Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Share Long]

You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit in the wind
You don't pull the mask on the old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with...Doc (-:





 From: "doctordumb...@rocketmail.com" 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 8:35 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
 

  
Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality 
rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all those who have 
passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue the TMO, from the 
grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!! Play your cards right, and 
this could go on for *lifetimes*. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and people 
> like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: seventhray27 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
> 
> 
>   
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, 
> > drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be 
> > giving both sides.
> > 
> > In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may 
> > not know what Marshy was.
> 
> It's a relaxation technique.  That's it's primary purpose.  And I am 
> certain that  you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at 
> what you would consider to be the correct conclusions.
> Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even remember 
> what they are.  Massage maybe.  
> Let's take massage.  What do you suppose would be the negative effects of 
> massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend.  Just 
> for fun, take a shot at those first.  I'll wait.
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[doctordumbass]

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Barry is SO nasty these days when my jokes on 
him, hit home. Now their forum can read "*Three* little pricks and the TM 
balloon". 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > No, some of Barry's former posts are probably correct, 
> > > in that TM itself is a small matter, that contrary to 
> > > what Hagelin and Lynch claim, few people are interested 
> > > in, that it is a dying movement - it just irritates me 
> > > that Lynch and cronies are attempting to defraud a 
> > > whole new generation of marks.
> > 
> > I think what Jimbo means by "drying up" is that those
> > of us who have any brains have stopped treating the
> > diehard TM-defenders here as if they were worth reply-
> > ing to, or even reading, unless we see them quoted in
> > posts like this one.
> 
> No, actually DrD meant what he said. If you look at the
> Post Count list, the only diehard TM-bashers posting here
> any more are Barry, Michael, and Salyavin.
> 
> And Barry's posts are so demented these days that he just
> gets made fun of. He's a toothless old man with delusions
> of grandeur who mistakes being laughed at for his having
> "pushed buttons."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Having nothing to say on their own, 
> > they *live* to draw people into confrontations with them, 
> > so that they can parrot the things they've been taught to
> > parrot about TM and Maharishi, and thus feel as if they're 
> > doing something "dharmic," or that they, in fact, have any 
> > meaningful existence.
> > 
> > I don't know about you, Michael, but I don't believe it
> > is even *possible* to nudge the diehards in the direction
> > of accepting the real nature of the organization they're
> > defending. Too much of their own egos is attached to the
> > notion of "I'm too smart to ever have been deceived by a 
> > cult" to even utter the C-word. And too much of their self-
> > esteem and self-image is attached to how other diehards
> > see them to ever deviate from the Dogma Dharma.
> > 
> > So I limit myself these days to poking subtle fun at them 
> > to see how they'll react, as I did by posting the "sheep
> > dip" photo in response to the "Holy dip" line being used
> > in a TMO propaganda piece. Interestingly enough, they *do* 
> > seem to always react -- whether I poke fun at them or 
> > whether I do not. Again, I suspect this has more to do with 
> > not having anything of their own to say than anything else. 
> > Caught in reactive mode, they NEED someone or something to 
> > react TO. Cool, I guess. I consider them my own private
> > wind-up toys, and from time to time continue to wind them up.
> > 
> > As for the TMO and its future, as you say I don't believe
> > that it has much of one. It really CAN'T sell its products
> > directly to end users any more, because NO ONE IS 
> > INTERESTED IN THEM. Even casual observers who might
> > be interested in meditation have figured out that TM is 
> > the *least* hip form of meditation in the marketplace, 
> > while being by far the most expensive. So the TMO follows 
> > the lead established by Maharishi, and doesn't even bother
> > trying to market to end users any more. Their entire pitch
> > is to governments and institutions and wealthy individuals,
> > hoping to lure them into "contributing to a worthy cause" 
> > so that "people at risk" can be taught TM in their names. 
> > 
> > And such a pitch will work for them...for a while. It has
> > certainly worked for the Christian organizations who have
> > used "Help us save orphans in Africa" and similar dodges 
> > to beg for donations for so many years. If that's the way
> > they want to present themselves to the world while pocketing
> > most of the monies raised, I say let them. Karma, dudes.
> > 
> > The only thing that still causes me to roll my eyes are the
> > head-in-the-sand levels of DENIAL still clung to by people
> > who claim to have had their "creative intelligence" enhanced
> > by TM all these years. But again, if that's the way they 
> > wish to be perceived by the world, let them. 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > >  From: "doctordumbass@&quo

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > No, some of Barry's former posts are probably correct, 
> > in that TM itself is a small matter, that contrary to 
> > what Hagelin and Lynch claim, few people are interested 
> > in, that it is a dying movement - it just irritates me 
> > that Lynch and cronies are attempting to defraud a 
> > whole new generation of marks.
> 
> I think what Jimbo means by "drying up" is that those
> of us who have any brains have stopped treating the
> diehard TM-defenders here as if they were worth reply-
> ing to, or even reading, unless we see them quoted in
> posts like this one.

