, Dan. You expect a 
coherent
> response to that?
> 
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Being an "avid contibuter to FFL" does not make one spiritual.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Get off your high horse, Dan. Who established any standard for
> > > 'spirituality' here... you?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > M encouraged people to find themselves, not complain about 
the 
> > effort.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > What does that have to do with peoples' freedom to post their 
views 
> > here?
> > > 
> > > Maybe you should review your position, Dan. This forum isn't a 
forum
> > > to promote TM, the TMO or Maharishi. It's an unmoderated 
discussion
> > > forum, not an advocacy forum. Readers are rightfully going to 
slam 
> > you
> > > for acting the way you are acting.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> too mcu noise, i'll respond to content. now were we discussing 
> spitituality?


Becoming incoherent doesn't help your POV, Dan. You expect a coherent
response to that?



> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Being an "avid contibuter to FFL" does not make one spiritual.
> > 
> > 
> > Get off your high horse, Dan. Who established any standard for
> > 'spirituality' here... you?
> > 
> > 
> > > M encouraged people to find themselves, not complain about the 
> effort.
> > 
> > 
> > What does that have to do with peoples' freedom to post their views 
> here?
> > 
> > Maybe you should review your position, Dan. This forum isn't a forum
> > to promote TM, the TMO or Maharishi. It's an unmoderated discussion
> > forum, not an advocacy forum. Readers are rightfully going to slam 
> you
> > for acting the way you are acting.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[danfriedman2002]

too mcu noise, i'll respond to content. now were we discussing 
spitituality?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Being an "avid contibuter to FFL" does not make one spiritual.
> 
> 
> Get off your high horse, Dan. Who established any standard for
> 'spirituality' here... you?
> 
> 
> > M encouraged people to find themselves, not complain about the 
effort.
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with peoples' freedom to post their views 
here?
> 
> Maybe you should review your position, Dan. This forum isn't a forum
> to promote TM, the TMO or Maharishi. It's an unmoderated discussion
> forum, not an advocacy forum. Readers are rightfully going to slam 
you
> for acting the way you are acting.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[danfriedman2002]

Sal,

What you describe has just not been my experience. I'm wondering if 
the staking out of opposing positions on this forum is creating two 
schools of thought; each of which demands constant affililiation from 
supporters of their respective position.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2008, at 8:15 AM, danfriedman2002 wrote:
> 
> > Being an "avid contibuter to FFL" does not make one spiritual.
> >
> > M encouraged people to find themselves, not complain about the 
effort.
> 
> Yeah, I remember it well, dan, from Lecture 243:
> 
> "Find yourselves, dudes!  Don't listen to anyone else
> other than your own hearts.  You know what it is
> you want, now go out there and get it!  And don't
> say I never gave you good advice."
> 
> Actually MMY put out there (usually through
> surrogates) just the opposite, strongly
> encouraging (to put it mildly) people to either follow
> his program...or else.  Nothing else was allowed, not even
> questions that might indicate all was not going according
> to plan.
> 
> Sal
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[danfriedman2002]

Your first observation is supported by a talk that Jerry Jarvis had 
given; explaining that MMY was a human person, like the rest of us. 
What was admirable, Jerry said, is what that one human person had 
become and achieved.

As to the second. I think advanced age normally makes a person want 
the comfort of people who aren't at war with you. I expect I'll feel 
that same (although not acheieve the potential in observation #1, 
above).

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > The insult was in the contemptuous, mocking tone. Read it and 
you'll
> see.
> 
> I was mocking the POV that he didn't have human motives for his 
life.
>  The myth that somehow we was not a human like you and me with
> discernible motives for getting rich and famous.  That he didn't 
love
> his work and extremely active life doing what he wanted every minute
> of every day.  That it was a sacrifice for him to live according to
> his extremely active nature.  That he would have preferred to live 
as
> a Vedic hobo.  
> 
> Treating Maharishi as an interesting human involves seeing him 
outside
> the mythology he tried to spin around himself and his followers 
tried
> to embellish even more. Attempting to make him into something more
> than human insults all of humanity. 
> 
> But whatever my POV, we can be sure that Maharishi was never 
subjected
> to it.  The only people he interacted with in his last decades were
> fully entrenched in his own grandiose self perception that he was 
the
> most important human to ever walk the earth. Even a hint that this
> wasn't your POV around him would result in banishment from OZ.   
> 
> 
>  
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, it must have been a sacrifice to leave the silence of 
the
> > > > Himalayas to end up being insulted by people like you.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, Maharishi was a big fan of "feedback" from his teachers.  
In
> > > fact he was quite an avid contributor to FFL before his death.  
Always
> > > one to read the dissenting opinion that Maharishi...
> > > 
> > > So let me get this straight.  My grave insult was to question 
that
> > > Maharishi preferred shitting outside (which I did in North India
> > > myself and saw my breath as I did so, and I was way South of the
> > > mountains in Delhi) to dropping a duce in a golden toilet 
INSIDE.
> > > 
> > > And the insult is to question that his life was a sacrifice. 
becoming
> > > a rock star jet-setting guru who could hang out with anyone 
from any
> > > field for his 15 minutes of fame that he glommed off of the 
Beatles? 
> > > That he would have preferred to sit on a rock and dig how 
cosmic he
> > > was without the legions of blond chicks who worshiped him as a 
God?
> > > 
> > > You've got your insult meter set setting on "Victorian 
Woman."   You
> > > might want to loosen that up a tad. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "It was a sacrifice of life to leave the Himalayas. But
> > > > necessary to 
> > > > > > > bring about this new, golden age for mankind."
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > - Maharishi, Boppard, Germany, 1982
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Funny how religious dudes speak about their sacrifices 
while
> > > amassing
> > > > > > huge wealth.  It is part of their "story."   And we are
> > supposed to
> > > > > > believe that he preferred living without indoor plumbing 
to the
> > > golden
> > > > > > throne?  Or that he, unlike any of the rest of us, didn't 
gain
> > more
> > > > > > meaning in his life by going out, meeting people and 
laying his
> > > rap on
> > > > > > them.  He was so fulfilled sitting on his butt in the
> > mountains that
> > > > > > he didn't gain more joy for his life by becoming a 
teacher? 
> > Or that
> > > > > > his nature completely changed after 13 years of running
> around for
> > > > > > Guru Dev, and he would be perfectly happy sitting on a 
rock
> in the
> > > > > > mountains?  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > He loved creating his own myths didn't he?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Here is my take:  The guy was always a very active guy.  
He fell
> > > into
> > > > > > a 2 year depression funk after his life partner died, and 
after
> > > > > > feeling better went back to being a super active guy 
building
> > > his own
> > > > > > empire and delighting in micromanaging every detail.  He 
had
> > as much
> > > > > > chance of sitting on his butt in the mountains as The 
Donald. 
> > > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Well, it must have been a sacrifice to leave the silence of 
the
> > > > Himalayas to end up being insulted by people like you.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 23, 2008, at 8:15 AM, danfriedman2002 wrote:


Being an "avid contibuter to FFL" does not make one spiritual.

M encouraged people to find themselves, not complain about the effort.


Yeah, I remember it well, dan, from Lecture 243:

"Find yourselves, dudes!  Don't listen to anyone else
other than your own hearts.  You know what it is
you want, now go out there and get it!  And don't
say I never gave you good advice."

Actually MMY put out there (usually through
surrogates) just the opposite, strongly
encouraging (to put it mildly) people to either follow
his program...or else.  Nothing else was allowed, not even
questions that might indicate all was not going according
to plan.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The insult was in the contemptuous, mocking tone. Read it and you'll
see.

I was mocking the POV that he didn't have human motives for his life.
 The myth that somehow we was not a human like you and me with
discernible motives for getting rich and famous.  That he didn't love
his work and extremely active life doing what he wanted every minute
of every day.  That it was a sacrifice for him to live according to
his extremely active nature.  That he would have preferred to live as
a Vedic hobo.  

Treating Maharishi as an interesting human involves seeing him outside
the mythology he tried to spin around himself and his followers tried
to embellish even more. Attempting to make him into something more
than human insults all of humanity. 

But whatever my POV, we can be sure that Maharishi was never subjected
to it.  The only people he interacted with in his last decades were
fully entrenched in his own grandiose self perception that he was the
most important human to ever walk the earth. Even a hint that this
wasn't your POV around him would result in banishment from OZ.   


 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > > Well, it must have been a sacrifice to leave the silence of the
> > > Himalayas to end up being insulted by people like you.
> > 
> > Yeah, Maharishi was a big fan of "feedback" from his teachers.  In
> > fact he was quite an avid contributor to FFL before his death.  Always
> > one to read the dissenting opinion that Maharishi...
> > 
> > So let me get this straight.  My grave insult was to question that
> > Maharishi preferred shitting outside (which I did in North India
> > myself and saw my breath as I did so, and I was way South of the
> > mountains in Delhi) to dropping a duce in a golden toilet INSIDE.
> > 
> > And the insult is to question that his life was a sacrifice. becoming
> > a rock star jet-setting guru who could hang out with anyone from any
> > field for his 15 minutes of fame that he glommed off of the Beatles? 
> > That he would have preferred to sit on a rock and dig how cosmic he
> > was without the legions of blond chicks who worshiped him as a God?
> > 
> > You've got your insult meter set setting on "Victorian Woman."   You
> > might want to loosen that up a tad. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "It was a sacrifice of life to leave the Himalayas. But
> > > necessary to 
> > > > > > bring about this new, golden age for mankind."
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > - Maharishi, Boppard, Germany, 1982
> > > > > 
> > > > > Funny how religious dudes speak about their sacrifices while
> > amassing
> > > > > huge wealth.  It is part of their "story."   And we are
> supposed to
> > > > > believe that he preferred living without indoor plumbing to the
> > golden
> > > > > throne?  Or that he, unlike any of the rest of us, didn't gain
> more
> > > > > meaning in his life by going out, meeting people and laying his
> > rap on
> > > > > them.  He was so fulfilled sitting on his butt in the
> mountains that
> > > > > he didn't gain more joy for his life by becoming a teacher? 
> Or that
> > > > > his nature completely changed after 13 years of running
around for
> > > > > Guru Dev, and he would be perfectly happy sitting on a rock
in the
> > > > > mountains?  
> > > > > 
> > > > > He loved creating his own myths didn't he?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Here is my take:  The guy was always a very active guy.  He fell
> > into
> > > > > a 2 year depression funk after his life partner died, and after
> > > > > feeling better went back to being a super active guy building
> > his own
> > > > > empire and delighting in micromanaging every detail.  He had
> as much
> > > > > chance of sitting on his butt in the mountains as The Donald. 
> > > > >
> > > 
> > > Well, it must have been a sacrifice to leave the silence of the
> > > Himalayas to end up being insulted by people like you.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Being an "avid contibuter to FFL" does not make one spiritual.


Get off your high horse, Dan. Who established any standard for
'spirituality' here... you?


> M encouraged people to find themselves, not complain about the effort.


What does that have to do with peoples' freedom to post their views here?

Maybe you should review your position, Dan. This forum isn't a forum
to promote TM, the TMO or Maharishi. It's an unmoderated discussion
forum, not an advocacy forum. Readers are rightfully going to slam you
for acting the way you are acting.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[danfriedman2002]

Turq,

You repeadedly request that "I live in the real world", yet never 
respond to my request that you provide your whereabouts.

You put nothing real up, just noise.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for confiming that you are a sorry old man, worthless.
> 
> Put up or shut up. 
> 
> Post something you consider of worth.
> 
> See how many here also consider it to 
> be of worth.
> 
> That's what an adult would do. A child
> would simply whine about not being paid
> enough attention to and not being treated
> with respect *he has not yet earned*, and 
> lash out angrily.
> 
> I'm sorry, but THAT seems to me to be what
> you are doing. 
> 
> I'm really trying to help you a little here,
> dude. On THIS forum, one gets respect by
> EARNING it, not by feeling as if he is
> "entitled" to it.
> 
> If you feel that you have something of worth
> to contribute, post away. I can pretty much
> guarantee you that the response you get here
> to what you post will determine what "worth"
> the posters on this forum feel that it has.
> How much "worth" YOU consider it to have 
> really doesn't enter into the equation.
> 
> This process is called "living in the real
> world." Welcome to it. I understand that it
> may be a new experience for you, and a little
> scary at first, but as many here can tell you,
> it'll be beneficial in the long run.
> 
> If I were you I'd start with trying to post
> something ORIGINAL, something that everyone
> here hasn't heard on tapes or read in books
> a thousand times. We appreciate originality
> here, even if it doesn't agree with our own
> philosophy or way of seeing things. Really.
> 
> You can do it if you try. Turn off the parrot
> recordings in your head and try to find some-
> thing original in there about spiritual prac-
> tice or about life or hell, about the last
> great movie you saw or the last great book 
> you read. I think you'll find that there will
> be people here -- including myself -- who
> will respond positively to that. 
> 
> Continuing to whine only gets you perceived
> as a whiner.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thank you for confiming that you are a sorry old man, worthless.

Put up or shut up. 

Post something you consider of worth.

See how many here also consider it to 
be of worth.

That's what an adult would do. A child
would simply whine about not being paid
enough attention to and not being treated
with respect *he has not yet earned*, and 
lash out angrily.

I'm sorry, but THAT seems to me to be what
you are doing. 

I'm really trying to help you a little here,
dude. On THIS forum, one gets respect by
EARNING it, not by feeling as if he is
"entitled" to it.

If you feel that you have something of worth
to contribute, post away. I can pretty much
guarantee you that the response you get here
to what you post will determine what "worth"
the posters on this forum feel that it has.
How much "worth" YOU consider it to have 
really doesn't enter into the equation.

This process is called "living in the real
world." Welcome to it. I understand that it
may be a new experience for you, and a little
scary at first, but as many here can tell you,
it'll be beneficial in the long run.

If I were you I'd start with trying to post
something ORIGINAL, something that everyone
here hasn't heard on tapes or read in books
a thousand times. We appreciate originality
here, even if it doesn't agree with our own
philosophy or way of seeing things. Really.

You can do it if you try. Turn off the parrot
recordings in your head and try to find some-
thing original in there about spiritual prac-
tice or about life or hell, about the last
great movie you saw or the last great book 
you read. I think you'll find that there will
be people here -- including myself -- who
will respond positively to that. 

Continuing to whine only gets you perceived
as a whiner.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[danfriedman2002]

Being an "avid contibuter to FFL" does not make one spiritual.

M encouraged people to find themselves, not complain about the effort.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well, it must have been a sacrifice to leave the silence of the
> > Himalayas to end up being insulted by people like you.
> 
> Yeah, Maharishi was a big fan of "feedback" from his teachers.  In
> fact he was quite an avid contributor to FFL before his death.  
Always
> one to read the dissenting opinion that Maharishi...
> 
> So let me get this straight.  My grave insult was to question that
> Maharishi preferred shitting outside (which I did in North India
> myself and saw my breath as I did so, and I was way South of the
> mountains in Delhi) to dropping a duce in a golden toilet INSIDE.
> 
> And the insult is to question that his life was a sacrifice. 
becoming
> a rock star jet-setting guru who could hang out with anyone from any
> field for his 15 minutes of fame that he glommed off of the 
Beatles? 
> That he would have preferred to sit on a rock and dig how cosmic he
> was without the legions of blond chicks who worshiped him as a God?
> 
> You've got your insult meter set setting on "Victorian Woman."   You
> might want to loosen that up a tad. 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "It was a sacrifice of life to leave the Himalayas. But
> > necessary to 
> > > > > bring about this new, golden age for mankind."
> > > > > 
> > > > > - Maharishi, Boppard, Germany, 1982
> > > > 
> > > > Funny how religious dudes speak about their sacrifices while
> amassing
> > > > huge wealth.  It is part of their "story."   And we are 
supposed to
> > > > believe that he preferred living without indoor plumbing to 
the
> golden
> > > > throne?  Or that he, unlike any of the rest of us, didn't 
gain more
> > > > meaning in his life by going out, meeting people and laying 
his
> rap on
> > > > them.  He was so fulfilled sitting on his butt in the 
mountains that
> > > > he didn't gain more joy for his life by becoming a teacher?  
Or that
> > > > his nature completely changed after 13 years of running 
around for
> > > > Guru Dev, and he would be perfectly happy sitting on a rock 
in the
> > > > mountains?  
> > > > 
> > > > He loved creating his own myths didn't he?
> > > > 
> > > > Here is my take:  The guy was always a very active guy.  He 
fell
> into
> > > > a 2 year depression funk after his life partner died, and 
after
> > > > feeling better went back to being a super active guy building
> his own
> > > > empire and delighting in micromanaging every detail.  He had 
as much
> > > > chance of sitting on his butt in the mountains as The Donald. 
> > > >
> > 
> > Well, it must have been a sacrifice to leave the silence of the
> > Himalayas to end up being insulted by people like you.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[danfriedman2002]

