My sister lives just north of Montpelier in Mooretown,
VT.
--- off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Burlingtons great, and Waterbury is an up and coming
> place. And
> everywhere else in the world is downhill from
> Vermont.:-)
>
> Off
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullibl
I live in the Boston area now, but I was born in
Burlington, at the UVM hospital. My mother grew up in
Waterbury and I lived the first two weeks of my life
there and spent lots of vacation time there growing
up.
--- off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.
> Not where I come from.
Vermont? If so, we come from the same place.
--- off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > First of all I think what you mean't to say is:
> "It
> > > was me who
> >
> First of all I think what you mean't to say is: "It
> was me who
> posted it" - gullible fool
Nope, it wasn't me.
By the way, you misspelled meant.
--- off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
on 12/5/05 6:35 PM, off_world_beings at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What's wrong with this guy's spelling?
>>
>> Write the exact same thing he just said in German and
>> we'll ask him to critique your spel
> What's wrong with this guy's spelling?
Write the exact same thing he just said in German and
we'll ask him to critique your spelling.
--- off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mrsatva"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@ya
On Dec 4, 2005, at 11:23 PM, sparaig wrote:em•pa•thy Pronunciation: (em'pu-thç), [key] —n. 1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another. 2. the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, fee
on 12/4/05 7:34 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> OK, misunderstood who said what and did what with whom.
>
> And now we're to believe that the women just casually bragged about the
> sex they'd had? That's groupie talk, IMHO.
I don't think it was casual. Probably, in time, the enormit
On Dec 4, 2005, at 8:24 PM, sparaig wrote:Don't forget to check the "doormouse" references to moi on that site. That you feel empathy towards *Skolnick* of all people, speaks volumes about you, Vaj... I don't recall saying I felt empathy for this person.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[
on 12/4/05 6:30 PM, off_world_beings at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Again?
> Also, publications that are not read by or are shunned by rational
> educated people are not credible sources because they are targeted
> to an irrational uneducated audience. An example would be those
> papers that have d
I am certain, *postive,* in fact, that I heard someone who heard it from someone who heard it from someone else...that Colonel Mustard and Miss Scarlet had sex in the parlor.
Sal
On Dec 4, 2005, at 4:59 PM, Rick Archer wrote:
on 12/4/05 12:07 AM, anonymousff at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
on 12/4/05 10:33 AM, off_world_beings at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> on 12/3/05 3:25 PM, off_world_beings at [EMAIL PROTEC
on 12/4/05 12:07 AM, anonymousff at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> He had no female secretaries. That is the point. So you are obscurely
> making the point that he did not have sex?
>
> That you "heard" Rick say that M had sex with female secretaries says
> alot about your cognitive processes -- an
on 12/3/05 11:59 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> OK, from what Rick has said, a large portion of MMY's *female*
> secretaries have had sex with MMY, and Rick has found out about this
> because they either told him personally, or let it be publicized in
> some other way.
Around Maharis
on 12/3/05 11:50 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From what Rick has said, a large portion of MMY's secretaries not
> only have had sex with him but have mentioned it to him or have
> publicised it in some way.
I didn't say anything of the sort (boy, it's a good thing I read a few of
you
on 12/3/05 11:42 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> on 12/3/05 3:25 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, they're quite private, even secretive. Maharishi
>>> isn't "people."
>>>
>>
On Dec 4, 2005, at 12:41 PM, anonymousff wrote:Its far more than tone. Its primarily focus. Gotcha posts focus on personal attacks. Debate focusses on futhering the understanding of ideas. Exactly. And it has to do with intent, though admitedly that is not always easy to discern clearly and with
Or a politician. Or a faculty member at MUM.
Sal
On Dec 4, 2005, at 9:28 AM, anonymousff wrote:
Gotcha posts are focussed on showing that the poster is dumb,
perverse, a rogue, and liar, and/or a hypocrite
Do you *never* get tired of this nonsense, Barry? You mean you can't even accept an apology graciously?