No, actually DrD meant what he said. If you look at the
Post Count list, the only diehard TM-bashers posting here
any more are Barry, Michael, and Salyavin.

And Barry's posts are so demented these days that he just
gets made fun of. He's a toothless old man with delusions
of grandeur who mistakes being laughed at for his having
"pushed buttons."





 Having nothing to say on their own, 
> they *live* to draw people into confrontations with them, 
> so that they can parrot the things they've been taught to
> parrot about TM and Maharishi, and thus feel as if they're 
> doing something "dharmic," or that they, in fact, have any 
> meaningful existence.
> 
> I don't know about you, Michael, but I don't believe it
> is even *possible* to nudge the diehards in the direction
> of accepting the real nature of the organization they're
> defending. Too much of their own egos is attached to the
> notion of "I'm too smart to ever have been deceived by a 
> cult" to even utter the C-word. And too much of their self-
> esteem and self-image is attached to how other diehards
> see them to ever deviate from the Dogma Dharma.
> 
> So I limit myself these days to poking subtle fun at them 
> to see how they'll react, as I did by posting the "sheep
> dip" photo in response to the "Holy dip" line being used
> in a TMO propaganda piece. Interestingly enough, they *do* 
> seem to always react -- whether I poke fun at them or 
> whether I do not. Again, I suspect this has more to do with 
> not having anything of their own to say than anything else. 
> Caught in reactive mode, they NEED someone or something to 
> react TO. Cool, I guess. I consider them my own private
> wind-up toys, and from time to time continue to wind them up.
> 
> As for the TMO and its future, as you say I don't believe
> that it has much of one. It really CAN'T sell its products
> directly to end users any more, because NO ONE IS 
> INTERESTED IN THEM. Even casual observers who might
> be interested in meditation have figured out that TM is 
> the *least* hip form of meditation in the marketplace, 
> while being by far the most expensive. So the TMO follows 
> the lead established by Maharishi, and doesn't even bother
> trying to market to end users any more. Their entire pitch
> is to governments and institutions and wealthy individuals,
> hoping to lure them into "contributing to a worthy cause" 
> so that "people at risk" can be taught TM in their names. 
> 
> And such a pitch will work for them...for a while. It has
> certainly worked for the Christian organizations who have
> used "Help us save orphans in Africa" and similar dodges 
> to beg for donations for so many years. If that's the way
> they want to present themselves to the world while pocketing
> most of the monies raised, I say let them. Karma, dudes.
> 
> The only thing that still causes me to roll my eyes are the
> head-in-the-sand levels of DENIAL still clung to by people
> who claim to have had their "creative intelligence" enhanced
> by TM all these years. But again, if that's the way they 
> wish to be perceived by the world, let them. 
> 
> 
> > 
> >  From: "doctordumbass@" 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:47 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
> >  
> > The only thing to add, in good conscience, is that the TM bashers are 
> > drying up on here, so this may not be the fertile field, for practice,  
> > that it once was. Better to find another obsessive - 
> > 
> > Maybe you and Bee could put together your own yahoo forum, attracting 
> > millions, no doubt. With your one pointed focus on the ills of the 
> > Maharishi and the TMO, and Barry's bilious outlook on life, you'll be in 
> > b