Thank you for confiming that you are a sorry old man, worthless.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Turq,
> > 
> > I posted in response to you invitation Re: What would FFL be 
> > without its most strident voices?
> > 
> > In that post you wrote "Now's your chance, you lurkers. Go for 
it. 
> > If there are subjects you've always wanted to introcuces but were 
> > afraid to because you knew they'd be turned into arguements 
within 
> > two replies, now's your opportunity to give vioce or sound of 
> > keyboard clicking) to them... So what's out there to discuss 
> > without someone trying their best to turn the discussion into 
> > arguements?"
> > 
> > You then proceeded to jump on POST #1. I was communicating, and 
> > you contentious.
> 
> Not true. I found your first post merely boring
> and a parroting of old TM dogma, and thus not
> deserving of a response. I did not reply to you
> until several posts later, after Sal had responded
> satirically to your pompous boringness and YOU 
> had reacted to that by trying to start a crusade
> to moderate Fairfield Life.
> 
> > This post of yours dares to analyze my motivations - 
> > WHICH YOU COULD NEVER UNDERSTAND IN 
> > YOUR LIFETIME.
> 
> Despite the normally-arrogant (for a TMer) way you 
> chose to phrase the above sentence, I don't think 
> that your motivations were terribly difficult to 
> understand at all. You posted something that you
> thought people would respond to as if it was as wise
> as you felt it to be. Instead of that happening, 
> ONE (count them, one) person responded with humor
> and sarcasm to the pompousness of your post. 
> 
> YOU then went a little crazy trying to turn FFL into
> a moderated forum where people like yourself could
> post without fear of being made fun of. I *still*
> hadn't posted, until you started to get insistent
> and a little abusive in your call for fascist admin-
> istration of FFL to make it over in your own image.
> You didn't get the subtle hints that people were
> giving you, so I figured it was time someone stopped
> trying to be subtle and told you the truth.
> 
> So THEN I lit into your ass. I do not regret it. 
> It seems to have brought out who you really are in
> these followup posts. That is, an arrogant little
> prick who considers anyone who doesn't agree with
> him and who doesn't find the things he says "wise"
> to be so far beneath him evolutionally that he
> believes that they "could not possibly understand
> his motivations in their lifetime."
> 
> Welcome to Fairfield Life, Dan. You'll fit right in
> here. There are a number of others who have a similarly
> insane and elitist view of who and what they are, vs. 
> what the other posters who laugh at them think they are.  :-)
> 
> > Stop lying your bear traps in hopes of finding a keyboard 
> > fight. You need validation of your nonsensical life. Stay 
> > lost, but don't even think that I would join you, loser.
> 
> Any "trap" I may have lain you walked into ALL BY 
> YOURSELF, dude. When I finally replied to your 
> authoritarian bullshit, I purposefully went a little
> over the top to see how you'd respond, figuring that
> that would "cut to the chase" and tempt you to reveal
> who and what you really are more quickly. Worked like 
> a charm.
> 
> You're an authoritarian and elitist little pissant 
> who wants to have everything run the way you want
> it to run. 
> 
> Welcome to FFL, where that is Not Gonna Happen in 
> *your* lifetime.
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Turquoise the reason that I asked that you not send posts 
> > > > to my mame is because I find you to be angry, sad and lacking 
> > > > social behavior. Be alone for a while, it will be better.
> > > 
> > > Learn a little honesty, dude. The reason you
> > > asked me not to send you posts (an impossibility
> > > unless you explicitly block them, which is your
> > > right), is that I got in your face and called you
> > > on your authoritarian bullshit.
> > > 
> > > You seem to have expected people to react to old
> > > "retreads" of Maharishi-isms as if they were wise.
> > > Many of us got over that a long, long time ago. 
> > > What we react to well is someone having synthesized
> > > their experience well enough to describe it in new
> > > (read "not boring and condescending") ways, and as 
> > > what it is -- *their* experience, not a template 
> > > for anyone else's.
> > > 
> > > I can tell that you really believe that what you said
> > > above was said "for my own good." What I'm telling
> > > you is similarly for your own good. Wake up a bit
> > > and look around and actually *see* who you are inter-
> > > facing with on this forum and you might become a 
> > > valuable member of it. Continue to treat us as TM
> > > st

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Turq,
> 
> I posted in response to you invitation Re: What would FFL be 
> without its most strident voices?
> 
> In that post you wrote "Now's your chance, you lurkers. Go for it. 
> If there are subjects you've always wanted to introcuces but were 
> afraid to because you knew they'd be turned into arguements within 
> two replies, now's your opportunity to give vioce or sound of 
> keyboard clicking) to them... So what's out there to discuss 
> without someone trying their best to turn the discussion into 
> arguements?"
> 
> You then proceeded to jump on POST #1. I was communicating, and 
> you contentious.

Not true. I found your first post merely boring
and a parroting of old TM dogma, and thus not
deserving of a response. I did not reply to you
until several posts later, after Sal had responded
satirically to your pompous boringness and YOU 
had reacted to that by trying to start a crusade
to moderate Fairfield Life.

> This post of yours dares to analyze my motivations - 
> WHICH YOU COULD NEVER UNDERSTAND IN 
> YOUR LIFETIME.

Despite the normally-arrogant (for a TMer) way you 
chose to phrase the above sentence, I don't think 
that your motivations were terribly difficult to 
understand at all. You posted something that you
thought people would respond to as if it was as wise
as you felt it to be. Instead of that happening, 
ONE (count them, one) person responded with humor
and sarcasm to the pompousness of your post. 

YOU then went a little crazy trying to turn FFL into
a moderated forum where people like yourself could
post without fear of being made fun of. I *still*
hadn't posted, until you started to get insistent
and a little abusive in your call for fascist admin-
istration of FFL to make it over in your own image.
You didn't get the subtle hints that people were
giving you, so I figured it was time someone stopped
trying to be subtle and told you the truth.

So THEN I lit into your ass. I do not regret it. 
It seems to have brought out who you really are in
these followup posts. That is, an arrogant little
prick who considers anyone who doesn't agree with
him and who doesn't find the things he says "wise"
to be so far beneath him evolutionally that he
believes that they "could not possibly understand
his motivations in their lifetime."

Welcome to Fairfield Life, Dan. You'll fit right in
here. There are a number of others who have a similarly
insane and elitist view of who and what they are, vs. 
what the other posters who laugh at them think they are.  :-)

> Stop lying your bear traps in hopes of finding a keyboard 
> fight. You need validation of your nonsensical life. Stay 
> lost, but don't even think that I would join you, loser.

Any "trap" I may have lain you walked into ALL BY 
YOURSELF, dude. When I finally replied to your 
authoritarian bullshit, I purposefully went a little
over the top to see how you'd respond, figuring that
that would "cut to the chase" and tempt you to reveal
who and what you really are more quickly. Worked like 
a charm.

You're an authoritarian and elitist little pissant 
who wants to have everything run the way you want
it to run. 

Welcome to FFL, where that is Not Gonna Happen in 
*your* lifetime.


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Turquoise the reason that I asked that you not send posts 
> > > to my mame is because I find you to be angry, sad and lacking 
> > > social behavior. Be alone for a while, it will be better.
> > 
> > Learn a little honesty, dude. The reason you
> > asked me not to send you posts (an impossibility
> > unless you explicitly block them, which is your
> > right), is that I got in your face and called you
> > on your authoritarian bullshit.
> > 
> > You seem to have expected people to react to old
> > "retreads" of Maharishi-isms as if they were wise.
> > Many of us got over that a long, long time ago. 
> > What we react to well is someone having synthesized
> > their experience well enough to describe it in new
> > (read "not boring and condescending") ways, and as 
> > what it is -- *their* experience, not a template 
> > for anyone else's.
> > 
> > I can tell that you really believe that what you said
> > above was said "for my own good." What I'm telling
> > you is similarly for your own good. Wake up a bit
> > and look around and actually *see* who you are inter-
> > facing with on this forum and you might become a 
> > valuable member of it. Continue to treat us as TM
> > students you can brush away with a "prepared answer"
> > and we'll continue to laugh at you.
> > 
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > John,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I received this post
> > > > > 
> > > > > "Dan, you're 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[danfriedman2002]

Turq,

Your small-minded parochial attitudes are evident with every word 
that you type. Can you control yourself?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Of course not.
> > 
> > But I have no interest in the "politics of destruction."
> > 
> > I am interested in reform in the TM Movement. Which is the topic 
> > I posted on.
> > 
> > Can you tell me why you're not interested in discussing TM Reform?
> > 
> > You've posted numerous times you have things you take the 
Movement 
> > to task for. 
> > 
> > Could you turn that around to a positive agenda? What would you 
> > like to see the TM Movement do?
> > 
> > We have it in our power to create a better, more positive, more 
> > spiritual organization -- if we so choose.
> 
> With all due respect -- and unlike Judy I *do*
> respect what you're trying to do -- I think you
> are naive if you believe that "we" (outsiders)
> can ever positively affect the TM movement. I
> also believe that "they" (the insiders) cannot
> stop the juggernaut that out-of-control hubris
> has created.
> 
> Weren't you *paying attention* during all those
> years on a.m.t. and later at FFL? To convince
> someone that they should change, they have to
> first become convinced that they *should* change, 
> that there is something (anything) off-kilter 
> with the way that they're doing things now. I 
> am not convinced that the "powers that be" in 
> the TM movement can possibly be so convinced.
> 
> Their whole *lives* have been structured in 
> ignoring what the outside world thinks of them.
> They have all done things that were questionable,
> and many of them have done things that were
> patently illegal, for no better reason than 
> that their spiritual teacher told them to. That
> spiritual teacher was unwavering up to his death
> as to what they should do in his absence. Do you
> think that can be *changed*? 
> 
> I, for one, do not. It would take the imposition
> of some "outside force" to shake people whose
> beliefs are that strong and cause them to change 
> their current path and take another. 
> 
> That said, one of the only things I can think of 
> that could sufficiently *apply* such an "outside 
> force" is bankruptcy. And I see that as a strong
> possibility. I think it's only a matter of time
> until those who were *nominally* left in charge
> of the TM movement discover that they cannot find
> the money. They'll search -- quietly, without tell-
> ing anyone that they are searching frantically --
> and they won't find a trace of it anywhere. It 
> will have disappeared into a black hole in India.
> 
> No one will "take the fall" for this, or be blamed
> for extorting the money, because the "powers that
> be" will still be in the mindset of "protecting
> our own," and "protecting the image of the movement."
> 
> And so it's likely IMO that within a decade, the
> Rajas will find themselves at the helm of a move-
> ment that does not have the capital to continue
> moving. *At that point*, and in my opinion not
> before, they might be open to changing a few things.
> But I don't see it happening before then.
> 
> The points you proposed, John, make sense to some-
> one who CARES what the "rank and file" thinks of
> them. My assessment of the Rajas and the Bevans
> (there *has* to be more than one of him inside that
> blubberous carcass :-)) is that they barely con-
> sider the "rank and file" of the TM movement 
> *human*, much less people they have to "look good"
> for. They Just Don't Care. They are RIGHT, and
> they "know" that they're RIGHT, and that's that.
> 
> > Isn't that a more interesting thing to consider than 
> > discrediting all the people here you don't agree with?
> 
> Judy has no CHOICE but to attempt to discredit the
> people here she doesn't agree with, John. She can't
> come up with any arguments to make her POV look
> sane or rational; therefore she HAS to attempt to 
> make those who don't buy it look insane and 
> irrational. 
> 
> She won't ever address the suggestions you brought 
> up because to do so she would have to admit that 
> they might be *needed*. And while she may claim that 
> she is not a TB, it's simply not true. So she does 
> on a daily basis what TBs do -- she clings to beliefs 
> that she is afraid to challenge, and she demonizes 
> those who do challenge them. It's like Time itself, 
> one of those forces of nature you can count on. Time 
> is not gonna stop ticking anytime soon. And IMO it 
> *will* stop ticking before Judy admits in public 
> that the belief system she "sold out" to decades 
> ago is flawed and badly in need of repair. She 
> cannot bring herself to do this. As far as I can
> tell, it's some kind of twisted sense of "honor" 
> for her.
> 
> In my opinion, of course, which could be wrong.
> 
> Those are nine words that you will probably never 
> see at the end of a Judy Stein post. :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[danfriedman2002]

Turq,

I posted in response to you invitation Re: What would FFL be without 
its most strident voices?

In that post you wrote "Now's your chance, you lurkers. Go for it. If 
there are subjects you've always wanted to introcuces but were afraid 
to because you knew they'd be turned into arguements within two 
replies, now's your opportunity to give vioce or sound of keyboard 
clicking) to them... So what's out there to discuss without someone 
trying their best to turn the discussion into arguements?"

You then proceeded to jump on POST #1. I was communicating, and you 
contentious.

This post of yours dares to analyze my motivations - WHICH YOU COULD 
NEVER UNDERSTAND IN YOUR LIFETIME.

Stop lying your bear traps in hopes of finding a keyboard fight. You 
need validation of your nonsensical life. Stay lost, but don't even 
think that I would join you, loser.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Turquoise the reason that I asked that you not send posts 
> > to my mame is because I find you to be angry, sad and lacking 
> > social behavior. Be alone for a while, it will be better.
> 
> Learn a little honesty, dude. The reason you
> asked me not to send you posts (an impossibility
> unless you explicitly block them, which is your
> right), is that I got in your face and called you
> on your authoritarian bullshit.
> 
> You seem to have expected people to react to old
> "retreads" of Maharishi-isms as if they were wise.
> Many of us got over that a long, long time ago. 
> What we react to well is someone having synthesized
> their experience well enough to describe it in new
> (read "not boring and condescending") ways, and as 
> what it is -- *their* experience, not a template 
> for anyone else's.
> 
> I can tell that you really believe that what you said
> above was said "for my own good." What I'm telling
> you is similarly for your own good. Wake up a bit
> and look around and actually *see* who you are inter-
> facing with on this forum and you might become a 
> valuable member of it. Continue to treat us as TM
> students you can brush away with a "prepared answer"
> and we'll continue to laugh at you.
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > John,
> > > > 
> > > > I received this post
> > > > 
> > > > "Dan, you're aware that Knapp is a long-time, ferocious
> > > > critic of TM, right? I seriously doubt he has any
> > > > intention of trying to "reform" the TMO. What he's
> > > > looking for is material he can use to make the TMO
> > > > look as bad as possible (and not incidentally bolster
> > > > his "counseling" business).
> > > > 
> > > > Some of us have known him electronically for many years
> > > > and don't trust him any further than we could throw him,
> > > > if he came within reach."
> > > > 
> > > > Someone's not being honerable here, so I think I'd better be 
> > > > protective of Janet. She's a friend of 40 years, and more 
> > > > open-hearted than most.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > When you get your posting limit restored, please do not reply.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > And, with all due respect, go fuck yourself 
> > > and the dog you rode in on. 
> > > 
> > > If you're going to panic and call for Daddy
> > > or the moderators to come and save you from 
> > > big, bad, sarcastic Sal poking fun at you for
> > > being clueless, and then believe the first 
> > > slander you read from the first person who 
> > > posts it, puhleeeze go back to lurkdom. 
> > > 
> > > This is a forum for those who want to speak
> > > their minds about TM, the TM movement, Maha-
> > > rishi, and other forms of trashy fiction. We 
> > > LIKE being able to speak our minds, especially 
> > > after being not able to within the TM movement 
> > > for decades.
> > > 
> > > What we DON'T like as much is for some clue-
> > > less newb to come roaring in posting trite
> > > Maharishisez cliches that everyone here knows 
> > > by heart and that most of us rejected decades 
> > > ago and then getting pissy because someone pokes
> > > a little fun at him for acting like a dweeb.
> > > 
> > > Judy will tell you I am less than honorable, too.
> > > Stick around long enough, and she'll say it about
> > > you as well. It's just what she DOES.
> > > 
> > > But if it helps to get you off your dweeb soapbox
> > > and speed your silly ass either back to lurkdom or
> > > to some more balanced type of dialogue, I'm not
> > > honorable, either, so you probably won't want me
> > > to reply, either. For the record, I also eat small 
> > > children and have been known to piss on self-
> > > righteous dweebs in public. Be warned, and wear
> > > your waders.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[feste37]

The insult was in the contemptuous, mocking tone. Read it and you'll see. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well, it must have been a sacrifice to leave the silence of the
> > Himalayas to end up being insulted by people like you.
> 
> Yeah, Maharishi was a big fan of "feedback" from his teachers.  In
> fact he was quite an avid contributor to FFL before his death.  Always
> one to read the dissenting opinion that Maharishi...
> 
> So let me get this straight.  My grave insult was to question that
> Maharishi preferred shitting outside (which I did in North India
> myself and saw my breath as I did so, and I was way South of the
> mountains in Delhi) to dropping a duce in a golden toilet INSIDE.
> 
> And the insult is to question that his life was a sacrifice. becoming
> a rock star jet-setting guru who could hang out with anyone from any
> field for his 15 minutes of fame that he glommed off of the Beatles? 
> That he would have preferred to sit on a rock and dig how cosmic he
> was without the legions of blond chicks who worshiped him as a God?
> 
> You've got your insult meter set setting on "Victorian Woman."   You
> might want to loosen that up a tad. 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "It was a sacrifice of life to leave the Himalayas. But
> > necessary to 
> > > > > bring about this new, golden age for mankind."
> > > > > 
> > > > > - Maharishi, Boppard, Germany, 1982
> > > > 
> > > > Funny how religious dudes speak about their sacrifices while
> amassing
> > > > huge wealth.  It is part of their "story."   And we are
supposed to
> > > > believe that he preferred living without indoor plumbing to the
> golden
> > > > throne?  Or that he, unlike any of the rest of us, didn't gain
more
> > > > meaning in his life by going out, meeting people and laying his
> rap on
> > > > them.  He was so fulfilled sitting on his butt in the
mountains that
> > > > he didn't gain more joy for his life by becoming a teacher? 
Or that
> > > > his nature completely changed after 13 years of running around for
> > > > Guru Dev, and he would be perfectly happy sitting on a rock in the
> > > > mountains?  
> > > > 
> > > > He loved creating his own myths didn't he?
> > > > 
> > > > Here is my take:  The guy was always a very active guy.  He fell
> into
> > > > a 2 year depression funk after his life partner died, and after
> > > > feeling better went back to being a super active guy building
> his own
> > > > empire and delighting in micromanaging every detail.  He had
as much
> > > > chance of sitting on his butt in the mountains as The Donald. 
> > > >
> > 
> > Well, it must have been a sacrifice to leave the silence of the
> > Himalayas to end up being insulted by people like you.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[danfriedman2002]

Turq,

You must be very lonely.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Now why would anyone want to leave after such a warm welcome. Your 
> > effect is working, Turquoise I was attempting open, civil discourse 
> > and you showed yourself with one post. 
> 
> As did you. ONE person pokes a little fun at
> you for being pompous, and you scream for the
> moderators. Good start, dude.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[curtisdeltablues]

> Well, it must have been a sacrifice to leave the silence of the
> Himalayas to end up being insulted by people like you.