If Judy's posts, or anyone else's, bother you so much, why not just delete them? I know, I could do the same with yours, but the steady stream of insults for the last half-dozen posts or so jus
--- TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 2005, at 9:51 AM, authfriend wrote:
> >
> > > In any other context than dumping on me or
> another
> > > committed TMer (as I've observed before in
> similar
> > > cont
--- Irmeli Mattsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think the point here is that one's credilbility
> lies
> > not in some sort of objective criteria we can all
> > agree upon. These allegations of sexual advances
on 12/3/05 5:18 PM, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> When Rick initiated me in 1972, as I came out of my
> first meditation, I think he made a pass at me. There
> was a flash of arms and a beard...
In 1972, more like peach fuzz.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--- Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> on 12/3/05 2:25 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't askyou to doubt a friend, but I DO ask
> you to wonder why
> > they bother talking about it to you? Is it the
> thrill of revealing
> > they slept with a celebrity? Or is it b
On Dec 3, 2005, at 3:48 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 3, 2005, at 9:51 AM, authfriend wrote:
>>
>>> In any other context than dumping on me or another
>>> committed TMer (as I've observed before in similar
>>> co
on 12/3/05 3:25 PM, off_world_beings at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> No, I thought you mean't what is considered a credible quote.
> Obviously something that is gossip and is not published cannot be
> considered to have any credibility.
If your sister or a trusted friend told you something, would
on 12/3/05 3:25 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Actually, they're quite private, even secretive. Maharishi
> isn't "people."
>
> But WHY do they talk about it with YOU?
They've talked about it with other people. They're just not running to the
newspapers or setting up a web site.
on 12/3/05 3:14 PM, off_world_beings at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Maybe because a bunch of ex-druggies westerners on a heavy rounding
> course might mistake any Indian man in a white robe and long black
> hair and a beard as MMY. I've seen photos of the CP's in Rishikesh
> with some guy about 2
on 12/3/05 3:00 PM, off_world_beings at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> on 12/3/05 10:57 AM, anonymousff at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> So, yes, following on to Sal's thought, tell us Rick (and all -- my
>>> self
on 12/3/05 2:25 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I wouldn't askyou to doubt a friend, but I DO ask you to wonder why
> they bother talking about it to you? Is it the thrill of revealing
> they slept with a celebrity? Or is it bitterness and remorse? Or what?
>
> Do your female friends
on 12/3/05 1:02 PM, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think the point here is that one's credilbility lies
> not in some sort of objective criteria we can all
> agree upon. These allegations of sexual advances
> and/or acts by MMY are believed by some and denied by
> others. A lot of it has to
I think the point here is that one's credilbility lies
not in some sort of objective criteria we can all
agree upon. These allegations of sexual advances
and/or acts by MMY are believed by some and denied by
others. A lot of it has to do with our own concept of
what and who MMY is to us. Frankly, I
On Dec 3, 2005, at 1:02 PM, Peter wrote:
I think the point here is that one's credilbility lies
not in some sort of objective criteria we can all
agree upon.
Exactly.
These allegations of sexual advances
and/or acts by MMY are believed by some and denied by
others.
I don't doubt them. I j
Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hurdy Gurdy Man revealed
on 12/3/05 12:24 PM, Sal Sunshine at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A nice brush-off, Rick, but it still doesn't answer the question, about these particular women, not about TMers in general. If you don't want to, okay. That's
A nice brush-off, Rick, but it still doesn't answer the question, about these particular women, not about TMers in general. If you don't want to, okay. That's pretty much of an answer in itself, which is apparently all the answer we will get.
Sal
On Dec 3, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Rick Archer wrote:
On Dec 3, 2005, at 10:57 AM, anonymousff wrote:
But to whom is the distiction being made? Educated, professional
women, are generally honest? Compared to what group of women who are
generally less so? Trailer trash? Redneck women? Walmart employees?