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Ann]

d, let them. (Yes, let them Barry;
stop picking on the poor sods, okay? You are devastating them causing
them to doubt themselves horribly. Can't you just allow these poor,
misguided souls to live in their world of make believe amid their trite
and hackneyed cultish spiritual paradigms? They all, in their heart of
hearts, envy you your wisdom, your realization on every level so be
careful not to rub their noses continually in their stark ignorance and
self deception. T.S. Eliot said it best:"Go, go, go, said the bird:
human kind  Cannot bear very much reality." Amen, this is my sermon for
this Sunday morning. God Bless you Barry Wright.)>
>
> > 
> >  From: "doctordumbass@" doctordumbass@
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:47 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
> >
> > The only thing to add, in good conscience, is that the TM bashers
are drying up on here, so this may not be the fertile field, for
practice,  that it once was. Better to find another obsessive -
> >
> > Maybe you and Bee could put together your own yahoo forum,
attracting millions, no doubt. With your one pointed focus on the ills
of the Maharishi and the TMO, and Barry's bilious outlook on life,
you'll be in business in no time!!
> >
> > You could call it, "Two little pricks, and the TM balloon".
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100%
fatality rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all
those who have passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue
the TMO, from the grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!!
Play your cards right, and this could go on for *lifetimes*.
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know
about and people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance.
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >  From: seventhray27
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of
other herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons,
he would be giving both sides.
> > > > >
> > > > > In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he
certainly may not know what Marshy was.
> > > >
> > > > It's a relaxation technique.  That's it's primary
purpose.  And I am certain that  you would find fault in
any discussion that did not arrive at what you would consider to be the
correct conclusions.
> > > > Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I
can't even remember what they are.  Massage maybe.ÂÂ
> > > > Let's take massage.  What do you suppose would be the
negative effects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other
programs you recommend.  Just for fun, take a shot at those
first.  I'll wait.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> No, some of Barry's former posts are probably correct, 
> in that TM itself is a small matter, that contrary to 
> what Hagelin and Lynch claim, few people are interested 
> in, that it is a dying movement - it just irritates me 
> that Lynch and cronies are attempting to defraud a 
> whole new generation of marks.

I think what Jimbo means by "drying up" is that those
of us who have any brains have stopped treating the
diehard TM-defenders here as if they were worth reply-
ing to, or even reading, unless we see them quoted in
posts like this one. Having nothing to say on their own, 
they *live* to draw people into confrontations with them, 
so that they can parrot the things they've been taught to
parrot about TM and Maharishi, and thus feel as if they're 
doing something "dharmic," or that they, in fact, have any 
meaningful existence.

I don't know about you, Michael, but I don't believe it
is even *possible* to nudge the diehards in the direction
of accepting the real nature of the organization they're
defending. Too much of their own egos is attached to the
notion of "I'm too smart to ever have been deceived by a 
cult" to even utter the C-word. And too much of their self-
esteem and self-image is attached to how other diehards
see them to ever deviate from the Dogma Dharma.

So I limit myself these days to poking subtle fun at them 
to see how they'll react, as I did by posting the "sheep
dip" photo in response to the "Holy dip" line being used
in a TMO propaganda piece. Interestingly enough, they *do* 
seem to always react -- whether I poke fun at them or 
whether I do not. Again, I suspect this has more to do with 
not having anything of their own to say than anything else. 
Caught in reactive mode, they NEED someone or something to 
react TO. Cool, I guess. I consider them my own private
wind-up toys, and from time to time continue to wind them up.

As for the TMO and its future, as you say I don't believe
that it has much of one. It really CAN'T sell its products
directly to end users any more, because NO ONE IS 
INTERESTED IN THEM. Even casual observers who might
be interested in meditation have figured out that TM is 
the *least* hip form of meditation in the marketplace, 
while being by far the most expensive. So the TMO follows 
the lead established by Maharishi, and doesn't even bother
trying to market to end users any more. Their entire pitch
is to governments and institutions and wealthy individuals,
hoping to lure them into "contributing to a worthy cause" 
so that "people at risk" can be taught TM in their names. 

And such a pitch will work for them...for a while. It has
certainly worked for the Christian organizations who have
used "Help us save orphans in Africa" and similar dodges 
to beg for donations for so many years. If that's the way
they want to present themselves to the world while pocketing
most of the monies raised, I say let them. Karma, dudes.

The only thing that still causes me to roll my eyes are the
head-in-the-sand levels of DENIAL still clung to by people
who claim to have had their "creative intelligence" enhanced
by TM all these years. But again, if that's the way they 
wish to be perceived by the world, let them. 