Yeah, Maharishi was a big fan of "feedback" from his teachers.  In
fact he was quite an avid contributor to FFL before his death.  Always
one to read the dissenting opinion that Maharishi...

So let me get this straight.  My grave insult was to question that
Maharishi preferred shitting outside (which I did in North India
myself and saw my breath as I did so, and I was way South of the
mountains in Delhi) to dropping a duce in a golden toilet INSIDE.

And the insult is to question that his life was a sacrifice. becoming
a rock star jet-setting guru who could hang out with anyone from any
field for his 15 minutes of fame that he glommed off of the Beatles? 
That he would have preferred to sit on a rock and dig how cosmic he
was without the legions of blond chicks who worshiped him as a God?

You've got your insult meter set setting on "Victorian Woman."   You
might want to loosen that up a tad. 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > > "It was a sacrifice of life to leave the Himalayas. But
> necessary to 
> > > > bring about this new, golden age for mankind."
> > > > 
> > > > - Maharishi, Boppard, Germany, 1982
> > > 
> > > Funny how religious dudes speak about their sacrifices while
amassing
> > > huge wealth.  It is part of their "story."   And we are supposed to
> > > believe that he preferred living without indoor plumbing to the
golden
> > > throne?  Or that he, unlike any of the rest of us, didn't gain more
> > > meaning in his life by going out, meeting people and laying his
rap on
> > > them.  He was so fulfilled sitting on his butt in the mountains that
> > > he didn't gain more joy for his life by becoming a teacher?  Or that
> > > his nature completely changed after 13 years of running around for
> > > Guru Dev, and he would be perfectly happy sitting on a rock in the
> > > mountains?  
> > > 
> > > He loved creating his own myths didn't he?
> > > 
> > > Here is my take:  The guy was always a very active guy.  He fell
into
> > > a 2 year depression funk after his life partner died, and after
> > > feeling better went back to being a super active guy building
his own
> > > empire and delighting in micromanaging every detail.  He had as much
> > > chance of sitting on his butt in the mountains as The Donald. 
> > >
> 
> Well, it must have been a sacrifice to leave the silence of the
> Himalayas to end up being insulted by people like you.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[yifuxero]

--The Rajas have nothing to offer mankind but their advice "meditate 
regularly". Among Rajas, there would be a natural incentive not to 
say anything at all that's truly creative; lest they risk being 
labeled a heretic.  Those birtday hats are quite valuable, you 
know!.  Wouldn't want them to get de-Raja'd.

- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
>  wrote:
> . I would like to be proud of 
> > the Movement again. If it were to become accountable as a 
spiritual 
> >organization in the 
> > ways I outlined, I could imagine wanting to be associated with it 
> >again.
> > 
> > J.
> >
> 
> John, this is an open ongoing discussion a lot around here inside & 
> outside the movement too.  Is a lot of watching to see if the 
> standard of integrity becomes something different from what it has 
> been in the past.  
> 
> Is probably crucial to a success for the TMmovement in the 
> marketplace.  They do have a self-made reputation in the world now 
> based in folks' long experience.  A lot of people have left in ways 
& 
> evidently not coming back.  A lot of folks watch & wait to see how 
> the TMmovement may conduct themselves anew.  
> 
> The lack of lustre in dome meditating numbers tells something of 
> this.  It is just the way it is.  People have a sense of what is 
fair 
> and they seem to associate with integrity and often likely dis-
> associate when integrities are lacking.  There is a human nature in 
> that aspect of character.  The TMmovement evidently lost its 
> integrity.  We'll see if they can find it.  
> 
> Though, is wonderfully utopian though what they are up to also in 
> large group meditations.  There is an experience in that.  I wish 
> them well.  To get to where they would like to go, i do suspect 
that 
> they will have to attend to the aspects of what you offer in these 
> critical points.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to bring them to the table here.
> 
> -Doug in FF
> 
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "guyfawkes91" 
 
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > This is one of the best posts I've seen on here for a long time.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Yeah, i agree with Guy, 
> > 
> >  Regardless of who they are, these two posts seem some of the 
more 
> > honest forthright criticism of TM and the TM/FF circumstance of 
> this 
> > month.  Archival in ways: 
> > 
> > 1) taskcentered  wrote:
> > "maybe they can dodge the cult label.
> > Be Transparent 
> > •   discuss policies, procedures & scandals openly 
> > •   publicize open complaint procedures 
> > •   report public scandals promptly to members, law officials & 
> > public media 
> > •   allow free information flow & fully disclose "secrets," 
> > especially those that might affect potential members' choice to 
> join 
> > •   fully disclose the group's political & legislative 
> > involvement 
> > •   fully disclose finances, particularly international finances, 
> > with third-party audits 
> > •   create a member-driven task force to set reasonable fees for 
> > retreats & "courses" 
> > •   dialogue openly with laity, the press & the public 
> > Be Accountable 
> > •   publish - and adhere to - a set of ethics 
> > •   publish - and adhere to - all fees & donation policies 
> > •   oversee clergy & other agents with governing boards 
> > •   if any group agent acts unethically or illegally, take full 
> > responsibility 
> > Advocate Freedom 
> > •   allow open questioning of the leader's beliefs & practices 
> > •   Create a mechanism for modifying beliefs & practices 
> > •   create an elective or accountable structure of representation 
> > (as in most churches) 
> > •   promote freedom of speech within the group, without reprisals 
> > for contrary opinions 
> > •   promote academic freedom for clergy & scholars 
> > •   allow access to files/records held on members & public 
> > individuals 
> > •   advocate freedom to explore our spirituality without shunning 
> > or other repercussions 
> > •   avoid use of shame or guilt to control members 
> > Provide Member Protections 
> > •   institute safeguards against members devoting damaging 
> > amounts of time, money & emotional resources to the group 
> > Value Respect for Non-Members 
> > •   foster a systemic respect for other spiritual traditions & 
> > non-members 
> > •   foster a systemic respect for the rule of law, rather than 
> > the belief the ends justify the means 
> > •   foster a systemic respect for members' families, whether they 
> > are members or not 
> > •   foster a systemic practice of charity & support to the less 
> > fortunate 
> > •   encourage members to live or socialize with non-group members 
> > Provide Informed Consent 
> > •   fully disclose negative side-effects of group's mind-altering 
> > or medical techniques 
> > •   undertake real efforts to address & heal side-e

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
>  wrote:
> 
> > I also think you may overestimate your power. I can't think
> > of anything you might say that would cause me "not to hang
> > around."
> 
> Classic "Honest" John.
> 
> As he knows, I said nothing whatsoever to suggest
> or hint or imply that I thought anything I said
> would cause him not to hang around. He made that
> up so those who didn't remember what I *did* say
> would think that's what I had claimed.
> 
> I said explicitly why I bet he wouldn't hang
> around: He didn't get the kind of responses he
> was hoping for to his list of "TMO reforms."
> 
> He isn't a regular poster here. He drops in
> every once in a while when there's something
> on his agenda he wants to accomplish. He's very
> one-pointed that way. He'll make a little small
> talk for cover, but that's not why he shows up.
> He always has a purpose in mind.
> 
> He claims he's been interested in TMO reform for
> 13 years. Why did he suddenly decide only now 
> that he wanted to discuss it with us?

Actually it's classic Judy. It's amazing. I can leave FFL for months (usually 
related to an 
unrelenting international travel schedule) but when I look back in, there you 
are spouting 
the same tired old crap, calling people who disagree with you "liars" and 
pretending to be 
inside their heads to the degree that you know what they think. ("As Barry 
knows, As John 
Knows, As Sal Knows"...ad nauseum.)

I gathered some time ago that you are clueless as to how ridiculous you come 
off in these 
exchanges.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[Vaj]

On Jun 22, 2008, at 8:57 PM, John M. Knapp, LMSW wrote:


The thought for the night: "The world's not black or white."



I'll add to that:

"The world's not black or white...unless you have Borderline  
Personality Disorder, then it appears that way and you react  
accordingly."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[dhamiltony2k5]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
. I would like to be proud of 
> the Movement again. If it were to become accountable as a spiritual 
>organization in the 
> ways I outlined, I could imagine wanting to be associated with it 
>again.
> 
> J.
>

John, this is an open ongoing discussion a lot around here inside & 
outside the movement too.  Is a lot of watching to see if the 
standard of integrity becomes something different from what it has 
been in the past.  

Is probably crucial to a success for the TMmovement in the 
marketplace.  They do have a self-made reputation in the world now 
based in folks' long experience.  A lot of people have left in ways & 
evidently not coming back.  A lot of folks watch & wait to see how 
the TMmovement may conduct themselves anew.  

The lack of lustre in dome meditating numbers tells something of 
this.  It is just the way it is.  People have a sense of what is fair 
and they seem to associate with integrity and often likely dis-
associate when integrities are lacking.  There is a human nature in 
that aspect of character.  The TMmovement evidently lost its 
integrity.  We'll see if they can find it.  

Though, is wonderfully utopian though what they are up to also in 
large group meditations.  There is an experience in that.  I wish 
them well.  To get to where they would like to go, i do suspect that 
they will have to attend to the aspects of what you offer in these 
critical points.

Thanks for taking the time to bring them to the table here.

-Doug in FF



> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "guyfawkes91"  
> >wrote:
> >
> > 
> > This is one of the best posts I've seen on here for a long time.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> Yeah, i agree with Guy, 
> 
>  Regardless of who they are, these two posts seem some of the more 
> honest forthright criticism of TM and the TM/FF circumstance of 
this 
> month.  Archival in ways: 
> 
> 1) taskcentered  wrote:
> "maybe they can dodge the cult label.
> Be Transparent 
> • discuss policies, procedures & scandals openly 
> • publicize open complaint procedures 
> • report public scandals promptly to members, law officials & 
> public media 
> • allow free information flow & fully disclose "secrets," 
> especially those that might affect potential members' choice to 
join 
> • fully disclose the group's political & legislative 
> involvement 
> • fully disclose finances, particularly international finances, 
> with third-party audits 
> • create a member-driven task force to set reasonable fees for 
> retreats & "courses" 
> • dialogue openly with laity, the press & the public 
> Be Accountable 
> • publish - and adhere to - a set of ethics 
> • publish - and adhere to - all fees & donation policies 
> • oversee clergy & other agents with governing boards 
> • if any group agent acts unethically or illegally, take full 
> responsibility 
> Advocate Freedom 
> • allow open questioning of the leader's beliefs & practices 
> • Create a mechanism for modifying beliefs & practices 
> • create an elective or accountable structure of representation 
> (as in most churches) 
> • promote freedom of speech within the group, without reprisals 
> for contrary opinions 
> • promote academic freedom for clergy & scholars 
> • allow access to files/records held on members & public 
> individuals 
> • advocate freedom to explore our spirituality without shunning 
> or other repercussions 
> • avoid use of shame or guilt to control members 
> Provide Member Protections 
> • institute safeguards against members devoting damaging 
> amounts of time, money & emotional resources to the group 
> Value Respect for Non-Members 
> • foster a systemic respect for other spiritual traditions & 
> non-members 
> • foster a systemic respect for the rule of law, rather than 
> the belief the ends justify the means 
> • foster a systemic respect for members' families, whether they 
> are members or not 
> • foster a systemic practice of charity & support to the less 
> fortunate 
> • encourage members to live or socialize with non-group members 
> Provide Informed Consent 
> • fully disclose negative side-effects of group's mind-altering 
> or medical techniques 
> • undertake real efforts to address & heal side-effects 
> • accept financial responsibility for members suffering side-
> effects 
> Imagine a Transcendental Meditation Org that acted with this kind 
of 
> integrity. 
> That's a spiritual organization I could be proud of. And I'm not 
> willing to accept anything less.   From 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/180553
> 
> & 2)
> 
> >TurquoiseB  wrote:
> Turq writes:: "With all due respect. 
> It would take the imposition
> of some "outside force" to shake people whose
> beliefs are that strong and c

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[John M. Knapp, LMSW]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is my 50th post, so John, you get to have the
> last word, until next Friday evening, at least.

Okey-doke.


> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
>  wrote:
> 
> > Do you *know* the labels that are applied to people who
> > enjoy inflicting pain?
> 
> Have I inflicted pain on you, John?

You are answering a question with a question. Some people might interpret this 
as an 
attempt to avoid answering. Even weakness.

Yes, you certainly have inflicted pain on me in the past. Not so much recently. 
You've 
deeply wounded a number of my friends. I observed statements by you that 
certainly seem 
cruel.

But you spent volumes in the last couple days questioning my motives. I think 
it's fair to 
ask you about yours.

My question was very simple. 

Do you enjoy inflicting pain?

The answer is your choice. You could say, "No." You could say, "Yes." You could 
say, 
"Maybe so." You could just laugh.

I see nothing harmful in the question. I'm looking for information.


> 
> Or are you just trying for the sympathy vote by
> portraying yourself as a victim and demonizing
> me as a sadist? I mean, with your therapist
> credentials and all?
> 

I ask for no sympathy. It is my choice to engage you. Certainly if past history 
is any 
predictor, you *will* attempt to inflict pain on me -- and many others who 
disagree with 
you.

But I think your actions are revelatory. As is your dodging of questions.

I do not portray you as a sadist. Only you know your character and motivations. 
I've stated 
a number of times I don't believe it's possible to judge these things from a 
person's 
writings and public actions. 

I do treat you with the same caution that I would if I knew for a fact that you 
enjoyed 
hurting people.

It's just my opinion, but I think this cautious stance would be a wise 
precaution for anyone 
dealing with you. 

At least as you present yourself in forums such as this.


> I find it interesting that you didn't suggest to
> Barry (TurquoiseB) that he was a sadist when he
> was licking your butt by painting me as an
> "insane bitch" and a bunch of other insults far
> worse than anything I've said about you.

TurquiseB's actions are his own responsibility. If he inflicted pain on you, it 
is *your* 
responsibility to challenge him or choose not to engage him.

It's not *my* responsibility to defend or rescue you. Or TurquoiseB.

Do you believe you need rescuing?

For what it's worth, I don't use language like "insane bitch," and I am trying 
mightily not to 
trash you or say hurtful things to you. I'm sure I screw up sometimes. Your 
rage, 
bitterness, and hurtfulness -- as reflected in your actions -- are pretty 
overwhelming. I 
wouldn't be human if I didn't have some feelings under your barrage. And I may 
act out 
despite my best intentions.

I'd be glad to apologize for any hurtful things I may have said to you. Just 
point them out.

TurquoiseB makes choices I wouldn't make for myself. I would be very surprised 
if he 
wouldn't say something similar about me. 

Doesn't stop me from admiring him for other qualities. 

Also doesn't stop me from admiring you -- for your intelligence, 
articulateness, writing 
ability, loyalty, perseverance, etc. Although you do make choices I wouldn't.

The thought for the night: "The world's not black or white."

I have every right in *my* world to challenge your hurtful actions toward me, 
however.

There's no question that some of your attacks in the last couple of days have 
bordered on 
the defamatory or libelous -- as at least one other poster has pointed out.

I am taking what I consider a rather gentle road toward challenging your 
attacks.

> 
> > Or those who see conspiracies everywhere?
> 
> Where have I suggested a conspiracy, John? I
> think you do this stuff pretty much on your own.
> Again, you made that up to make readers think I
> suggested a conspiracy. So much easier to propose
> a diagnosis of psychopathology. You know, with
> your therapist credentials and all.

You've jumped to an unwarranted conclusion, in my opinion. I didn't propose a 
diagnosis. 
I asked *you* a question. 

And I didn't do so as a psychotherapist. Because I work in a helping profession 
doesn't 
mean I can't challenge your hurtful actions toward me. Priests, doctors, even 
lowly 
psychotherapists have a right to challenge hurtful actions.

How you respond, what you *feel,* these are your responsibilities.

You could say yes, no, or maybe so. You could laugh it off. These are choices 
*you* make.

I don't know you well enough to suggest psychopathology. 

I do say, quite directly, that your actions and speech are hurtful -- in my 
opinion. This has 
been pointed out to you over and over and over again. You choose to continue 
what looks 
to many of us as cruelty nonetheless.

To ask you, "Do you know the unpleasant names this tendency is known by?", is 
pretty 
gent

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

This is my 50th post, so John, you get to have the
last word, until next Friday evening, at least.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Do you *know* the labels that are applied to people who
> enjoy inflicting pain?

Have I inflicted pain on you, John?

Or are you just trying for the sympathy vote by
portraying yourself as a victim and demonizing
me as a sadist? I mean, with your therapist
credentials and all?

I find it interesting that you didn't suggest to
Barry (TurquoiseB) that he was a sadist when he
was licking your butt by painting me as an
"insane bitch" and a bunch of other insults far
worse than anything I've said about you.

> Or those who see conspiracies everywhere?

Where have I suggested a conspiracy, John? I
think you do this stuff pretty much on your own.
Again, you made that up to make readers think I
suggested a conspiracy. So much easier to propose
a diagnosis of psychopathology. You know, with
your therapist credentials and all.


> Can you tell me some ways that you've grown and changed in
> the last 13 years?

The pertinent one here is that I've become even
less tolerant of malicious dishonesty.

You had a chance to begin to change my perspective
on you by disavowing your 1996 "Trancenet Alert"
campaign and admitting you had deliberately grossly
distorted the truth about the third world TM center
project, in order to scare the wits out of people who
weren't in a position to know what you'd done and
increase traffic to your Web site, as well as
creating an utterly unjustified picture in the public
mind of MMY as a latter-day Jim Jones.