The stereotypes of personality traits one ne
on 12/3/05 10:57 AM, anonymousff at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So, yes, following on to Sal's thought, tell us Rick (and all -- my
> self included) at what degrading level of education, profession and
> social standing does a woman become not credible -- compared to the
> ascending crown of credib
Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hurdy Gurdy Man revealed
I don’t know if this is a significant topic, since most TM teachers are well-educated and from middle or upper class families, but the point was (I think) that we’re not talking about topless dancers here. OK, now that will start a
on 12/2/05 11:33 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> For a woman to gossip about a former relationship, whether with a
> president or a guru or the kid next door, shows an "ax to grind."
The women I'm referring to haven't gossiped. Have not spoken about it
publicly. Probably don't feel li
On Dec 3, 2005, at 9:51 AM, authfriend wrote:
> In any other context than dumping on me or another
> committed TMer (as I've observed before in similar
> contexts), Barry would insist that behavior is not
> an indication of spiritual development.
You are manifesting the bitchy aspect of the Yoni
My god, you actually save this stuff from months ago? I'm sorry,
that's just plain strange.
On Dec 3, 2005, at 8:54 AM, authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 2005, at 12:23 AM, authfriend wrote:
>>> Still think there's any ambiguit
On Dec 3, 2005, at 12:23 AM, authfriend wrote:
>
> Still think there's any ambiguity about what he meant?
>
Actually Rick encapsulated my overall meaning very accurately. Yes
there were sexual indiscretions--spiritual incest--but there are
other perverse things as well.
--
That doesn't answer the question, Rick. At what point do their stories become believable--after college? Graduate school? How about during graduate school? And does it matter if they are getting a Ph.D or an MA? How about a teaching certificate? And what about if they happen to be "highly edu
on 12/2/05 10:03 PM, authfriend at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Were these women highly educated and established
> in professional society at the time they were
> allegedly victimized by Maharishi?
Well educated relative to their age at the time.
>Or is this
> something they achieved after that?
on 12/2/05 9:13 PM, authfriend at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> P.S.: And it's *particularly* odious to refer to a
> spiritual teacher who engages in sex with his (adult)
> followers as a "pervert" on the basis of the phrase
> "spiritual incest," especially without explaining
> that basis up front,
Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hurdy Gurdy Man revealed
on 12/2/05 9:30 PM, Sal Sunshine at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if they had been less mature or intelligent, with say, only a BA? You might have disbelieved them then?
Sal
Generally, people more highly educated and established
What if they had been less mature or intelligent, with say, only a BA? You might have disbelieved them then?
Sal
On Dec 2, 2005, at 8:51 PM, Rick Archer wrote:
I agree, which is why I only accept what I consider to be factual accounts,
which I have received directly from people who had relat
on 12/2/05 6:42 PM, Vaj at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Dec 2, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Rick Archer wrote:
>
>> I don't think the term "incest" is overkill. The relationship
>> between a guru
>> and his disciples is, or can and should be, very profound and
>> emotionally
>> intimate. From my perspec
on 12/2/05 6:55 PM, off_world_beings at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Maybe, but don't forget that Krisna in mythology had 16,000 wives.
> http://www.pantheon.org/articles/k/krishna.html
>
> Oh, and regarding todays gurus, lets not forget, something that has
> no basis in any factual account, and
On Dec 2, 2005, at 9:18 PM, authfriend wrote:
> I believe you misread my last sentence. Try again,
> please.
When you have, please get back to us.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home
On Dec 2, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Rick Archer wrote:
> I don't think the term "incest" is overkill. The relationship
> between a guru
> and his disciples is, or can and should be, very profound and
> emotionally
> intimate. From my perspective, it is a sacred relationship and
> should be
> pure.
On Dec 2, 2005, at 6:58 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> Now go and find another statement of respect and reverence about a
> guru from someone who followed the guru in the 1960's and is still
> visiting their guru in the 21st century.