> ________
>  From: "doctordumbass@..." 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:47 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
>  
> The only thing to add, in good conscience, is that the TM bashers are drying 
> up on here, so this may not be the fertile field, for practice,  that it once 
> was. Better to find another obsessive - 
> 
> Maybe you and Bee could put together your own yahoo forum, attracting 
> millions, no doubt. With your one pointed focus on the ills of the Maharishi 
> and the TMO, and Barry's bilious outlook on life, you'll be in business in no 
> time!! 
> 
> You could call it, "Two little pricks, and the TM balloon".
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality 
> > rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all those who 
> > have passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue the TMO, from 
> > the grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!! Play your cards 
> > right, and this could go on for *lifetimes*. 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and 
> > > people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignor

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Michael Jackson]

No, some of Barry's former posts are probably correct, in that TM itself is a 
small matter, that contrary to what Hagelin and Lynch claim, few people are 
interested in, that it is a dying movement - it just irritates me that Lynch 
and cronies are attempting to defraud a whole new generation of marks.





 From: "doctordumb...@rocketmail.com" 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:47 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
 

  
The only thing to add, in good conscience, is that the TM bashers are drying up 
on here, so this may not be the fertile field, for practice,  that it once was. 
Better to find another obsessive - 

Maybe you and Bee could put together your own yahoo forum, attracting millions, 
no doubt. With your one pointed focus on the ills of the Maharishi and the TMO, 
and Barry's bilious outlook on life, you'll be in business in no time!! 

You could call it, "Two little pricks, and the TM balloon".


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality 
> rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all those who 
> have passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue the TMO, from 
> the grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!! Play your cards 
> right, and this could go on for *lifetimes*. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and 
> > people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: seventhray27 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, 
> > > drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be 
> > > giving both sides.
> > > 
> > > In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may 
> > > not know what Marshy was.
> > 
> > It's a relaxation technique.  That's it's primary purpose.  And I am 
> > certain that  you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive 
> > at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions.
> > Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even remember 
> > what they are.  Massage maybe.  
> > Let's take massage.  What do you suppose would be the negative effects of 
> > massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend.  Just 
> > for fun, take a shot at those first.  I'll wait.
> >
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[seventhray27]

forgot this


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" 
wrote:
>
>
> Michael, Are you crying when you write this? You must feel absolutely
> helpless that the good people of the world are not heeding your call.
> So, now we are at the greatest tragedy of this period of social
transition. Not even I
> knew M was that powerful. And I sort of dropped out, or at least
> stepped back many years ago. M is tormenting you from the grave.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@
> wrote:
> >
> > History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period
> of
> > social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but
> the appalling silence of the good people.
> >
> > And the stupidity of the people who knew better and let the
hucksters
> hold sway because they felt refreshed after closing their eyes.
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > From: "doctordumbass@" doctordumbass@
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:35 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100%
> fatality rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel
all
> those who have passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to
sue
> the TMO, from the grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!!
> Play your cards right, and this could go on for *lifetimes*.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > >
> > > If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about
> and people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > From: seventhray27
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other
> herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he
> would be giving both sides.
> > > >
> > > > In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he
> certainly may not know what Marshy was.
> > >
> > > It's a relaxation technique. That's it's primary
> purpose. And I am certain that you would find fault in
> any discussion that did not arrive at what you would consider to be
the
> correct conclusions.
> > > Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I
can't
> even remember what they are. Massage maybe.ÂÂ
> > > Let's take massage. What do you suppose would be the
> negative effects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the
other
> programs you recommend. Just for fun, take a shot at those
> first. I'll wait.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[seventhray27]

Michael, Are you crying when you write this?  You must feel absolutely
helpless that the good people of the world are not heeding your call. 
So, now we are at the greatest period of social transition.  Not even I
knew M was that powerful.  And I sort of dropped out, or at least
stepped back many years ago.  M is  tormenting you from the grave.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson 
wrote:
>
> History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period
of
> social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but
the appalling silence of the good people.
>
> And the stupidity of the people who knew better and let the hucksters
hold sway because they felt refreshed after closing their eyes.
>
>
>
> 
> From: "doctordumbass@..." doctordumbass@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:35 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
>
>
> Â
> Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100%
fatality rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all
those who have passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue
the TMO, from the grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!!
Play your cards right, and this could go on for *lifetimes*.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> >
> > If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about
and people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > From: seventhray27
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > >
> > > If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other
herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he
would be giving both sides.
> > >
> > > In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he
certainly may not know what Marshy was.
> >
> > It's a relaxation technique.  That's it's primary
purpose.  And I am certain that  you would find fault in
any discussion that did not arrive at what you would consider to be the
correct conclusions.
> > Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't
even remember what they are.  Massage maybe.ÂÂ
> > Let's take massage.  What do you suppose would be the
negative effects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other
programs you recommend.  Just for fun, take a shot at those
first.  I'll wait.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of
> this period of social transition was not the strident
> clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of
> the good people.