That was *inexcusable*, yet you declared here that
you weren't at all ashamed of it.

My initial comment to Dan was to warn him not to
give you any inside information about Janet
Hoffmann's current project. Your blithe response
to my posting the Trancenet Alert "press releases"
sure does confirm I was right to warn him.


> > He claims he's been interested in TMO reform for
> > 13 years. Why did he suddenly decide only now 
> > that he wanted to discuss it with us?
> 
> The answer is really simple. I wrote the essay that started
> this topic last week. I thought it achieved something I
> hadn't before: looking at the question of reform not from a
> list of complaints and problems, but rather from a list of
> positive dreams.

Complaints and problems automatically define their
corresponding "positive dreams." Complaint: TM charges
unreasonable fees. Positive dream: TM should charge
fees that are reasonable.

This is just now occurring to you??

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[John M. Knapp, LMSW]

"
> 
> Classic "Honest" John.

It appears you are still attempting to inflict pain. Futilely. Scare quotes are 
so 90s.

Can you answer my earlier question, how you square this intention to inflict 
pain with 
following a spiritual path?

Do you *know* the labels that are applied to people who enjoy inflicting pain?

Or those who see conspiracies everywhere?

> 
> As he knows, I said nothing whatsoever to suggest
> or hint or imply that I thought anything I said
> would cause him not to hang around. He made that
> up so those who didn't remember what I *did* say
> would think that's what I had claimed.
> 
> I said explicitly why I bet he wouldn't hang
> around: He didn't get the kind of responses he
> was hoping for to his list of "TMO reforms."

Nah, I read your post too quickly. I guess I misunderstood. Sorry!

> 
> He isn't a regular poster here. He drops in
> every once in a while when there's something
> on his agenda he wants to accomplish. He's very
> one-pointed that way. He'll make a little small
> talk for cover, but that's not why he shows up.
> He always has a purpose in mind.

This is all true. I'm not sure what you see as wrong with that. Many people are 
occasional 
posters here. 

Do you take issue with them as well?

I did state my agenda up front: to discuss reform of the TM movement.

All the side discussions about my character have distracted me somewhat from 
that 
purpose, but I've tried to do a good job of always bringing the question up 
again.

The small talk isn't for cover, however. Cover for what? If I were doing 
something illegal or 
shameful I might look for cover, I suppose. 

Do *you* feel I'm doing something illegal or shameful?

I don't see any shame in posting here occasionally -- with a purpose in mind.

Could you explain what you find wrong with that?

Anyway, there is a group of really interesting people here. When I do drop in, 
I enjoy a 
little discussion and repartee.

Like my quick note to TurquoiseB on science fiction. Whenever I can give props 
to Philip K. 
Dick and Alfred Bester I grab the opportunity.

As a side note, TurquoiseB and I, back when he used a different handle on the 
old AMT, 
crossed swords a number of times. Doesn't keep me from enjoying his cyber 
company 
today. It seems we've both changed and grown since then. Thirteen years is a 
long time. 
It'd be a shame if we didn't grow and change.

Can you tell me some ways that you've grown and changed in the last 13 years?

The world isn't black and white. There's almost always something cool about 
anybody. 
This is true of the Maharishi and you, I believe.

> 
> He claims he's been interested in TMO reform for
> 13 years. Why did he suddenly decide only now 
> that he wanted to discuss it with us?
>

The answer is really simple. I wrote the essay that started this topic last 
week. I thought it 
achieved something I hadn't before: looking at the question of reform not from 
a list of 
complaints and problems, but rather from a list of positive dreams.

Rightly or wrongly, I thought people would be interested. 

I've posted it on a number of sites, btw. Generally, it's received a warm 
reception. Which 
pleases me.

Judy, you may remember back when you frequented TM-Free Blog about a year ago, 
that I 
did a number of posts based on the "strengths perspective." Talking about the 
strengths 
of people recovering from cults, of adult children of cult members, and of some 
other 
groups.

This is a new focus for me. It started with my training as a therapist. It's 
given me a new, 
interesting way of looking at these issues. It seems to get warmer feedback 
than the lists 
of complaints I have published.

I hope this helps explain myself a little better to you.

J.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[feste37]

>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > > "It was a sacrifice of life to leave the Himalayas. But
necessary to 
> > > bring about this new, golden age for mankind."
> > > 
> > > - Maharishi, Boppard, Germany, 1982
> > 
> > Funny how religious dudes speak about their sacrifices while amassing
> > huge wealth.  It is part of their "story."   And we are supposed to
> > believe that he preferred living without indoor plumbing to the golden
> > throne?  Or that he, unlike any of the rest of us, didn't gain more
> > meaning in his life by going out, meeting people and laying his rap on
> > them.  He was so fulfilled sitting on his butt in the mountains that
> > he didn't gain more joy for his life by becoming a teacher?  Or that
> > his nature completely changed after 13 years of running around for
> > Guru Dev, and he would be perfectly happy sitting on a rock in the
> > mountains?  
> > 
> > He loved creating his own myths didn't he?
> > 
> > Here is my take:  The guy was always a very active guy.  He fell into
> > a 2 year depression funk after his life partner died, and after
> > feeling better went back to being a super active guy building his own
> > empire and delighting in micromanaging every detail.  He had as much
> > chance of sitting on his butt in the mountains as The Donald. 
> >

Well, it must have been a sacrifice to leave the silence of the
Himalayas to end up being insulted by people like you. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "It was a sacrifice of life to leave the Himalayas. But necessary to 
> > bring about this new, golden age for mankind."
> > 
> > - Maharishi, Boppard, Germany, 1982
> 
> Funny how religious dudes speak about their sacrifices while amassing
> huge wealth.  It is part of their "story."   And we are supposed to
> believe that he preferred living without indoor plumbing to the golden
> throne?  Or that he, unlike any of the rest of us, didn't gain more
> meaning in his life by going out, meeting people and laying his rap on
> them.  He was so fulfilled sitting on his butt in the mountains that
> he didn't gain more joy for his life by becoming a teacher?  Or that
> his nature completely changed after 13 years of running around for
> Guru Dev, and he would be perfectly happy sitting on a rock in the
> mountains?  
> 
> He loved creating his own myths didn't he?
> 
> Here is my take:  The guy was always a very active guy.  He fell into
> a 2 year depression funk after his life partner died, and after
> feeling better went back to being a super active guy building his own
> empire and delighting in micromanaging every detail.  He had as much
> chance of sitting on his butt in the mountains as The Donald. 
>

Well, note that he did set up one of his major world centers quite
near Cedar Rapids -- the sin capital of the world. You do the math.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[curtisdeltablues]

> "It was a sacrifice of life to leave the Himalayas. But necessary to 
> bring about this new, golden age for mankind."
> 
> - Maharishi, Boppard, Germany, 1982

Funny how religious dudes speak about their sacrifices while amassing
huge wealth.  It is part of their "story."   And we are supposed to
believe that he preferred living without indoor plumbing to the golden
throne?  Or that he, unlike any of the rest of us, didn't gain more
meaning in his life by going out, meeting people and laying his rap on
them.  He was so fulfilled sitting on his butt in the mountains that
he didn't gain more joy for his life by becoming a teacher?  Or that
his nature completely changed after 13 years of running around for
Guru Dev, and he would be perfectly happy sitting on a rock in the
mountains?  

He loved creating his own myths didn't he?

Here is my take:  The guy was always a very active guy.  He fell into
a 2 year depression funk after his life partner died, and after
feeling better went back to being a super active guy building his own
empire and delighting in micromanaging every detail.  He had as much
chance of sitting on his butt in the mountains as The Donald. 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
>  wrote:
> > 
> > He wasn't big on charity, but he did teach the suturas "friendliness, 
> compassion, 
> > happiness" as the first, and perhaps most important, TM-Sidhis.
> 
> 
> I beg your pardon !
>  
> Maharishi's life was one big charity from beginning to end. He 
> sacrified His whole life for mankind to create the gloriuous future we 
> are about to enjoy.
> 
> "It was a sacrifice of life to leave the Himalayas. But necessary to 
> bring about this new, golden age for mankind."
> 
> - Maharishi, Boppard, Germany, 1982
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I also think you may overestimate your power. I can't think
> of anything you might say that would cause me "not to hang
> around."

Classic "Honest" John.

As he knows, I said nothing whatsoever to suggest
or hint or imply that I thought anything I said
would cause him not to hang around. He made that
up so those who didn't remember what I *did* say
would think that's what I had claimed.

I said explicitly why I bet he wouldn't hang
around: He didn't get the kind of responses he
was hoping for to his list of "TMO reforms."

He isn't a regular poster here. He drops in
every once in a while when there's something
on his agenda he wants to accomplish. He's very
one-pointed that way. He'll make a little small
talk for cover, but that's not why he shows up.
He always has a purpose in mind.

He claims he's been interested in TMO reform for
13 years. Why did he suddenly decide only now 
that he wanted to discuss it with us?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[John M. Knapp, LMSW]

Judy,

Your thinking appears black/white.

I said "*an* unstated purpose", not my only purpose, was to offer an implicit 
comparison 
for involvement in other spiritual organizations.

My main purpose was as I stated to talk about reform in the TM Movement. 

As, I can't help but repeat, I've been talking about for 13 years.

Sometimes, Judy, I think you cherry pick minor points -- that you seem to 
misunderstand 
-- to make a grand case.

I also think you may overestimate your power. I can't think of anything you 
might say that 
would cause me "not to hang around." (Although my time is limited, so I can't 
promise I'll 
be as involved as I have been for the last couple of days.)

You *project* a number of "motivations" that I might have. I've experienced 
this in the 
past from you and have observed you do this frequently with others here and 
elsewhere.

I'm wondering if you can distinguish between your opinions and projections and 
the 
validity of someone else's view of the truth?

I am not attempting to get clients here. Generally, my clients come from 
referrals and 
google searches. Only a couple of times have people reached out to me from 
TM-Free 
Blog, for instance. To my knowledge, the Group posts are not searchable by 
Google.

I am not attempting to get hits on my websites here. Good thing! I've only seen 
two hits 
that originated from here in my webstats in the last couple of days.  (I can't 
really see how 
that would benefit me anyway. Advertising revenue is about $20/month. Covers 
the cost 
of running the sites.)

I *am* attempting to discuss reform in the TM movement.

And what *your* frequent posts on this topic achieve is keeping the topic 
floating near the 
top of the list on the message and front pages of this group.

So, many people are seeing the original post and the points I make.

That's fine by me.

J.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
>  wrote:
> >
> [Vaj wrote:]
> > > What I enjoyed about your list was not that the TMO would
> > > ever consider actually doing these suggestions, that would
> > > be a "snowball's chance in hell". Instead they are valuable
> > > pointers for people leaving the TMO for what to look for
> > > in terms of honesty and integrity in any new spiritual or
> > > self-help org.
> > >
> > If I had any "hidden agenda," I suppose this was an unstated
> > purpose of my post. As I said, I'm not willing to settle for
> > less from any spiritual organization, but it the Catholic
> > Church, your local guru, or Scientology.
> > 
> > Thanks for bringing this background purpose of mine to the 
> > forefront.
> 
> I said earlier--to great disdain from Barry and John--
> that I didn't think John's intention in posting his
> list was to inspire folks to think about how the TMO
> might be reformed.
> 
> It appears I was correct.
> 
> I said in another post that I thought his intention
> was to pose a stark contrast to the TMO by listing
> the characteristics of an ideal organization.
> 
> That certainly would be a useful tool in his therapy
> sessions with clients who had left the TMO but were
> still uncertain as to whether they'd done the right
> thing.
> 
> It might even be a useful tool in acquiring new
> clients from among those who lurk on FFL, especially
> if he can get the regulars to complain about how far
> the TMO is from meeting these ideals, hopefully with
> horrible examples.
> 
> I don't think it's any accident that John has
> repeatedly pressured folks here to discuss his list.
> 
> He gave it a good shot, but he doesn't seem to have
> gathered enough useful responses to make it worth
> his time, so he's uploaded the list to the Files
> section.
> 
> Anybody want to bet how long he'll hang around now?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[John M. Knapp, LMSW]

> 
> I beg your pardon !
>  
> Maharishi's life was one big charity from beginning to end. He 
> sacrified His whole life for mankind to create the gloriuous future we 
> are about to enjoy.
> 
> "It was a sacrifice of life to leave the Himalayas. But necessary to 
> bring about this new, golden age for mankind."
> 
> - Maharishi, Boppard, Germany, 1982

Hmm, we seriously disagree on this point.

What did he give up? Sacrifice entails giving up something for something else 
-- typically 
a greater good.

The Maharishi may or may not have achieved a "glorious future." Time will tell, 
I imagine.

But he did very well for himself and his family materially.

I do not know of another failed physicist who ran an empire worth billions. And 
enjoyed 
every material comfort in his life.

Wait! There is Bill Gates. But his isn't a spiritual empire.

Are you aware of one of humanity's many great spiritual voices who made 
material success 
a main point of his career?

Jesus? Buddha? Mohammed? Confucius? 

There are Christian preachers who teach that material success is a sign of 
spiritual 
attainment. There may be others. 

But I'm not aware that any of them are considered great spiritual leaders by a 
significant 
portion of humanity.

J.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> He wasn't big on charity, but he did teach the suturas "friendliness, 
compassion, 
> happiness" as the first, and perhaps most important, TM-Sidhis.


I beg your pardon !
 
Maharishi's life was one big charity from beginning to end. He 
sacrified His whole life for mankind to create the gloriuous future we 
are about to enjoy.

"It was a sacrifice of life to leave the Himalayas. But necessary to 
bring about this new, golden age for mankind."

- Maharishi, Boppard, Germany, 1982

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 

> And I believe it's virtually 
> impossible to know a person on the basis of their writings or public
actions.

Quite true. However that doesn't stop many on FFL in conducting
in-depth diagnosis of many "perceived" inner ailments. Perhaps those
so engaged cannot help but see via light shining from themselves.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[Vaj wrote:]
> > What I enjoyed about your list was not that the TMO would
> > ever consider actually doing these suggestions, that would
> > be a "snowball's chance in hell". Instead they are valuable
> > pointers for people leaving the TMO for what to look for
> > in terms of honesty and integrity in any new spiritual or
> > self-help org.
> >
> If I had any "hidden agenda," I suppose this was an unstated
> purpose of my post. As I said, I'm not willing to settle for
> less from any spiritual organization, but it the Catholic
> Church, your local guru, or Scientology.
> 
> Thanks for bringing this background purpose of mine to the 
> forefront.

I said earlier--to great disdain from Barry and John--
that I didn't think John's intention in posting his
list was to inspire folks to think about how the TMO
might be reformed.

It appears I was correct.

I said in another post that I thought his intention
was to pose a stark contrast to the TMO by listing
the characteristics of an ideal organization.

That certainly would be a useful tool in his therapy
sessions with clients who had left the TMO but were
still uncertain as to whether they'd done the right
thing.

It might even be a useful tool in acquiring new
clients from among those who lurk on FFL, especially
if he can get the regulars to complain about how far
the TMO is from meeting these ideals, hopefully with
horrible examples.

I don't think it's any accident that John has
repeatedly pressured folks here to discuss his list.

He gave it a good shot, but he doesn't seem to have
gathered enough useful responses to make it worth
his time, so he's uploaded the list to the Files
section.

Anybody want to bet how long he'll hang around now?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

Not going to continue this, John. You know what my
beefs are with you. And you can bag the little
lectures. I don't give any credence to "advice"
from people for whom I have no respect either.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> > Let me put it this way: Unfair and mendacious
> > attacks on other people that cause *them* pain
> > cause *me* pain.
> >
> 
> Okay,
> 
> I'm still at a loss to understand your apparent rage and evident 
lashing out. 
> 
> Using your yardstick, can you point me toward an unfair and 
mendacious attack I've made 
> on you or other people?
> 
> Preferably in the posts you have attacked me for recently, but I 
would appreciate it if your 
> citation took place in, say, the last decade. But use your best 
judgement. I will naturally 
> apologize for any pain I caused at any time in the past.
> 
> And no matter what the cause of your pain, no matter how justified 
you feel, I still feel you 
> are responsible for your hurtful actions.
> 
> Doubly so because you espouse and recommend a *spiritual* teaching.
> 
> Do you disagree? 
> 
> J.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[John M. Knapp, LMSW]

> Let me put it this way: Unfair and mendacious
> attacks on other people that cause *them* pain
> cause *me* pain.
>

Okay,

I'm still at a loss to understand your apparent rage and evident lashing out. 

Using your yardstick, can you point me toward an unfair and mendacious attack 
I've made 
on you or other people?

Preferably in the posts you have attacked me for recently, but I would 
appreciate it if your 
citation took place in, say, the last decade. But use your best judgement. I 
will naturally 
apologize for any pain I caused at any time in the past.

And no matter what the cause of your pain, no matter how justified you feel, I 
still feel you 
are responsible for your hurtful actions.

Doubly so because you espouse and recommend a *spiritual* teaching.

Do you disagree? 

J.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> But it is difficult for me to understand the virulence of
> your rage and hurtful lashing out on this forum, on this
> topic, in any other way than your response to pain of some
> kind.

Let me put it this way: Unfair and mendacious
attacks on other people that cause *them* pain
cause *me* pain.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[John M. Knapp, LMSW]

> I believe I already explained that attacks by those
> for whom I have no respect do not cause me pain.
>

Judy,

I know next to nothing about you. I only know your writings. And I believe it's 
virtually 
impossible to know a person on the basis of their writings or public actions.

But it is difficult for me to understand the virulence of your rage and hurtful 
lashing out on 
this forum, on this topic, in any other way than your response to pain of some 
kind.

In my mind, this does not excuse acting out. 

We all have a right to our feelings. 

But we all also bear responsibility for our actions.

J.