Wouldn't the truer response be: who only visited his meditation
I don't think the term "incest" is overkill. The relationship between a guru
and his disciples is, or can and should be, very profound and emotionally
intimate. From my perspective, it is a sacred relationship and should be
pure. It is ultimately the guru's responsibility to keep it that way, since
On Dec 2, 2005, at 5:56 PM, authfriend wrote:
> Of course it *is* a nitwit notion, for the reasons I
> went into at length on alt.m.t, and which, as I've
> already pointed out, you are obviously completely
> unable to deal with. Having met "victims" of sexual
> exploitation by spiritual teachers
Hi Tom B.:
On Dec 2, 2005, at 3:03 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> There are few statements so respectful and admiring in this day and
> age about gurus.
Well, I think you are exaggerating. I originally merely proposed that
this over adulation on the Beatles could be typical movement
disinform
On Dec 2, 2005, at 2:21 PM, authfriend wrote:That doesn't mean he's right, of course, but it does strongly suggest it's what he believes. Hey, maybe Paul is a True Believer! At this point, your initial attempt to claim Paul had "seen the light" and was no longer an admirer of MMY having crashed
Title: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hurdy Gurdy Man revealed
on 12/2/05 1:29 PM, Jason Spock at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess, Maharishi has to be given the benefit of doubt. I've seen too many women lie through their teeth, with a straight face. I've nothing against women, ju
On Dec 2, 2005, at 11:27 AM, authfriend wrote:Or maybe he didn't think there had been any, given that he has been willing to state in public, on national television, that MMY wasn't into "chicks." He didn't have to say that; he wasn't *asked* about it by Charlie Rose. He volunteered it, in the
on 12/2/05 12:28 AM, anonymousff at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Also, on a visit to the New York area in 2000, Janet Hoffman,
> long-time TM teacher in Manhattan, told me that she had spent a
> delightful week in Lancaster, MA getting pancha karma and George was
> there the whole time she was and h
On Dec 2, 2005, at 10:28 AM, off_world_beings wrote:Paul NEVER said anything against Maharishi. EVER. I don't think it's possible for you to know everything Paul has said. In fact most of what we know is the public Paul M, not the private one.Maybe you're right and he did not forgive the spiritu
On Dec 2, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Peter wrote: Interesting to see Paul could forgive. Good man that McCartney dude. His love for MMY shines through, doesn't it? Since he was taking his children on their request I picked up more on his love for his kids. But Paul seems to be a loving man in general.
On Dec 1, 2005, at 10:23 PM, authfriend wrote:No, Vaj, *you're* desperate, more so than the true- bluest True Believer.Not at all, really it doesn't matter much to me. George went on to other things eastern, I don't find it a big deal. It appears he was also able to forgive M. which speaks volume
--- Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here's the transcript of the part about Maharishi:
> >
> > CHARLIE ROSE: What do you look forward to now?
> >
> > PAUL McCARTNEY: I look forward to enjoying
> myself. It's one of the
> > great things for me. It seems a bit sort of corny
> sometimes when
On Dec 1, 2005, at 10:51 PM, authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> Again the Paul rumor is just that, a rumor and most likely
>>> desperate disi
on 12/1/05 8:23 PM, Vaj at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> And as late as 1998 I know people who saw him in Vlodrop getting
>> Jyotish and gemstone recommendations.
George visited Vlodrop, as did Paul, with his daughter. I had many friends
there at the time who filled me in on the details. George als
On Dec 1, 2005, at 9:44 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> I am British and I was in Britain in 1992, and I saw george speak in
> AT LEAST a dozen interviews on British TV (BBC and ITV) about his
> support for Maharishi's Natural Law Party. This is where this last
> quote came from.
Perhaps it is. No
On Dec 1, 2005, at 9:23 PM, Vaj wrote:
> I'll try to find the quote for you on why he went on to other things.
"It was short-lived infatuation. Lennon soon thought the Maharishi to
be a charlatan and pilloried him in the song "Sexy Sadie". Starr
didn't like the food and came back to England
On Dec 1, 2005, at 6:32 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> No he didn't. You are dreaming and pushing your anti-TM agenda again.