--Martin Luther King Jr.

> And the stupidity of the people who knew better and let
> the hucksters hold sway because they felt refreshed after
> closing their eyes.

Michael, you trivialize MLK and his cause when you 
associate your statement with his.

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[doctordumbass]

Now that you've casually mentioned your "riding crop technique", your words 
carry extra weight around here, Ann. However, at least one member of our riding 
party, the one going "dutch", if you catch my drift, is actually looking 
forward to his next stinging reference to you, so that he may feel your reply 
in kind...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs,
> > drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be
> > giving both sides.
> > >
> > > In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly
> > may not know what Marshy was.
> > 
> > 
> > It's a relaxation technique.  That's it's primary purpose.  And I am
> > certain that  you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive
> > at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions.
> > 
> > Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even
> > remember what they are.  Massage maybe.
> > 
> > Let's take massage.  What do you suppose would be the negative effects
> > of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend. 
> > Just for fun, take a shot at those first.  I'll wait.
> 
> Careful Steve you don't, for one moment, want to sound like Barry. Just stay 
> your sensitive, sweet, sort of gullible self. I'll just ignore that last 
> sentence and pretend you changed to the wrong 'channel' instead.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[doctordumbass]

The only thing to add, in good conscience, is that the TM bashers are drying up 
on here, so this may not be the fertile field, for practice,  that it once was. 
Better to find another obsessive - 

Maybe you and Bee could put together your own yahoo forum, attracting millions, 
no doubt. With your one pointed focus on the ills of the Maharishi and the TMO, 
and Barry's bilious outlook on life, you'll be in business in no time!! 

You could call it, "Two little pricks, and the TM balloon".
 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality 
> rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all those who 
> have passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue the TMO, from 
> the grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!! Play your cards 
> right, and this could go on for *lifetimes*. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and 
> > people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: seventhray27 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, 
> > > drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be 
> > > giving both sides.
> > > 
> > > In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may 
> > > not know what Marshy was.
> > 
> > It's a relaxation technique.  That's it's primary purpose.  And I am 
> > certain that  you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive 
> > at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions.
> > Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even remember 
> > what they are.  Massage maybe.  
> > Let's take massage.  What do you suppose would be the negative effects of 
> > massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend.  Just 
> > for fun, take a shot at those first.  I'll wait.
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Michael Jackson]

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of 
social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the 
appalling silence of the good people.

And the stupidity of the people who knew better and let the hucksters hold sway 
because they felt refreshed after closing their eyes. 




 From: "doctordumb...@rocketmail.com" 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:35 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
 

  
Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality 
rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all those who have 
passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue the TMO, from the 
grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!! Play your cards right, and 
this could go on for *lifetimes*. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and people 
> like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: seventhray27 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
> 
> 
>   
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, 
> > drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be 
> > giving both sides.
> > 
> > In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may 
> > not know what Marshy was.
> 
> It's a relaxation technique.  That's it's primary purpose.  And I am 
> certain that  you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at 
> what you would consider to be the correct conclusions.
> Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even remember 
> what they are.  Massage maybe.  
> Let's take massage.  What do you suppose would be the negative effects of 
> massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend.  Just 
> for fun, take a shot at those first.  I'll wait.
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[doctordumbass]

Exactly. For one thing, everyone who does TM eventually dies. 100% fatality 
rate. And there's your foot in the door - You could channel all those who have 
passed away, and are *still pissed off*, and want to sue the TMO, from the 
grave - Defendant by proxy, and lawyer, all in one!! Play your cards right, and 
this could go on for *lifetimes*. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and people 
> like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: seventhray27 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
>  
> 
>   
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, 
> > drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be 
> > giving both sides.
> > 
> > In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may 
> > not know what Marshy was.
> 
> It's a relaxation technique.  That's it's primary purpose.  And I am 
> certain that  you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at 
> what you would consider to be the correct conclusions.
> Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even remember 
> what they are.  Massage maybe.  
> Let's take massage.  What do you suppose would be the negative effects of 
> massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend.  Just 
> for fun, take a shot at those first.  I'll wait.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[seventhray27]