P.S. It has been difficult to keep the focus on the topic of this discussion. 
So I'm thinking 
I'll take a poster's advice and upload the original file in the hopes it will 
spark on-topic 
discussion at some future date.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But here's an example of your attempts to trash
> > me, just FYI:
> > 
> > "I may be wrong, Judy, but it seems when people disagree
> > with your own views re TM, you attack them with disparaging
> > labels -- ignoring the substance of what they have to say?"
> > 
> > And then there was your nitwit question, "What is your
> > reason for posting to a thread you are not interested in
> > discussing?"
> >
> 
> Judy,
> 
> I fail to see how either of your examples of my words are
> attacks on you.

I'll just let that admitted failure speak for itself.

> Naturally, if they caused you pain, I regret and apologize
> for that.

I believe I already explained that attacks by those
for whom I have no respect do not cause me pain.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

Those who are already aware that Barry compulsively
and repeatedly lies about me (most everyone here, I
suspect) should feel free to skip this post.

I'm combining Barry's two most recent posts in a single
response rather than waste a post of my own.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW"
>  wrote:
> > >
> > > It was half that, and half of those were in
> > > response to Knapp's attempts to trash *me*.
> > 
> > Judy,
> > 
> > I went out of my way to NOT trash you.
> 
> And I think that everyone here noticed that.

I provided examples.

> You were studious in trying to avoid confront-
> ation with her, and to avoid replying in kind.

Bullcrap.

> In fact, you consistently tried to steer her
> back to the topic, while she consistently tried
> to steer the conversation away from it, and to
> focus it on trashing your reputation.

Lie. No, I didn't "try to steer the conversation
away from it." I said explicitly that I wasn't
interested, several times. It was John who kept
trying to steer *me* into a conversation I had
made it clear I had no intention of engaging in.

Barry knows this.

> > I DID disagree with some of what you said. That is 
> > not the same as attacking you.
> 
> Whereas what Judy did, from the moment that a 
> newbie took what you posted seriously, as if it 
> had come from a human being, was to trash you 
> and attempt to portray you as less than one.

Lie. Never have I suggested that John was anything
other than a human being.

What I *have* said--and stand by, and have
documented--is that he is an *untrustworthy*
human being.

Barry knows this.
 
> Here is a fairly recent Judyquote. Compare 
> and contrast it to her treatment of John 
> Knapp, who in my opinion did NOT attack her. 
> (Before she screams bloody murder and accuses
> me of 'misrepresenting' her, the two ellipses
> below are for deletions of the words 'about 
> Hillary' to make the quote more general.)
> 
> "What I've said ... is that one needs to seek out 
> alternative views for the sake of balance (when it 
> comes to opinions). As to facts, in most cases it's 
> possible to determine whether what are presented as 
> facts ... are accurate by consulting other sources; 
> and if the facts remain uncertain, at least one 
> knows there are competing claims, and hopefully 
> what the case is for each of them. What's *not OK* 
> is to read only one side and swallow it whole."
> 
> All that John did was to present an alternative
> viewpoint, the VERY thing that Judy said that 
> she and other critical-thinking people SHOULD
> search out.

An alternative viewpoint *to what*? What's the
viewpoint that John's is an alternative to?

Barry has no idea. He didn't bother to think
through what he was saying; he just thought it
sounded good. Whether it actually makes sense
is not important.

 To date, she has not addressed even
> one substantial remark from his point of view; 
> all that she has done is attempt to smear his 
> reputation.

Actually, what I've done is point out what his
reputation *is* among those who have had
extended encounters with him.

> I'm sorry to dredge up the Judywars again, but
> this is classic. She cannot even PRETEND that
> she had any intent other than to dissuade a 
> newbie from considering a different point of
> view on the TMO,

Again: What is the point of view that John's is
allegedly different *from*?

As I said to Ruth:

"There's nothing wrong with what he says; it's who's
saying it--this *particular* former TM teacher--and
what his motives are. We have ample reason not to
take what he says at face value. There's a history
here you aren't aware of."

I stand by that statement. Barry knows I made it,
so his statement above is a lie.


> If I may close with another of her quotes, I
> shall allow that quote stand as a critique of her
> performance in the last two days vs. John Knapp's:
> 
> "Sometimes it can even be seen from the start who 
> is an empty suit and who has real substance."

That's with regard to political candidates, as
Barry knows.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Sadly, not true. Last week, *as I said I would*
> (because she went over the posting limit for the
> second time in a month and refused to take her
> well-deserved week-long 'timeout')

Lie. As Barry knows, there's no way to "refuse to
take" a timeout. Rick decided against giving me one,
so if Barry has any complaints, he needs to take it
up with Rick.

, I did not
> reply to any of her posts, or comment on her 
> directly, except in my last post of the week,
> after she had begun to shamelessly attack John
> Knapp *for making a subdued and valuable post*.

Lie. As Barry knows, that isn't why I "attacked" John.


> I will speak up when she savages someone else
> here unfairly, out of spite and anger and 
> because of old grudges she cannot drop, and
> out of being a tried and true 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But here's an example of your attempts to trash
> > me, just FYI:
> > 
> > "I may be wrong, Judy, but it seems when people disagree
> > with your own views re TM, you attack them with disparaging
> > labels -- ignoring the substance of what they have to say?"
> > 
> > And then there was your nitwit question, "What is your
> > reason for posting to a thread you are not interested in
> > discussing?"
> 
> Judy,
> 
> I fail to see how either of your examples of my words are 
> attacks on you.
> 
> Naturally, if they caused you pain, I regret and apologize 
> for that.
> 
> They are both stated respectfully. Neither calls you names, 
> questions your integrity, defames, or slanders you. They 
> aren't even harsh in tone.

Compare them, for example, to the tone and content
of Judy's *first* post concerning John, the one he
replied to politely and in a non-attacking manner:

>> Dan, you're aware that Knapp is a long-time, ferocious
>> critic of TM, right? I seriously doubt he has any
>> intention of trying to "reform" the TMO. What he's
>> looking for is material he can use to make the TMO
>> look as bad as possible (and not incidentally bolster
>> his "counseling" business).
>> 
>> Some of us have known him electronically for many years
>> and don't trust him any further than we could throw him,
>> if he came within reach.

Note the scare quotes around "counseling." Note 
the LMSW designation after John's name. Not ONLY
is Judy's first post an attack, it's verging on
the legal definition of libel; she is bringing
into question John's ability to do something he 
is licensed to do, as a profession.

One wonders how Judy would react to a similar post
suggesting her hidden motives and untrustworthiness,
and relating them to her profession as an editor, 
advising people not to trust her with their edit
jobs because of those hidden motives and lack of
trustworthiness.

> It does seem that you hear any form of disagreement with 
> your views as an attack. 

Yes, it does seem that way.

> And feel therefore justified in your hurtful speech, such as 
> labeling my question as "nitwit."

Forget "nitwit." Focus instead on the fact that 
Judy has the credentials of a...uh...freelance
editor, and is making insinuations about the 
capabilities of a licensed social worker, based
upon "knowing him electronically." 

One is reminded of her insinuations about the 
"Christian bigot" (her term) agenda that she sees
in Mel Gibson's movie Apocalypto...which she has 
never seen. 

Perhaps she knew the movie electronically.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[John M. Knapp, LMSW]

> What I enjoyed about your list was not that the TMO would ever  
> consider actually doing these suggestions, that would be a "snowball's  
> chance in hell". Instead they are valuable pointers for people leaving  
> the TMO for what to look for in terms of honesty and integrity in any  
> new spiritual or self-help org.
>

Hi, Vaj,

Good to hear from you.

If I had any "hidden agenda," I suppose this was an unstated purpose of my 
post. As I said, 
I'm not willing to settle for less from any spiritual organization, but it the 
Catholic Church, 
your local guru, or Scientology.

Thanks for bringing this background purpose of mine to the forefront.

J.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[John M. Knapp, LMSW]

> But here's an example of your attempts to trash
> me, just FYI:
> 
> "I may be wrong, Judy, but it seems when people disagree
> with your own views re TM, you attack them with disparaging
> labels -- ignoring the substance of what they have to say?"
> 
> And then there was your nitwit question, "What is your
> reason for posting to a thread you are not interested in
> discussing?"
>

Judy,

I fail to see how either of your examples of my words are attacks on you.

Naturally, if they caused you pain, I regret and apologize for that.

They are both stated respectfully. Neither calls you names, questions your 
integrity, 
defames, or slanders you. They aren't even harsh in tone.

It does seem that you hear any form of disagreement with your views as an 
attack. And 
feel therefore justified in your hurtful speech, such as labeling my question 
as "nitwit."

If I'm mistaken could you better explain your sense that my statements are 
attacks?

I do experience your attacks as vicious, unprovoked, and apparently meant to 
inflict pain -
- filled with rage, name calling, character assassination, etc.

Perhaps I'm mistaken or too sensitive.

It would be a personal favor if you or others could set me right if I'm 
mistaken.

There are unpleasant names for people who enjoy inflicting pain on others. I'm 
sure you 
are aware of them.

If others see Judy's speech as I do, can anyone help me square Judy's 
hurtfulness with 
those spiritual values the Maharishi *did* teach?

He wasn't big on charity, but he did teach the suturas "friendliness, 
compassion, 
happiness" as the first, and perhaps most important, TM-Sidhis.

Perhaps Judy has some positive agenda I've missed. But I'm not aware of it. I'd 
appreciate 
being enlightened.

J.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[Vaj]

On Jun 21, 2008, at 2:22 PM, John M. Knapp, LMSW wrote:

> Hi, TurquiseB,
>
> You may be right about the TM leaders. They may or may not change.
>
> But bigger organizations than the tiny TM movement have been changed  
> from within. The
> Reformation changed the Christian church. Mahayana changed the face  
> of Buddhism. Even
> the modern Catholic Church is grudgingly making some changes in the  
> face of their laity's
> outrage.


What I enjoyed about your list was not that the TMO would ever  
consider actually doing these suggestions, that would be a "snowball's  
chance in hell". Instead they are valuable pointers for people leaving  
the TMO for what to look for in terms of honesty and integrity in any  
new spiritual or self-help org.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: Kenny H
> > 
> > It is obvious that Barry does go out of his way to be 
> > bait you and it is beyond me to fathom why a chronologically 
> > grown person would do this.
> 
> It's like teasing one's sister. Fun in a way. If either one 
> of them refused to respond to the other, the feud would 
> fizzle out.

Sadly, not true. Last week, *as I said I would*
(because she went over the posting limit for the
second time in a month and refused to take her
well-deserved week-long 'timeout'), I did not
reply to any of her posts, or comment on her 
directly, except in my last post of the week,
after she had begun to shamelessly attack John
Knapp *for making a subdued and valuable post*.

In contrast, Judy found quite a few occasions
to trash me during the week. She has actually
*stated* on this forum, many times, that she 
will continue to do so, whether I reply to her
or not. 

>From my side, I don't think that the old battle-
axe really deserves much in terms of direct 
replies from me, but *just as she claims to do*,
I will speak up when she savages someone else
here unfairly, out of spite and anger and 
because of old grudges she cannot drop, and
out of being a tried and true TM True Believer
who has come to believe that it is not only
"OK" to attempt to destroy the reputation of
what she calls an "anti-TMer," but that it is
her solemn duty to do so.

After all, someone could have their minds 
"poisoned" by hearing another point of view,
right? Or IS that right? Again, here's how
the old battle-axe described the "proper" way
to learn about things:

"What I've said ... is that one needs to seek out 
alternative views for the sake of balance (when it 
comes to opinions). As to facts, in most cases it's 
possible to determine whether what are presented as 
facts ... are accurate by consulting other sources; 
and if the facts remain uncertain, at least one 
knows there are competing claims, and hopefully 
what the case is for each of them. What's *not OK* 
is to read only one side and swallow it whole."

And yet, when someone like John DOES present an
alternative view, she goes out of her way to
smear him, using the very tactics she claimed
were despicable when applied to Hillary Clinton.

And at the same time, she claims that doing so
has nothing to do with HER being a TM TB. Yeah,
right.

To Ken, and Rick, and others, I'll really TRY 
to keep my interactions with this insane bitch
to a minimum, but she really IS an insane bitch.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It was half that, and half of those were in
> > response to Knapp's attempts to trash *me*.
> 
> Judy,
> 
> I went out of my way to NOT trash you.

And I think that everyone here noticed that.

You were studious in trying to avoid confront-
ation with her, and to avoid replying in kind.
In fact, you consistently tried to steer her
back to the topic, while she consistently tried
to steer the conversation away from it, and to
focus it on trashing your reputation.

> I DID disagree with some of what you said. That is 
> not the same as attacking you.

Whereas what Judy did, from the moment that a 
newbie took what you posted seriously, as if it 
had come from a human being, was to trash you 
and attempt to portray you as less than one.

> If you can point out any of my comments that made 
> you feel victimized, I'd be happy to apologize.

Any comments in the present, that is.  :-)

Here is a fairly recent Judyquote. Compare 
and contrast it to her treatment of John 
Knapp, who in my opinion did NOT attack her. 
(Before she screams bloody murder and accuses
me of 'misrepresenting' her, the two ellipses
below are for deletions of the words 'about 
Hillary' to make the quote more general.)

"What I've said ... is that one needs to seek out 
alternative views for the sake of balance (when it 
comes to opinions). As to facts, in most cases it's 
possible to determine whether what are presented as 
facts ... are accurate by consulting other sources; 
and if the facts remain uncertain, at least one 
knows there are competing claims, and hopefully 
what the case is for each of them. What's *not OK* 
is to read only one side and swallow it whole."

All that John did was to present an alternative
viewpoint, the VERY thing that Judy said that 
she and other critical-thinking people SHOULD
search out. To date, she has not addressed even
one substantial remark from his point of view; 
all that she has done is attempt to smear his 
reputation.

I'm sorry to dredge up the Judywars again, but
this is classic. She cannot even PRETEND that
she had any intent other than to dissuade a 
newbie from considering a different point of
view on the TMO, *BY* smearing the author of
that claim. This is Just What Judy Does.

If I may close with another of her quotes, I
shall allow that quote stand as a critique of her
performance in the last two days vs. John Knapp's:

"Sometimes it can even be seen from the start who 
is an empty suit and who has real substance."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Judy may be many things, but she isn't a true believer...
> 
> Shemp, she made over 20 posts in one day for
> NO OTHER PURPOSE than to trash the reputation
> of someone she believes is "anti-TM" (John
> Knapp). She's actually the one who brought
> up the term "anti-TM" with regard to him.
> 
> She probably doesn't even *disagree* with the
> suggestions he posted, and has never once dealt 
> with them. But she feels this desperate a need 
> to trash him anyway, ALL DAY. 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that's a True Believer.
> 
> Worse, a True Believer in denial. She's like a 
> junkie telling her loved ones that she's done
> with drugs while shooting up in front of them.
>

Sounds like the way the two of you post on this forum and amt for the 
past 12 years.

Using your logic that must make YOU a true believer, too...a true 
believer in the cult of "I-can't-stop-trashing-Judy".

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> > It was half that, and half of those were in
> > response to Knapp's attempts to trash *me*.
> > 
> 
> Judy,
> 
> I went out of my way to NOT trash you.

ROTFL! Good old "Honest" John!

> I DID disagree with some of what you said. That is not
> the same as attacking you.
> 
> If you can point out any of my comments that made you
> feel victimized, I'd be happy to apologize.

Oh, no need to apologize. I don't feel victimized
by attacks from people for whom I have no respect.

But here's an example of your attempts to trash
me, just FYI:

"I may be wrong, Judy, but it seems when people disagree
with your own views re TM, you attack them with disparaging
labels -- ignoring the substance of what they have to say?"

And then there was your nitwit question, "What is your
reason for posting to a thread you are not interested in
discussing?"

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Kenny H
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 9:23 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> Barry really *does* know better. He knows the vast
> majority of the crap he posts about me isn't true.
> He doesn't have enough imagination to figure out a
> way to try to insult me that's actually truthful.
>

It is obvious that Barry does go out of his way to be bait you and it
is beyond me to fathom why a chronologically grown person would do this.

It's like teasing one's sister. Fun in a way. If either one of them refused
to respond to the other, the feud would fizzle out.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[John M. Knapp, LMSW]

> It was half that, and half of those were in
> response to Knapp's attempts to trash *me*.
> 

Judy,

I went out of my way to NOT trash you.

 I DID disagree with some of what you said. That is not the same as attacking 
you.

If you can point out any of my comments that made you feel victimized, I'd be 
happy to 
apologize.

J.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Judy may be many things, but she isn't a true believer...
> 
> Shemp, she made over 20 posts in one day for
> NO OTHER PURPOSE than to trash the reputation
> of someone she believes is "anti-TM" (John
> Knapp). She's actually the one who brought
> up the term "anti-TM" with regard to him.

You really *are* out of touch with reality.

It was half that, and half of those were in
response to Knapp's attempts to trash *me*.

> She probably doesn't even *disagree* with the
> suggestions he posted, and has never once dealt 
> with them. But she feels this desperate a need 
> to trash him anyway, ALL DAY.

All *morning*, you mean.

> I'm sorry, but that's a True Believer.

And you really *don't* have any imagination.
I made at least as many posts going after 
M. Dixon for his attempt to suggest Obama was
a Muslim awhile back, and I can't stand Obama.

I'm a True Believer in telling the truth and
being fair, whether it's to Obama or Hillary
or MMY or Lawson or myself or whoever is being
lied about and/or unfairly accused.

That's why I have a tendency to trash you and
Vaj and Knapp and Skolnick and M. Dixon when
he was still around, even Shemp when he gets
out of line.

Your mental and emotional capacities are so
pinched and stunted you can't comprehend such
a thing.
 
> Worse, a True Believer in denial. She's like a 
> junkie telling her loved ones that she's done
> with drugs while shooting up in front of them.