> Here is what George said:
>
> In 1977:
> "I've had alot of interest in different ways and one of the things I
> never liked was the whole bit in the late '60s when everybo
on 12/1/05 5:16 PM, off_world_beings at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hmmm, you mean when she was practically having a nervous breakdown.
> In addition, the guy was not there. We take the account of the
> person who was there. That is what history will remember.
The Mia incident is the best known
on 12/1/05 1:41 PM, hanumanhoffman9 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Unless one has an endless supply of Shakti, and can handle the karma taken on
> in the
> process of touching, shunning would seem the road to take.
>
> To have this experience with a perfected being is to die for.
http://amma.org
On Dec 1, 2005, at 1:46 PM, Patrick Gillam wrote:--- Vaj wrote: the most spiritual of the Beatles, George, put it plainly in his own autobiography when he said that TM was just too "simplistic". After all, he was interested in enlightenment. So he dumped it as a method and moved on to som
On Dec 1, 2005, at 11:34 AM, Rick Archer wrote:on 12/1/05 8:46 AM, off_world_beings at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow, sounds like Ned Wynne is a raving lunatic trying everything he can to discredit MMY. It is completely different and has a completely different tone and direction than Mia's own ac
on 12/1/05 6:22 AM, Vaj at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Here's exactly what Mia Farrow said (if the link below doesn't work,
>> go to Amazon.com and search "what falls away" and then do an in-the-
>> book search on "maharishi" and go to page 118):
>>
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/05535
on 12/1/05 9:22 AM, bluecabbagerose at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -
> To me, this has little to do with what Mia thought MMY was trying to
> do and more to do with what MMY intentions were.
>
> Was it just going to be an affectionate embrace? Very possible.
>
> Was MMY about to put the mo
on 12/1/05 8:46 AM, off_world_beings at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Wow, sounds like Ned Wynne is a raving lunatic trying everything he
> can to discredit MMY. It is completely different and has a
> completely different tone and direction than Mia's own account which
> basically stated , "I was n
MMY doesn't hug people. He doesn't like physical contact.bluecabbagerose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings wrote:> > ""After twenty or so minutes we were getting to our feet, still > facing each other, but as I'm usually a little disoriented afte
There are credible reports from both people still in the TMO and outside the TMO of MMY behaving in a sexually inappropriate manner towards them. authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings wrote:>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick A
On Dec 1, 2005, at 9:50 AM, markmeredith2002 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Brahman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Therefore it is very conclusive as to what happened, and not a Rashomon event at all. Well, Mia Farrow still maintains that MMY "put the moves on her." i'm not so sur
On Dec 1, 2005, at 12:59 AM, shempmcgurk wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
>>> [...]
All events are "Rashomon"shempmcgurk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings wrote:>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:> >> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > [...]> > > Therefore it is very conclusive as
on 11/30/05 6:34 PM, off_world_beings at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
>> [...]
>>> Therefore it is very conclusive as to what happened, and not a
>>> Rashomon even
Did anyone see the Plant and Page tour
around 1993-ish, when they were touring with that orchestra from Cairo?
They had this kid who played the Hurdy
gurdy with them and he was amazing!! He rocked so hard that I was almost
saddened when Plant and Page took the stage back!!
I’ve look
I posted the live version a while back with a link. He tells the
origin of the song, how he wrote it in Rishikesh and the lost verse
which George Harrison wrote. Perhaps someone with the MP3 could post
it with a link.
On Nov 29, 2005, at 10:35 PM, authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@y
On Nov 29, 2005, at 10:06 PM, off_world_beings wrote:What in the heck is a "Hurdy Gurdy Man" Someone who plays the Hurdy Gurdy. You can still buy them today. It has a very eerie sound from it's buzzing bridge. Very trance-like sound. They were used by troubadors who went from town to town teachi
83 matches
Mail list logo