Oh, you're wonderful.  Thanks for answering my question.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson 
wrote:
>
> If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and
people like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance.
>
>
>
>
> 
> From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
>
>
> Â
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@
wrote:
> >
> > If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other
herbs, drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he
would be giving both sides.
> >
> > In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly
may not know what Marshy was.
>
> It's a relaxation technique.  That's it's primary purpose. 
And I am certain that  you would find fault in any discussion that
did not arrive at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions.
> Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even
remember what they are.  Massage maybe.Â
> Let's take massage.  What do you suppose would be the negativeÂ
effects of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you
recommend.  Just for fun, take a shot at those first.  I'll
wait.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Michael Jackson]

If you want to ignore the ill effects of TM that we all know about and people 
like you ignore, then enjoy your ignorance.





 From: seventhray27 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:08 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
 

  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs 
> and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be giving both 
> sides.
> 
> In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may not 
> know what Marshy was.

It's a relaxation technique.  That's it's primary purpose.  And I am certain 
that  you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive at what you 
would consider to be the correct conclusions.
Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even remember what 
they are.  Massage maybe.  
Let's take massage.  What do you suppose would be the negative effects of 
massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend.  Just for 
fun, take a shot at those first.  I'll wait.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:

> Careful Steve you don't, for one moment, want to sound like Barry.
Just stay your sensitive, sweet, sort of gullible self. I'll just ignore
that last sentence and pretend you changed to the wrong 'channel'
instead.
> >

I don't know what got into me.  I guess I was groggy or something. 
Channelling Barry like that.  I'm glad you caught it, and nipped it in
the bud.  What got into me.

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson 
> wrote:
> >
> > If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs,
> drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be
> giving both sides.
> >
> > In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly
> may not know what Marshy was.
> 
> 
> It's a relaxation technique.  That's it's primary purpose.  And I am
> certain that  you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive
> at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions.
> 
> Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even
> remember what they are.  Massage maybe.
> 
> Let's take massage.  What do you suppose would be the negative effects
> of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend. 
> Just for fun, take a shot at those first.  I'll wait.

Careful Steve you don't, for one moment, want to sound like Barry. Just stay 
your sensitive, sweet, sort of gullible self. I'll just ignore that last 
sentence and pretend you changed to the wrong 'channel' instead.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson 
wrote:
>
> If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs,
drugs and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be
giving both sides.
>
> In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly
may not know what Marshy was.


It's a relaxation technique.  That's it's primary purpose.  And I am
certain that  you would find fault in any discussion that did not arrive
at what you would consider to be the correct conclusions.

Let's examine the modalities you recommend, although I can't even
remember what they are.  Massage maybe.

Let's take massage.  What do you suppose would be the negative effects
of massage, or mindfulness, or any of the other programs you recommend. 
Just for fun, take a shot at those first.  I'll wait.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Michael Jackson]

If Oz was as responsible in his touting of TM as he is of other herbs, drugs 
and procedures where he gives both the pros and cons, he would be giving both 
sides.

In fairness, he may not know the crap the TMO does, and he certainly may not 
know what Marshy was.





 From: seventhray27 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:49 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
 

  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol"  wrote:
>
> Does Dr. Oz endorse TM specifically or does he endorse meditation in general? 
> 
> I have never watched Dr. Oz's show, but the other week I chanced upon him as 
> I was channel surfing. He stated something to the effect that if anyone ever 
> says he endorses a product, to please not believe that he endorses that said 
> product. (The context was in regard to weight loss.) He stated he makes a 
> point to not endorse products even though various products will claim he 
> endorses them. 
> 
> So...I'm just wondering if he really does endorse TM, or rather does he 
> endorse meditation (in any form) in general and that his choice of meditation 
> (at this point in his life) is TM?
> 
> Share stated, "[...] can all these smart and creative people be so deluded 
> about the efficacy of TM? [...]"
> 
> Apparently, TM works for
 them. That isn't a delusion; it is their reality. That said, they may be 
deluded (fooled or ignorant) or choose to be complacent regarding the TMO and 
its colored history; or maybe that just don't have the energy/time to learn 
about it. 

I guess you conveniently forgot the point that Share made, that perhaps they 
embrace the positive aspects of the technique, and feel that those positive 
aspects outweigh the negative parts of the organization.  Sorry if that skews 
your preconceived notions.
 