You ain't in no position to accuse anybody else
of being in denial.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[Kenny H]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
> Barry really *does* know better. He knows the vast
> majority of the crap he posts about me isn't true.
> He doesn't have enough imagination to figure out a
> way to try to insult me that's actually truthful.
>

It is obvious that Barry does go out of his way to be bait you and it
is beyond me to fathom why a chronologically grown person would do this.

KH

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Judy may be many things, but she isn't a true believer...

Shemp, she made over 20 posts in one day for
NO OTHER PURPOSE than to trash the reputation
of someone she believes is "anti-TM" (John
Knapp). She's actually the one who brought
up the term "anti-TM" with regard to him.

She probably doesn't even *disagree* with the
suggestions he posted, and has never once dealt 
with them. But she feels this desperate a need 
to trash him anyway, ALL DAY. 

I'm sorry, but that's a True Believer.

Worse, a True Believer in denial. She's like a 
junkie telling her loved ones that she's done
with drugs while shooting up in front of them.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[dhamiltony2k5]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "guyfawkes91" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>wrote:
>
> 
> This is one of the best posts I've seen on here for a long time.

Yeah, i agree with guy, 

 Regardless of who they are, these two posts seem some of the more 
honest forthright criticism of TM and the TM/FF circumstance of this 
month.  Archival in ways: 

1) taskcentered <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"maybe they can dodge the cult label.
Be Transparent 
•   discuss policies, procedures & scandals openly 
•   publicize open complaint procedures 
•   report public scandals promptly to members, law officials & 
public media 
•   allow free information flow & fully disclose "secrets," 
especially those that might affect potential members' choice to join 
•   fully disclose the group's political & legislative 
involvement 
•   fully disclose finances, particularly international finances, 
with third-party audits 
•   create a member-driven task force to set reasonable fees for 
retreats & "courses" 
•   dialogue openly with laity, the press & the public 
Be Accountable 
•   publish - and adhere to - a set of ethics 
•   publish - and adhere to - all fees & donation policies 
•   oversee clergy & other agents with governing boards 
•   if any group agent acts unethically or illegally, take full 
responsibility 
Advocate Freedom 
•   allow open questioning of the leader's beliefs & practices 
•   Create a mechanism for modifying beliefs & practices 
•   create an elective or accountable structure of representation 
(as in most churches) 
•   promote freedom of speech within the group, without reprisals 
for contrary opinions 
•   promote academic freedom for clergy & scholars 
•   allow access to files/records held on members & public 
individuals 
•   advocate freedom to explore our spirituality without shunning 
or other repercussions 
•   avoid use of shame or guilt to control members 
Provide Member Protections 
•   institute safeguards against members devoting damaging 
amounts of time, money & emotional resources to the group 
Value Respect for Non-Members 
•   foster a systemic respect for other spiritual traditions & 
non-members 
•   foster a systemic respect for the rule of law, rather than 
the belief the ends justify the means 
•   foster a systemic respect for members' families, whether they 
are members or not 
•   foster a systemic practice of charity & support to the less 
fortunate 
•   encourage members to live or socialize with non-group members 
Provide Informed Consent 
•   fully disclose negative side-effects of group's mind-altering 
or medical techniques 
•   undertake real efforts to address & heal side-effects 
•   accept financial responsibility for members suffering side-
effects 
Imagine a Transcendental Meditation Org that acted with this kind of 
integrity. 
That's a spiritual organization I could be proud of. And I'm not 
willing to accept anything less.   From 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/180553

& 2)

>TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Turq writes:: "With all due respect. 
It would take the imposition
of some "outside force" to shake people whose
beliefs are that strong and cause them to change
their current path and take another.

That said, one of the only things I can think of
that could sufficiently *apply* such an "outside
force" is bankruptcy. And I see that as a strong
possibility. I think it's only a matter of time
until those who were *nominally* left in charge
of the TM movement discover that they cannot find
the money. They'll search -- quietly, without tell-
ing anyone that they are searching frantically --
and they won't find a trace of it anywhere. It
will have disappeared into a black hole in India.

No one will "take the fall" for this, or be blamed
for extorting the money, because the "powers that
be" will still be in the mindset of "protecting
our own," and "protecting the image of the movement."

And so it's likely IMO that within a decade, the
Rajas will find themselves at the helm of a move-
ment that does not have the capital to continue
moving. *At that point*, and in my opinion not
before, they might be open to changing a few things.
But I don't see it happening before then."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/180957

Jai Guru Dev,

-Doug in FF

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> Judy may be many things, but she isn't a true believer
> and I'll tell you why.
> 
> There is so much anti-TM crap that is published on this
> newsgroup that a genuine true believer would simply not
> allow themselves to be exposed to it for more than two
> or three times.
> 
> Judy has allowed herself to be exposed to it for years
> and, as such, simply would not have been able to sustain
> the veneer of a true believer.
> 
> Now, she definitely is a believer but it is based not on
> blind belief -- which is the characteristic that, more
> than any other, defines a "true believer" -- but on
> experience and years of intellectual examination and 
> consideration.  And a true believer wouldn't be critical
> of the TMO, which Judy is from time to time.

Thanks, Shemp.

Barry really *does* know better. He knows the vast
majority of the crap he posts about me isn't true.
He doesn't have enough imagination to figure out a
way to try to insult me that's actually truthful.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> >  
> > > It's like Time itself, 
> > > one of those forces of nature you can count on. Time 
> > > is not gonna stop ticking anytime soon. And IMO it 
> > > *will* stop ticking before Judy admits in public 
> > > that the belief system she "sold out" to decades 
> > > ago is flawed and badly in need of repair. She 
> > > cannot bring herself to do this. As far as I can
> > > tell, it's some kind of twisted sense of "honor" 
> > > for her.
> > > 
> > > In my opinion, of course, which could be wrong.
> > 
> > It's wrong. Moreover, it's not even Barry's
> > opinion. He knows better.
> 
> This is like the Ultimate Judy Steinism,
> and I never cease to be amazed at it.
> 
> When someone honestly expresses what they
> believe about her, and it disagrees with
> what Judy believes about herself, her 
> reaction is to believe that the person
> is LYING about what they believe.
> 
> To her, that somehow seems more comforting
> than that they actually believe what they
> are saying about her.
> 
> I actually believe what I said about her
> above. Judy Stein is in my opinion one of
> the biggest True Believers I have ever
> encountered on this planet, and sadder
> than most, because she cannot admit what
> she is, even to herself.


Judy may be many things, but she isn't a true believer and I'll tell 
you why.

There is so much anti-TM crap that is published on this newsgroup 
that a genuine true believer would simply not allow themselves to be 
exposed to it for more than two or three times.

Judy has allowed herself to be exposed to it for years and, as such, 
simply would not have been able to sustain the veneer of a true 
believer.

Now, she definitely is a believer but it is based not on blind 
belief -- which is the characteristic that, more than any other, 
defines a "true believer" -- but on experience and years of 
intellectual examination and consideration.  And a true believer 
wouldn't be critical of the TMO, which Judy is from time to time.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> >  
> > > It's like Time itself, 
> > > one of those forces of nature you can count on. Time 
> > > is not gonna stop ticking anytime soon. And IMO it 
> > > *will* stop ticking before Judy admits in public 
> > > that the belief system she "sold out" to decades 
> > > ago is flawed and badly in need of repair. She 
> > > cannot bring herself to do this. As far as I can
> > > tell, it's some kind of twisted sense of "honor" 
> > > for her.
> > > 
> > > In my opinion, of course, which could be wrong.
> > 
> > It's wrong. Moreover, it's not even Barry's
> > opinion. He knows better.
> 
> This is like the Ultimate Judy Steinism,
> and I never cease to be amazed at it.
> 
> When someone honestly expresses what they
> believe about her, and it disagrees with
> what Judy believes about herself, her 
> reaction is to believe that the person
> is LYING about what they believe.

I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt
here. If you *did* actually believe what you say
about me, you'd be dangerously out of touch with
reality.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>  
> > It's like Time itself, 
> > one of those forces of nature you can count on. Time 
> > is not gonna stop ticking anytime soon. And IMO it 
> > *will* stop ticking before Judy admits in public 
> > that the belief system she "sold out" to decades 
> > ago is flawed and badly in need of repair. She 
> > cannot bring herself to do this. As far as I can
> > tell, it's some kind of twisted sense of "honor" 
> > for her.
> > 
> > In my opinion, of course, which could be wrong.
> 
> It's wrong. Moreover, it's not even Barry's
> opinion. He knows better.

This is like the Ultimate Judy Steinism,
and I never cease to be amazed at it.

When someone honestly expresses what they
believe about her, and it disagrees with
what Judy believes about herself, her 
reaction is to believe that the person
is LYING about what they believe.

To her, that somehow seems more comforting
than that they actually believe what they
are saying about her.

I actually believe what I said about her
above. Judy Stein is in my opinion one of
the biggest True Believers I have ever
encountered on this planet, and sadder
than most, because she cannot admit what
she is, even to herself.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In the end, we are the source of all power within the TM Org.
> It's our money they're spending. It's our allegiance that
> gives them the illusion of power.

Not sure how much of *our* money--those of us
on FFL--they're spending, actually. I haven't
given the TMO a dime for over a decade.

But here's an alternate approach that sounds
promising:

>From The Times of London
June 20, 2008

Scientology: the Anonymous protestors

The Church of Scientology, notoriously ruthless at
crushing its critics, may have met its match. The
Times joins a demo by `Anonymous' - the vanguard
of a new internet-fuelled radicalism

There were signs, if you knew where to look, that the launch of 
Operation Sea Arrrgh was imminent. In a hundred corners of the 
internet plots were being plotted; in fancydress shops sales of Guy 
Fawkes masks were rising and in thousands of dank teenage bedrooms 
young men and women were making plans to converge on sites around the 
world, dressed as pirates. 

Their target was the Church of Scientology - and this was an 
altogether new way of protesting. It was all so different from how it 
used to be. For more than a decade, a small group had gathered 
opposite the Church's London offices to stage lonely demonstrations. 
Some were former Scientologists, some just angered by an organisation 
that they claimed split up families, extorted money and employed its 
followers as slave labour. Leafleting passers-by, explaining 
themselves to the police and countering - they claimed - the 
harassment of the Scientologists, they were happy if a dozen turned 
out. 

Then, earlier this year, something odd happened. Simultaneously and 
apparently without warning, in London, Toronto, Sydney, New York and 
other cities worldwide, young men and women began protesting en 
masse. They wore strange clothes, spoke their own dialect, 
distributed cake and operated under the name of Anonymous. They 
returned the next month - and the month after.

Read more at:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_liv
e/article4173635.ece

http://tinyurl.com/5bbsab
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[John M. Knapp, LMSW]

Hi, TurquiseB,

You may be right about the TM leaders. They may or may not change.

But bigger organizations than the tiny TM movement have been changed from 
within. The 
Reformation changed the Christian church. Mahayana changed the face of 
Buddhism. Even 
the modern Catholic Church is grudgingly making some changes in the face of 
their laity's 
outrage.

In the end, we are the source of all power within the TM Org. It's our money 
they're spending. 
It's our allegiance that gives them the illusion of power.

If we withhold those things, the bankruptcy you mention will come all the 
sooner. Then 
things will have to change.

J.

P.S. And no, my agenda is not to bankrupt the TM Org. But if bankruptcy were to 
occur, it 
might lead to good things.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
> Judy has no CHOICE but to attempt to discredit the
> people here she doesn't agree with, John. She can't
> come up with any arguments to make her POV look
> sane or rational; therefore she HAS to attempt to 
> make those who don't buy it look insane and 
> irrational.

There he goes again. Why does he keep saying things
he must know everybody else knows are lies?

> She won't ever address the suggestions you brought 
> up because to do so she would have to admit that 
> they might be *needed*.

Another lie that everyone who reads my posts knows
is a deliberate falsehood.

 And while she may claim that 
> she is not a TB, it's simply not true. So she does 
> on a daily basis what TBs do -- she clings to beliefs 
> that she is afraid to challenge, and she demonizes 
> those who do challenge them.

And another.

 It's like Time itself, 
> one of those forces of nature you can count on. Time 
> is not gonna stop ticking anytime soon. And IMO it 
> *will* stop ticking before Judy admits in public 
> that the belief system she "sold out" to decades 
> ago is flawed and badly in need of repair. She 
> cannot bring herself to do this. As far as I can
> tell, it's some kind of twisted sense of "honor" 
> for her.
> 
> In my opinion, of course, which could be wrong.

It's wrong. Moreover, it's not even Barry's
opinion. He knows better.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Of course not.
> 
> But I have no interest in the "politics of destruction."
> 
> I am interested in reform in the TM Movement. Which is the topic 
> I posted on.
> 
> Can you tell me why you're not interested in discussing TM Reform?
> 
> You've posted numerous times you have things you take the Movement 
> to task for. 
> 
> Could you turn that around to a positive agenda? What would you 
> like to see the TM Movement do?
> 
> We have it in our power to create a better, more positive, more 
> spiritual organization -- if we so choose.

With all due respect -- and unlike Judy I *do*
respect what you're trying to do -- I think you
are naive if you believe that "we" (outsiders)
can ever positively affect the TM movement. I
also believe that "they" (the insiders) cannot
stop the juggernaut that out-of-control hubris
has created.

Weren't you *paying attention* during all those
years on a.m.t. and later at FFL? To convince
someone that they should change, they have to
first become convinced that they *should* change, 
that there is something (anything) off-kilter 
with the way that they're doing things now. I 
am not convinced that the "powers that be" in 
the TM movement can possibly be so convinced.

Their whole *lives* have been structured in 
ignoring what the outside world thinks of them.
They have all done things that were questionable,
and many of them have done things that were
patently illegal, for no better reason than 
that their spiritual teacher told them to. That
spiritual teacher was unwavering up to his death
as to what they should do in his absence. Do you
think that can be *changed*? 

I, for one, do not. It would take the imposition
of some "outside force" to shake people whose
beliefs are that strong and cause them to change 
their current path and take another. 

That said, one of the only things I can think of 
that could sufficiently *apply* such an "outside 
force" is bankruptcy. And I see that as a strong
possibility. I think it's only a matter of time
until those who were *nominally* left in charge
of the TM movement discover that they cannot find
the money. They'll search -- quietly, without tell-
ing anyone that they are searching frantically --
and they won't find a trace of it anywhere. It 
will have disappeared into a black hole in India.

No one will "take the fall" for this, or be blamed
for extorting the money, because the "powers that
be" will still be in the mindset of "protecting
our own," and "protecting the image of the movement."

And so it's likely IMO that within a decade, the
Rajas will find themselves at the helm of a move-
ment that does not have the capital to continue
moving. *At that point*, and in my opinion not
before, they might be open to changing a few things.
But I don't see it happening before then.

The points you proposed, John, make sense to some-
one who CARES what the "rank and file" thinks of
them. My assessment of the Rajas and the Bevans
(there *has* to be more than one of him inside that
blubberous carcass :-)) is that they barely con-
sider the "rank and file" of the TM movement 
*human*, much less people they have to "look good"
for. They Just Don't Care. They are RIGHT, and
they "know" that they're RIGHT, and that's that.

> Isn't that a more interesting thing to consider than 
> discrediting all the people here you don't agree with?

Judy has no CHOICE but to attempt to discredit the
people here she doesn't agree with, John. She can't
come up with any arguments to make her POV look
sane or rational; therefore she HAS to attempt to 
make those who don't buy it look insane and 
irrational. 

She won't ever address the suggestions you brought 
up because to do so she would have to admit that 
they might be *needed*. And while she may claim that 
she is not a TB, it's simply not true. So she does 
on a daily basis what TBs do -- she clings to beliefs 
that she is afraid to challenge, and she demonizes 
those who do challenge them. It's like Time itself, 
one of those forces of nature you can count on. Time 
is not gonna stop ticking anytime soon. And IMO it 
*will* stop ticking before Judy admits in public 
that the belief system she "sold out" to decades 
ago is flawed and badly in need of repair. She 
cannot bring herself to do this. As far as I can
tell, it's some kind of twisted sense of "honor" 
for her.

In my opinion, of course, which could be wrong.

Those are nine words that you will probably never 
see at the end of a Judy Stein post. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Trying to take me down for over a decade, as passionately
> as you are here on FFL, seems to me like swatting flies
> with nukes.

Try "contemptuously."

It's not the fact that you're a TM critic with a well-
publicized Web site and blog who has set yourself up
as a "go-to" guy for the media regarding the TMO
that's problematic. It's that you're a *profoundly and
maliciously dishonest* TM critic.

With regard to "reform," it seems to me that if it's
ever to occur--which I doubt it will--it can only
happen based on an objective view of the TMO rather
than on the kind of malignant demonization you and
others here traffic in.

You're not part of the solution, you're part of the
problem.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[John M. Knapp, LMSW]

> I'm not interested in discussing it *with you*.
>

You sure seem interested in discussing something. 

You seem very concerned about my character.

Can you point me to one person that felt I personally harmed them? In any way? 
I've 
certainly never received such a complaint.

There are dozens just on this tiny little forum who feel the were harmed or 
taken 
advantage of by the TM Org.

Trying to take me down for over a decade, as passionately as you are here on 
FFL, seems 
to me like swatting flies with nukes.

Even if you are not interested discussing reform with me, you certainly could 
discuss it 
with others. That would be a positive agenda.

Railing on and on about one guy with a keyboard and Internet access seems 
rather 
pointless.

J.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Knapp, LMSW" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Of course not.

Then your question to me made no sense.

> But I have no interest in the "politics of destruction."

Why, how could anyone think such a thing?

> I am interested in reform in the TM Movement. Which is the
> topic I posted on.
> 
> Can you tell me why you're not interested in discussing
> TM Reform?

I'm not interested in discussing it *with you*.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[John M. Knapp, LMSW]

Of course not.

But I have no interest in the "politics of destruction."