> Smart and creative people tout other practices/beliefs/products too. I don't 
> think they are deluded, but rather that they like said product/practice. That 
> doesn't mean I or the next person will like said product/practice. I may even 
> have a horrible experience with the said product/practice. Hopefully I am 
> somewhat smart and creative. 
> 
> I am suspicious when anyone pushes anything as the one true technique to 
> bring peace and resolution and absolute health to humanity. I'm not saying 
> any celebrities push TM as such; I don't keep up with that sort of 
> information. 
> 
> As far as Micheal and any of his issues, I think he is the authority on that 
> and he can decide to share or not to share. I have no desire to scrutinize 
> his (or anyone's) issues publicly or even privately. (I'm not saying you want 
> to do that either.)I have enough on my issue plate already.
> 
> Thanks for the response!
> 
>
 Gekkos are cool. 
> 
> And so is this beetle dude/dudette...Chrysolina cerealis
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=477780895608805&set=a.260816317305265.74666.187139094672988&type=1
> *
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carol, my Mom loves the gekko too.  Of course the fact that Dr. Oz 
> > practices TM doesn't negate MJ's bad experiences with it.  Just as Fr 
> > Keating's Batgap interview does not negate my somewhat bad experiences with 
> > the Catholic Church.  But again, I'm not continuing to speak against 
> > Catholicism, etc.  Whereas Michael does continue to speak against TM, etc. 
> > and seems to have quite a charge when he does so.  From my own experience 
> > with charges, I'd say there's a deeper issue going on that just what 
> > appears on the surface.  
> > 
> > Just
 yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who seems pretty savvy to me, 
stop being deluded about TMO.  This was in addition to saying that Dr. Oz is 
afraid to disagree with Oprah.  This latter statement especially indicates to 
me that there's a deeper issue present.  I've got my issues too so I'm not 
saying it's a bad thing.  But I give less weight to what someone says if it 
seems to me that there are other deeper issues present.  And I realize when 
people are overly positive, that too can indicate a deeper issue present.  If 
someone's energy feels off in either direction, then I take their opinions with 
a bigger grain of salt.
> > 
> > So I have been asking:  can all these smart and creative people be so 
> > deluded about the efficacy of TM?  Maybe they simply choose to use what's 
> > useful about it and leave the rest.
> > 
> > 
> > I doubt that Dr. Oz,
 who seems to me to have integrity, endorses TM only 

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[seventhray27]

I am sorry to hear about your carpal tunnel.  It runs in my family and
my mom had it, as well as cousin.  I am not sure if one of my sisters
has it or not.  But it sure is persistent, and in my cousin's case there
doesn't seem to be anything he can do to alleviate, or correct it.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol"  wrote:
>
> Share stated: "My main point is that our issues can often cloud our
current moment thinking and it's helpful to be aware of that. "
>
> I agree.
>
> Thinking back, this discourse got started with me when I brought upthe
subject of that because Oz endorses TM that must mean that TM is a good
thing (when other equally intelligent people have other opinions) with
the comparison of Collins as a scientist endorsing Christianity as a
good thing (when other equally intelligent people have other opinions).
That was all.
>
> And my communication is probably not the greatest. I'm not an academic
or a debater, and never will be. And I don't excel at clever comebacks
and such. I find it draining...and moreso after having carpal tunnel
surgery on February 18. Typing is still a bit laborious.
>
> Yes..that bug is beautiful. :)
>
> ***
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carol, that has got to be the most beautiful bug I have ever
seen!  Thanks so much for including him (-:
> > My main point is that our issues can often cloud our current moment
thinking and it's helpful to be aware of that.  Especially if we're
wanting to communicate convincingly to others, which Michael has said is
his goal.Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________
> > From: Carol jchwelch@
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:57 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Does Dr. Oz endorse TM specifically or does he endorse meditation in
general?
> >
> > I have never watched Dr. Oz's show, but the other week I chanced
upon him as I was channel surfing. He stated something to the effect
that if anyone ever says he endorses a product, to please not believe
that he endorses that said product. (The context was in regard to weight
loss.) He stated he makes a point to not endorse products even though
various products will claim he endorses them.
> >
> > So...I'm just wondering if he really does endorse TM, or rather does
he endorse meditation (in any form) in general and that his choice of
meditation (at this point in his life) is TM?
> >
> > Share stated, "[...] can all these smart and creative people be so
deluded about the efficacy of TM? [...]"
> >
> > Apparently, TM works for them. That isn't a delusion; it is their
reality. That said, they may be deluded (fooled or ignorant) or choose
to be complacent regarding the TMO and its colored history; or maybe
that just don't have the energy/time to learn about it.
> >
> > Smart and creative people tout other practices/beliefs/products too.
I don't think they are deluded, but rather that they like said
product/practice. That doesn't mean I or the next person will like said
product/practice. I may even have a horrible experience with the said
product/practice. Hopefully I am somewhat smart and creative.
> >
> > I am suspicious when anyone pushes anything as the one true
technique to bring peace and resolution and absolute health to humanity.
I'm not saying any celebrities push TM as such; I don't keep up with
that sort of information.
> >
> > As far as Micheal and any of his issues, I think he is the authority
on that and he can decide to share or not to share. I have no desire to
scrutinize his (or anyone's) issues publicly or even privately. (I'm not
saying you want to do that either.)I have enough on my issue plate
already.
> >
> > Thanks for the response!
> >
> > Gekkos are cool.
> >
> > And so is this beetle dude/dudette...Chrysolina cerealis
> >
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=477780895608805&set=a.2608163173\
05265.74666.187139094672988&type=1
> > *
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Carol, my Mom loves the gekko too.  Of course the fact
that Dr. Oz practices TM doesn't negate MJ's bad experiences with
it.  Just as Fr Keating's Batgap interview does not negate my
somewhat bad experiences with the Catholic Church.  But again,
I'm not continuing to speak against Catholicism, etc.  Whereas
Michael does continue to speak against TM, etc. and seems to have quite
a charge when he does so.  From my own