I am interested in reform in the TM Movement. Which is the topic I posted on.

Can you tell me why you're not interested in discussing TM Reform?

You've posted numerous times you have things you take the Movement to task for. 

Could you turn that around to a positive agenda? What would you like to see the 
TM 
Movement do?

We have it in our power to create a better, more positive, more spiritual 
organization -- if we 
so choose.

Isn't that a more interesting thing to consider than discrediting all the 
people here you don't 
agree with?

J.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "taskcentered" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Clear, but inscrutable.
> 
> What is your reason for posting to a thread you are not
> interested in discussing?

What an odd question. You've already forgotten what
you and I were talking about, and that our exchange
started with your response to my warning to Dan that
you weren't trustworthy and to be careful what he
shared with you?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[taskcentered]

Clear, but inscrutable.

What is your reason for posting to a thread you are not interested in 
discussing?

J.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  
wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "taskcentered" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Did you read either the post that starts this thread or the
> > 13-year-old post I linked to?>>
> > 
> > Wow !
> > 
> > A 13 year old post? !
> > 
> > I didn't think the internet had been around that long !
> > 
> 
> Even worse, Judy, Unc, John and I have been rehashing this stuff 
for 13 years (at least).
> 
> Lawson>>


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/180858

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[nablusoss1008]

> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > "There's a history here you aren't aware of."
> > > 
> > > Thios Fairfield life is way more complex than I'd expected. 
> > > I'm just a simple boy from Harlem, NY. Can someone fill me 
> > > in on WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?
> > 
> > Dan, 

Hello Dan,

This is (mostly) a place for ex-TM'ers to bash and denounce TM, the TMO 
and their former Teacher even though they left the Movement perhaps 
decades ago. The transformative energy of these experiences never seem 
to leave them as they dwell on this for years and years. The Turq is a 
good example of this; even though he left the TMO more than thirty - 
30 ! - years ago you will still see him coming up with something he 
finds negative, even after all these years, every singel day here on 
FFL. Many here claims to have mooved on, but the reality is that they 
are stuck in the past.

As more and more TM'ers are coming forward and saying they are now 
living the goal of all meditation with TM they are feeling increasingly 
uneasy suspecting, rightly, that they may have been vasting so many 
years of their life after stopping TM.

Their greatest paranoia these days is that the Purushas now in the 
Himalayas will return to their countries soon "blazing with Brahman".

Wishing you all the best,
Nablusoss

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "danfriedman2002"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Turquoise the reason that I asked that you not send posts to my mame
> > is because I find you to be angry, sad and lacking social behavior.
> 
> 
> Turq.  is known as "Old Grumpy"   by the folks round here.
> 
> OffWorld

Hehe :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "taskcentered" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Did you read either the post that starts this thread or the
> 13-year-old post I linked to?>>
> 
> Wow !
> 
> A 13 year old post? !
> 
> I didn't think the internet had been around that long !
> 

Even worse, Judy, Unc, John and I have been rehashing this stuff for 13 years 
(at least).

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Turquoise the reason that I asked that you not send posts 
> to my mame is because I find you to be angry, sad and lacking 
> social behavior. Be alone for a while, it will be better.

Learn a little honesty, dude. The reason you
asked me not to send you posts (an impossibility
unless you explicitly block them, which is your
right), is that I got in your face and called you
on your authoritarian bullshit.

You seem to have expected people to react to old
"retreads" of Maharishi-isms as if they were wise.
Many of us got over that a long, long time ago. 
What we react to well is someone having synthesized
their experience well enough to describe it in new
(read "not boring and condescending") ways, and as 
what it is -- *their* experience, not a template 
for anyone else's.

I can tell that you really believe that what you said
above was said "for my own good." What I'm telling
you is similarly for your own good. Wake up a bit
and look around and actually *see* who you are inter-
facing with on this forum and you might become a 
valuable member of it. Continue to treat us as TM
students you can brush away with a "prepared answer"
and we'll continue to laugh at you.


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > John,
> > > 
> > > I received this post
> > > 
> > > "Dan, you're aware that Knapp is a long-time, ferocious
> > > critic of TM, right? I seriously doubt he has any
> > > intention of trying to "reform" the TMO. What he's
> > > looking for is material he can use to make the TMO
> > > look as bad as possible (and not incidentally bolster
> > > his "counseling" business).
> > > 
> > > Some of us have known him electronically for many years
> > > and don't trust him any further than we could throw him,
> > > if he came within reach."
> > > 
> > > Someone's not being honerable here, so I think I'd better be 
> > > protective of Janet. She's a friend of 40 years, and more 
> > > open-hearted than most.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > When you get your posting limit restored, please do not reply.
> > 
> > 
> > And, with all due respect, go fuck yourself 
> > and the dog you rode in on. 
> > 
> > If you're going to panic and call for Daddy
> > or the moderators to come and save you from 
> > big, bad, sarcastic Sal poking fun at you for
> > being clueless, and then believe the first 
> > slander you read from the first person who 
> > posts it, puhleeeze go back to lurkdom. 
> > 
> > This is a forum for those who want to speak
> > their minds about TM, the TM movement, Maha-
> > rishi, and other forms of trashy fiction. We 
> > LIKE being able to speak our minds, especially 
> > after being not able to within the TM movement 
> > for decades.
> > 
> > What we DON'T like as much is for some clue-
> > less newb to come roaring in posting trite
> > Maharishisez cliches that everyone here knows 
> > by heart and that most of us rejected decades 
> > ago and then getting pissy because someone pokes
> > a little fun at him for acting like a dweeb.
> > 
> > Judy will tell you I am less than honorable, too.
> > Stick around long enough, and she'll say it about
> > you as well. It's just what she DOES.
> > 
> > But if it helps to get you off your dweeb soapbox
> > and speed your silly ass either back to lurkdom or
> > to some more balanced type of dialogue, I'm not
> > honorable, either, so you probably won't want me
> > to reply, either. For the record, I also eat small 
> > children and have been known to piss on self-
> > righteous dweebs in public. Be warned, and wear
> > your waders.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Now why would anyone want to leave after such a warm welcome. Your 
> effect is working, Turquoise I was attempting open, civil discourse 
> and you showed yourself with one post. 

As did you. ONE person pokes a little fun at
you for being pompous, and you scream for the
moderators. Good start, dude.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[yifuxero]

---why in the world would TM need reforming? 10 lashes with a Roman 
flagellum for those who say this, especially those bashing TM who are 
in it for money.
 That's about as low as Hulk Hogan and his son trying to make money 
off that half brain dead victim of the Son's crash into a tree.

Kabir on meditation:
Peerless is the natural form of meditation, 
With the grace of the Master, I remain attuned all the time; 
Wherever I go and whatever I do, it is all worship, 
At home or abroad makes no difference to me; 
Renouncing all, I listen to the Transcendental Music within, 
Awake or asleep and at all hours I am deeply engrossed; 
Why close the eyes, stop the ears or undergo penances, 
When with open eyes I see the Lord in so many forms? 
This is how Kabir leads his life and he tells this openly to all. 
Beyond the realm of duality lies the region of eternal bliss.
Guru Arjan says in this context: 
The Lord which cannot be described by any scripture, 
Is visibly seen by Nanak permeating 




 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "taskcentered"  
> wrote:
> >
> > No, Judy,
> > 
> > The subject of my exchange here is the reform I proposed
> > for TM in the post that began this thread.
> 
> Yes, John, as I said, the subject of your exchange
> with me was why I had warned Dan about you.
> 
> And no, I'm not the slightest bit interested in
> discussing the reform you proposed for TM.
> 
> Is that clear?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "taskcentered" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> No, Judy,
> 
> The subject of my exchange here is the reform I proposed
> for TM in the post that began this thread.

Yes, John, as I said, the subject of your exchange
with me was why I had warned Dan about you.

And no, I'm not the slightest bit interested in
discussing the reform you proposed for TM.

Is that clear?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "taskcentered" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Did you read either the post that starts this thread or the
13-year-old post I linked to?>>

Wow !

A 13 year old post? !

I didn't think the internet had been around that long !

OffWorld




>
> What parts do you disagree with?
>
> Are there any points you do agree with?
>
> Are there things you'd like to add?
>
> Wow, Lawson, your post is so far off the mark, I don't know where to
begin.
>
> If you read my counseling site, you'd see that I don't actually list
any groups as cults. I talk
> about "cultic relationships" between groups and certain individuals.
>
> I would like to see TM reform and perhaps become successful again.
>
> I have never stated a desire to see TM end. Quite the opposite. On
balance, I believe the
> Maharishi's marketing of meditation to the West has been very
beneficial in many regards.
>
> I certainly don't believe that TM is a cult at all levels. I believe
that the vast majority of
> people who were involved with TM had no cultic experience whatsoever.
>
> It's my experience that the vast majority of people who learned to
meditate had great
> experiences. TM made, or makes, them happy. Who could wish for more
for them -- or
> anyone?
>
> Some individuals do tell me they had cultic relationships with TM. I
know I did. Some
> people have experienced damage at TM's hands. But I leave it up to the
individual to make
> that determination for him or herself. I've never found that
attempting to convince people
> they were in a cult had any beneficial effect at all.
>
> That's one reason I don't take part in exit counseling or cult
intervention.
>
> I've been writing about reforming TM for 13 years. It's important to
me to keep a balanced
> view of both the parts that were good for me AND the parts that were
not. I encourage my
> clients to do the same.
>
> I've never said that people who don't believe TM is a cult are
deluded. Where did you come
> up with that?
>
> I believe a very small number of people who were in TM or similar
organizations need
> professional help. But that too is a decision that is best left up to
the individual.
>
> It seems a case of black/white thinking to me to say that because I
disagree with some of
> TM's policies, procedures, and practices I must be against everything
TM.
>
> You and Judy are really howling at the wrong guy. There ARE people and
organizations
> that would like to see TM destroyed.
>
> But that ain't me.
>
> Unfortunately it seems you have not distinguished between TM's
"enemies" and someone
> who just wants to see what one poster here called "common sense"
reform.
>
> J.
>
> > Ahem, are you saying that you know John well enough to make this
kind of
> > evaluation of Judy's response? How do you know that Judy's response
isn't
> > completely on the money?
> >
> > My experience with John is that he has no interest in making the TMO
work
> > better. He believes that it is a cult at all levels and that anyone
who believes
> > otherwise (or who doesn't give a crap either way) is deluded to the
point of
> > needing professional cult recovery help, preferably from him or his
friends.
> >
> > Lawson
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[taskcentered]

No, Judy,

The subject of my exchange here is the reform I proposed for TM in the post 
that began this 
thread.

Did you agree with any points I made?

Are you willing to discuss the points you disagree with?

Are their points you'd like to add?

J.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "danfriedman2002"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry for the delay in responding, but in EST we're just getting home
> from work. Thanks for the encouragement, and I'll stick around to see
> what's up.>>

FFL is basically a game of one-upmanship for most people here.

You are better off sharing in real life. These people are mostly total
wackos that have been arguing EVERY DAY on FFL for LITERALLY 5+ years !

I come here occasionally to play in the fray, but if you came here
looking for a constructive discussion then I feel I must warn you, these
people here are one step outside the funny farm, 2 sheets the wind, out
to lunch and left the lights on even though nobody's home.

But if you don't take any of it too seriously, its a good way to waste a
few more minutes of precious life.

Good luck.



Sincerely-OffWorldBeings



>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "danfriedman2002"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for your guidance. FFL seems to be a mixed place. I
> > > think I'll be doing my sharing in the real world, where I can
> > > see who's speaking.
> >
> > It is a mixed place, but all the more interesting for that.
> > I'm sorry if what I told you has scared you away. I hope
> > you'll reconsider. There are plenty of nice folks here,
> > even though there may be disagreements.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[taskcentered]

Did you read either the post that starts this thread or the 13-year-old post I 
linked to?

What parts do you disagree with?

Are there any points you do agree with?

Are there things you'd like to add?

Wow, Lawson, your post is so far off the mark, I don't know where to begin.

If you read my counseling site, you'd see that I don't actually list any groups 
as cults. I talk 
about "cultic relationships" between groups and certain individuals.

I would like to see TM reform and perhaps become successful again.

I have never stated a desire to see TM end. Quite the opposite. On balance, I 
believe the 
Maharishi's marketing of meditation to the West has been very beneficial in 
many regards.

I certainly don't believe that TM is a cult at all levels. I believe that the 
vast majority of 
people who were involved with TM had no cultic experience whatsoever.

It's my experience that the vast majority of people who learned to meditate had 
great 
experiences. TM made, or makes, them happy. Who could wish for more for them -- 
or 
anyone?

Some individuals  do tell me they had cultic relationships with TM. I know I 
did. Some 
people have experienced damage at TM's hands. But I leave it up to the 
individual to make 
that determination for him or herself. I've never found that attempting to 
convince people 
they were in a cult had any beneficial effect at all. 

That's one reason I don't take part in exit counseling or cult intervention.

I've been writing about reforming TM for 13 years. It's important to me to keep 
a balanced 
view of both the parts that were good for me AND the parts that were not. I 
encourage my 
clients to do the same.

I've never said that people who don't believe TM is a cult are deluded. Where 
did you come 
up with that?

I believe a very small number of people who were in TM or similar organizations 
need 
professional help. But that too is a decision that is best left up to the 
individual.

It seems a case of black/white thinking to me to say that because I disagree 
with some of 
TM's policies, procedures, and practices I must be against everything TM.

You and Judy are really howling at the wrong guy. There ARE people and 
organizations 
that would like to see TM destroyed.

But that ain't me.

Unfortunately it seems you have not distinguished between TM's "enemies" and 
someone 
who just wants to see what one poster here called "common sense" reform.

J.

> Ahem, are you saying that you know John well enough to make this kind of
> evaluation of Judy's response? How do you know that Judy's response isn't
> completely on the money?
> 
> My experience with John is that he has no interest in making the TMO work
> better. He believes that it is a cult at all levels and that anyone who 
> believes
> otherwise (or who doesn't give a crap either way) is deluded to the point of
> needing professional cult recovery help, preferably from him or his friends.
> 
> Lawson
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "taskcentered" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Blast away, Judy. I'm pleased to have people judge any of my sites 
according to their own 
> lights.
> 
> But you continue to change the subject.

Uh, no. The subject of your exchange with me was
why I warned Dan about you.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Turq, you don't mind if I call you that, you seem to be a strong 
man. 
> I just read you saying; "When I posted my "invitation to lurkers," 
it 
> was with the idea of encouraging some who have been reluctant
> to post *in that spirit* of open, unmoderated discus-
> sion to do so."
> 
> I don't believe that's the case. I think that you want someone agree 
> with you to share your twisted pain, or to fight wih someone and 
> exchange pain.
> 
> Can you let me know your town.
> 
The dude lives in Sitges, Spain. Don't let him get to you-- he jumped 
you on purpose and it was a cowardly and anti-social thing to do. The 
guy has issues and we all know that. I've called him on his crap 
before, and it doesn't make any difference. Oh well, it's his to own, 
not yours, or anyone else's. Welcome to here, and don't let the jerk 
get you down. And thanks for the birthday wishes.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[taskcentered]

Blast away, Judy. I'm pleased to have people judge any of my sites according to 
their own 
lights.

But you continue to change the subject.

To well-meaning readers:

Do you agree with some points of my post on TM reform?

Do you disagree with others?

Do you have something to add that I failed to think of?

Is there anyway that we can keep this discussion from degenerating into the 
flaming and 
blaming that unfortunately FFL life has become known for?

J.





-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "taskcentered"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Judy,
> > 
> > I make no secret of my views on TM. I criticize some aspects of the 
> TM
> > Movement. AND I praise meditation
> >   for most people.
> > 
> > For goodness sake, I offered links to my site so people can judge 
> for
> > themselves.
> > 
> > Could you elaborate on the "history" you allude to? Dark 
> > insinuations without any details do a disservice to everyone.
> 
> See my post to Dan. You know I have plenty of details.
> 
> > I may be wrong, Judy, but it seems when people disagree
> > with your own views re TM, you attack them with disparaging
> > labels -- ignoring the substance of what they have to say?
> 
> You're wrong, John. Probably more thoroughly than
> most here, I address the substance of disagreements,
> and I don't attack sincere, straightforward,
> relatively respectful people with disparaging labels.
> 
> I think you're well aware that's the case, moreover.
> 
> > All this serves to do is change the subject. Making it
> > hard for others to deal with the substance of what I wrote.
> 
> You know why I warned Dan about you. That's not
> stopping him or anyone else from dealing with what
> you wrote on its own terms.
> 
> > I have to disagree with your point re my character.
> 
> ROTFL!!
> 
> 
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > > > Thios Fairfield life is way more complex than I'd expected.
> > > > I'm just a simple boy from Harlem, NY. Can someone fill me
> > > > in on WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?
> > > 
> > > Knapp is kind of a special case; he doesn't post here
> > > much. He has his own anti-TM blog, TMFree.blogspot.com.
> > 
> > Judy (authfriend) has her own anti-TM website
> > at well: http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/
> > 
> > There are many who believe that it has turned
> > more people away from TM and the TM movement
> > than John's has.
> 
> LOL. I proudly point people to my "dormouse" honorable
> mention on that site. I've no doubt that people are
> turned off by Judy's articles quoted

Andrew did a fine job of, er, recontextualizing
what he quoted from my alt.m.t posts so as to try
to turn people off. Yours too, as I recall.

He couldn't very well do that kind of thing on
alt.m.t without getting called on it. So he
created a Web site where there'd be no backtalk
to cast doubt on his deceptive presentation.

> and I've no doubt that many people agree with Andrew's
> evaluation of myself as well.
> 
> BUT, you have to consider the source...
> 
> Come to think of it, Unc, you used to post disparaging remarks
> about Andrew yourself in the threads that Andrew selectively
> quotes from. Odd how you now use the same person whose opinion
> you used to deride as a weapon in your ongoing love-fest with
> Judy.

Andrew gave as good as he got with Barry. Better,
in fact. He's smarter and craftier.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[danfriedman2002]

Turq, you don't mind if I call you that, you seem to be a strong man. 
I just read you saying; "When I posted my "invitation to lurkers," it 
was with the idea of encouraging some who have been reluctant
to post *in that spirit* of open, unmoderated discus-
sion to do so."

I don't believe that's the case. I think that you want someone agree 
with you to share your twisted pain, or to fight wih someone and 
exchange pain.

Can you let me know your town.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
>  wrote:
> >
> > "There's a history here you aren't aware of."
> > 
> > Thios Fairfield life is way more complex than I'd expected. 
> > I'm just a simple boy from Harlem, NY. Can someone fill me 
> > in on WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?
> 
> Dan, 
> 
> Read the description of the group on its home
> page at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> 
> It's all there, in black and white. This is a forum
> for the discussion of spiritual topics for those who
> want to discuss them OPENLY, with NO censorship, 
> and NO moderators. Those topics often include the TM
> movement, TM itself, Maharishi, and a host of other
> spiritual teachers, teachings, and topics.
> 
> When I posted my "invitation to lurkers," it was with
> the idea of encouraging some who have been reluctant
> to post *in that spirit* of open, unmoderated discus-
> sion to do so. Many are lurkers who have sincere ques-
> tions about the stuff they were told by Maharishi or
> the TM movement, and have had no forum on which to
> talk about it, for fear of being kicked out of the
> movement they are part of. And they've been reluctant 
> to do so even anonymously here on FFL because they knew 
> from reading the posts that the moment they did, some-
> one like Judy Stein or one of the other True Believer
> clones would start jumping on them and vilifying them
> as "dishonorable" or "liars" or worse.
> 
> In my earlier post I gave you the honest truth. In this
> one I'm giving you more Maheshian "sweet truth." It 
> would seem, from the few posts you have made, that you
> find open, unmoderated discussion of the TM dogma to
> be something that upsets you. If that is the case, you
> probably aren't going to be happy here. If you're will-
> ing to listen to such open, unmoderated discussions 
> and not try to impose your notion of "truth" on those
> you don't agree with, you might like it, and you might
> wind up learning some things. 
> 
> If you were at Estes Park you've been around TMers for
> a while. However, what you might not have been around
> is TMers or former TMers who have learned to think for
> themselves. That's what FFL is about. 
> 
> 
> > "--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity 
 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Ah shit.  So much for working today.  WTF is wrong with what
> > > > he is saying?  Absolutely nothing.  What is wrong with a 
former
> > > > teacher sharing his point of view on what could make the
> > > > movement better?  But he gets crap from most of you.  No 
wonder
> > > > some people think TM is a cult.  Listen to yourselves.
> > > 
> > > Ruth. Some of us have known him for a long time. There's
> > > nothing wrong with what he says; it's who's saying it--
> > > this *particular* former TM teacher--and what his motives
> > > are. We have ample reason not to take what he says at
> > > face value. There's a history here you aren't aware of.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "danfriedman2002"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Turquoise the reason that I asked that you not send posts to my mame
> is because I find you to be angry, sad and lacking social behavior.


Turq.  is known as "Old Grumpy"   by the folks round here.

OffWorld


> Be alone for a while, it will be better.
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "danfriedman2002"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > I received this post
> > >
> > > "Dan, you're aware that Knapp is a long-time, ferocious
> > > critic of TM, right? I seriously doubt he has any
> > > intention of trying to "reform" the TMO. What he's
> > > looking for is material he can use to make the TMO
> > > look as bad as possible (and not incidentally bolster
> > > his "counseling" business).
> > >
> > > Some of us have known him electronically for many years
> > > and don't trust him any further than we could throw him,
> > > if he came within reach."
> > >
> > > Someone's not being honerable here, so I think I'd better be
> > > protective of Janet. She's a friend of 40 years, and more
> > > open-hearted than most.
> > >
> > >
> > > When you get your posting limit restored, please do not reply.
> >
> >
> > And, with all due respect, go fuck yourself
> > and the dog you rode in on.
> >
> > If you're going to panic and call for Daddy
> > or the moderators to come and save you from
> > big, bad, sarcastic Sal poking fun at you for
> > being clueless, and then believe the first
> > slander you read from the first person who
> > posts it, puhleeeze go back to lurkdom.
> >
> > This is a forum for those who want to speak
> > their minds about TM, the TM movement, Maha-
> > rishi, and other forms of trashy fiction. We
> > LIKE being able to speak our minds, especially
> > after being not able to within the TM movement
> > for decades.
> >
> > What we DON'T like as much is for some clue-
> > less newb to come roaring in posting trite
> > Maharishisez cliches that everyone here knows
> > by heart and that most of us rejected decades
> > ago and then getting pissy because someone pokes
> > a little fun at him for acting like a dweeb.
> >
> > Judy will tell you I am less than honorable, too.
> > Stick around long enough, and she'll say it about
> > you as well. It's just what she DOES.
> >
> > But if it helps to get you off your dweeb soapbox
> > and speed your silly ass either back to lurkdom or
> > to some more balanced type of dialogue, I'm not
> > honorable, either, so you probably won't want me
> > to reply, either. For the record, I also eat small
> > children and have been known to piss on self-
> > righteous dweebs in public. Be warned, and wear
> > your waders.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Thios Fairfield life is way more complex than I'd expected.
> > > I'm just a simple boy from Harlem, NY. Can someone fill me
> > > in on WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?
> > 
> > Knapp is kind of a special case; he doesn't post here
> > much. He has his own anti-TM blog, TMFree.blogspot.com.
> 
> Judy (authfriend) has her own anti-TM website
> at well: http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/
> 
> There are many who believe that it has turned
> more people away from TM and the TM movement
> than John's has.
>

LOL. I proudly point people to my "dormouse" honorable mention on that 
site. I've no doubt that people are turned off by Judy's articles quoted, 
and I've no doubt that many people agree with Andrew's evaluation of 
myself as well.

BUT, you have to consider the source...

Come to think of it, Unc, you used to post disparaging remarks about
Andrew yourself in the threads that Andrew selectively quotes from. 
Odd how you now use the same person whose opinion you used to
deride as a weapon in your ongoing love-fest with Judy.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 20, 2008, at 3:36 PM, taskcentered wrote:
> 
> > I may be wrong, Judy, but it seems when people disagree with your  
> > own views re TM, you attack them with disparaging labels -- ignoring  
> > the substance of what they have to say?
> 
> 
> I actually have named a new logical fallacy after our Dear Editor,  
> "Judy's Golem". Judy's Golem is a specific twist on the Strawman  
> Fallacy where the attacker monstrously distorts or misrepresents the  
> attackee's intention, position and/or tone, often deliberately  
> ignoring context or meaning.
>

Unlike the Vaj Strategy, where the poster simply ignores posts that he doesn't
have a decent response to.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[danfriedman2002]

Turquoise the reason that I asked that you not send posts to my mame 
is because I find you to be angry, sad and lacking social behavior. 
Be alone for a while, it will be better.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"
>  wrote:
> >
> > John,
> > 
> > I received this post
> > 
> > "Dan, you're aware that Knapp is a long-time, ferocious
> > critic of TM, right? I seriously doubt he has any
> > intention of trying to "reform" the TMO. What he's
> > looking for is material he can use to make the TMO
> > look as bad as possible (and not incidentally bolster
> > his "counseling" business).
> > 
> > Some of us have known him electronically for many years
> > and don't trust him any further than we could throw him,
> > if he came within reach."
> > 
> > Someone's not being honerable here, so I think I'd better be 
> > protective of Janet. She's a friend of 40 years, and more 
> > open-hearted than most.
> > 
> > 
> > When you get your posting limit restored, please do not reply.
> 
> 
> And, with all due respect, go fuck yourself 
> and the dog you rode in on. 
> 
> If you're going to panic and call for Daddy
> or the moderators to come and save you from 
> big, bad, sarcastic Sal poking fun at you for
> being clueless, and then believe the first 
> slander you read from the first person who 
> posts it, puhleeeze go back to lurkdom. 
> 
> This is a forum for those who want to speak
> their minds about TM, the TM movement, Maha-
> rishi, and other forms of trashy fiction. We 
> LIKE being able to speak our minds, especially 
> after being not able to within the TM movement 
> for decades.
> 
> What we DON'T like as much is for some clue-
> less newb to come roaring in posting trite
> Maharishisez cliches that everyone here knows 
> by heart and that most of us rejected decades 
> ago and then getting pissy because someone pokes
> a little fun at him for acting like a dweeb.
> 
> Judy will tell you I am less than honorable, too.
> Stick around long enough, and she'll say it about
> you as well. It's just what she DOES.
> 
> But if it helps to get you off your dweeb soapbox
> and speed your silly ass either back to lurkdom or
> to some more balanced type of dialogue, I'm not
> honorable, either, so you probably won't want me
> to reply, either. For the record, I also eat small 
> children and have been known to piss on self-
> righteous dweebs in public. Be warned, and wear
> your waders.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --Is this like a support group for people battered by Catholic Nuns?

Its for people who blame MMY for not reading their minds properly and so on.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[danfriedman2002]

Now why would anyone want to leave after such a warm welcome. Your 
effect is working, Turquoise I was attempting open, civil discourse 
and you showed yourself with one post. I repect what you could be, 
but not much now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> > And, with all due respect, go fuck yourself 
> > and the dog you rode in on. 
> > 
> > If you're going to panic and call for Daddy
> > or the moderators to come and save you from 
> > big, bad, sarcastic Sal poking fun at you for
> > being clueless, and then believe the first 
> > slander you read from the first person who 
> > posts it, puhleeeze go back to lurkdom.
> 
> Not slander, as Barry (TurquoiseB) well knows.
>  
> > Judy will tell you I am less than honorable, too.
> 
> I sure will. For an example:
> 
> > Stick around long enough, and she'll say it about
> > you as well.
> 
> Only if he behaves less than honorably.
> 
> > It's just what she DOES.
> 
> Only with those who behave less than honorably.
> 
> > But if it helps to get you off your dweeb soapbox
> > and speed your silly ass either back to lurkdom or
> > to some more balanced type of dialogue, I'm not
> > honorable, either, so you probably won't want me
> > to reply, either. For the record, I also eat small 
> > children and have been known to piss on self-
> > righteous dweebs in public. Be warned, and wear
> > your waders.
> 
> The amusing thing here is that Barry used to
> scream bloody murder that I repeatedly drove
> people I disagreed with off alt.m.t (which
> wasn't true; very little he says about me is
> true). And here he is doing his level best to
> drive Dan off FFL because Dan has a positive
> view of TM and Barry doesn't want to hear it.
> 
> Not the first time he's unloaded on FFL newbies
> in an attempt to get them to leave, either.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Judy will tell you I am less than honorable, too.
> Stick around long enough, and she'll say it about
> you as well. It's just what she DOES.
> 


Actually, Unc, if I took you seriously, I'd consider you "less than
honorable" as well, but anyone who has hung out here for any
length of time knows that your agenda is merely to be the biggest
troll you can manage when dealing with TBers and others who
take your trolling seriously, while having cordial conversations,
for the most part, with people who have passed your "troll test,"
and recognize your trolling for what it is.

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[danfriedman2002]

Sorry for the delay in responding, but in EST we're just getting home 
from work. Thanks for the encouragement, and I'll stick around to see 
what's up.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for your guidance. FFL seems to be a mixed place. I
> > think I'll be doing my sharing in the real world, where I can
> > see who's speaking.
> 
> It is a mixed place, but all the more interesting for that.
> I'm sorry if what I told you has scared you away. I hope
> you'll reconsider. There are plenty of nice folks here,
> even though there may be disagreements.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, taskcentered  wrote:
> 
> 
> > So here are a few tips for Nader, Hagelin, and the other new TM
> leaders.
[...]
> > I'm sure readers will think of more bottom-line policies for
> successful
> > non-cults. Please feel free to email suggestions  directly to me at
> > jmknapp53@

> Ah shit.  So much for working today.  WTF is wrong with what he is
> saying?  Absolutely nothing.  What is wrong with a former teacher
> sharing his point of view on what could make the movement better?  But
> he gets crap from most of you.  No wonder some people think TM is a
> cult.  Listen to yourselves.

Ahem, are you saying that you know John well enough to make this kind of
evaluation of Judy's response? How do you know that Judy's response isn't
completely on the money?

My experience with John is that he has no interest in making the TMO work
better. He believes that it is a cult at all levels and that anyone who believes
otherwise (or who doesn't give a crap either way) is deluded to the point of
needing professional cult recovery help, preferably from him or his friends.

Lawson

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[Peter]

--- TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> "danfriedman2002"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> > 
> > I received this post
> > 
> > "Dan, you're aware that Knapp is a long-time,
> ferocious
> > critic of TM, right? I seriously doubt he has any
> > intention of trying to "reform" the TMO. What he's
> > looking for is material he can use to make the TMO
> > look as bad as possible (and not incidentally
> bolster
> > his "counseling" business).
> > 
> > Some of us have known him electronically for many
> years
> > and don't trust him any further than we could
> throw him,
> > if he came within reach."
> > 
> > Someone's not being honerable here, so I think I'd
> better be 
> > protective of Janet. She's a friend of 40 years,
> and more 
> > open-hearted than most.
> > 
> > 
> > When you get your posting limit restored, please
> do not reply.
> 
> 
> And, with all due respect, go fuck yourself 
> and the dog you rode in on. 
> 
> If you're going to panic and call for Daddy
> or the moderators to come and save you from 
> big, bad, sarcastic Sal poking fun at you for
> being clueless, and then believe the first 
> slander you read from the first person who 
> posts it, puhleeeze go back to lurkdom. 
> 
> This is a forum for those who want to speak
> their minds about TM, the TM movement, Maha-
> rishi, and other forms of trashy fiction. We 
> LIKE being able to speak our minds, especially 
> after being not able to within the TM movement 
> for decades.
> 
> What we DON'T like as much is for some clue-
> less newb to come roaring in posting trite
> Maharishisez cliches that everyone here knows 
> by heart and that most of us rejected decades 
> ago and then getting pissy because someone pokes
> a little fun at him for acting like a dweeb.
> 
> Judy will tell you I am less than honorable, too.
> Stick around long enough, and she'll say it about
> you as well. It's just what she DOES.
> 
> But if it helps to get you off your dweeb soapbox
> and speed your silly ass either back to lurkdom or
> to some more balanced type of dialogue, I'm not
> honorable, either, so you probably won't want me
> to reply, either. For the record, I also eat small 
> children and have been known to piss on self-
> righteous dweebs in public. Be warned, and wear
> your waders.

Turq, please stop being so passive aggressive and tell
us how you really feel! ;-)




> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 



  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memo to New TM Leaders: How NOT to Be a Cult

[Peter]

Hey Dan,

FFL is like a bar in an old Western. Good guys, bad
guys and everything in-between. But one thing we all
have in common is that we all have been around the
spiritual block, many, many times so we don't suffer
fools, movement windbags, or moodmakers. So you're
very welcome to come in and you will have some amazing
conversations, but fights are going to breakout among
the surrounding tables, there might be a knife fight
or two and if the sheriff shows up, he'll probably get
his ass kicked too. So sit down here partner, have
this here glass of soma, and listen a bit and get the
lay of the land before ya pull out that six shooter.
And if you're real nice one of them purty ex-mother
divine ladies might take you upstairs for a quick
tantra lesson.




--- danfriedman2002 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I definity misinterpreted your message 179502. Don't
> post to me with 
> such disrespect.
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> "danfriedman2002"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > John,
> > > 
> > > I received this post
> > > 
> > > "Dan, you're aware that Knapp is a long-time,
> ferocious
> > > critic of TM, right? I seriously doubt he has
> any
> > > intention of trying to "reform" the TMO. What
> he's
> > > looking for is material he can use to make the
> TMO
> > > look as bad as possible (and not incidentally
> bolster
> > > his "counseling" business).
> > > 
> > > Some of us have known him electronically for
> many years
> > > and don't trust him any further than we could
> throw him,
> > > if he came within reach."
> > > 
> > > Someone's not being honerable here, so I think
> I'd better be 
> > > protective of Janet. She's a friend of 40 years,
> and more 
> > > open-hearted than most.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > When you get your posting limit restored, please
> do not reply.
> > 
> > 
> > And, with all due respect, go fuck yourself 
> > and the dog you rode in on. 
> > 
> > If you're going to panic and call for Daddy
> > or the moderators to come and save you from 
> > big, bad, sarcastic Sal poking fun at you for
> > being clueless, and then believe the first 
> > slander you read from the first person who 
> > posts it, puhleeeze go back to lurkdom. 
> > 
> > This is a forum for those who want to speak
> > their minds about TM, the TM movement, Maha-
> > rishi, and other forms of trashy fiction. We 
> > LIKE being able to speak our minds, especially 
> > after being not able to within the TM movement 
> > for decades.
> > 
> > What we DON'T like as much is for some clue-
> > less newb to come roaring in posting trite
> > Maharishisez cliches that everyone here knows 
> > by heart and that most of us rejected decades 
> > ago and then getting pissy because someone pokes
> > a little fun at him for acting like a dweeb.
> > 
> > Judy will tell you I am less than honorable, too.
> > Stick around long enough, and she'll say it about
> > you as well. It's just what she DOES.
> > 
> > But if it helps to get you off your dweeb soapbox
> > and speed your silly ass either back to lurkdom or
> > to some more balanced type of dialogue, I'm not
> > honorable, either, so you probably won't want me
> > to reply, either. For the record, I also eat small
> 
> > children and have been known to piss on self-
> > righteous dweebs in public. Be warned, and wear
> > your waders.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
>