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Judy

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:
snip

I didn't intend to upset Michael. I think turq is the only person I
consciously try to bother. Mainly by bringing up jyotish on a regular
basis.


Beautiful.  Prolonged smile!

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Carol]

PS: If I were to base my opinion of Oz by what is in this article, I'd lean 
toward he is another snake in a suit. Not saying he is, but this article leaves 
me with that impression.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol"  wrote:
>
> Thanks for sharing that Judy. Interesting article. I have never watched Oz's 
> show or really read much at all by or about him. Interesting that the one 
> surgeon that knows Oz (I think it was a surgeon) would not recommend someone 
> going to Oz for surgery.
> 
> I wonder where Dr. Oz & his wife will be 10 years from now?
> 
> ***
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who
> > > seems pretty savvy to me, stop being deluded about TMO.
> > > This was in addition to saying that Dr. Oz is afraid to
> > > disagree with Oprah. This latter statement especially
> > > indicates to me that there's a deeper issue present. I've
> > > got my issues too so I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But
> > > I give less weight to what someone says if it seems to me
> > > that there are other deeper issues present.
> > 
> > Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
> > a racist.
> > 
> > {snip)
> > > I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
> > > endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
> > 
> > As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
> > questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
> > this profile in The New Yorker:
> > 
> > http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Carol]

Thanks for sharing that Judy. Interesting article. I have never watched Oz's 
show or really read much at all by or about him. Interesting that the one 
surgeon that knows Oz (I think it was a surgeon) would not recommend someone 
going to Oz for surgery.

I wonder where Dr. Oz & his wife will be 10 years from now?

***

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> (snip)
> > Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who
> > seems pretty savvy to me, stop being deluded about TMO.
> > This was in addition to saying that Dr. Oz is afraid to
> > disagree with Oprah. This latter statement especially
> > indicates to me that there's a deeper issue present. I've
> > got my issues too so I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But
> > I give less weight to what someone says if it seems to me
> > that there are other deeper issues present.
> 
> Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
> a racist.
> 
> {snip)
> > I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
> > endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
> 
> As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
> questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
> this profile in The New Yorker:
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Carol]

BTW...thanks for the kind words Ann. 

I miss some posts on here and sometimes catch up a bit later...and still will 
miss some posts.

Cheers!
:)
~carol

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Er, Steve, you seem to be getting a tad defensive here and it
> seems it
> > > is because you have this need to run to somehow divert what you
> perceive
> > > as some sort of attack aimed at Share. I think you should give Share
> > > some respect/credibility and the chance to reply and figure out her
> own
> > > dynamics with Carol here. By jumping in like this it makes you look
> like
> > > you don't think Share is capable of a one on one dialogue with
> someone
> > > exploring possibilities of a subject. You have a very hair trigger
> > > protective mechanism. Check it out, what are you afraid of?
> > >
> > >
> > > I do feel slighted that I was not breast fed, and that my mother
> > > probably smoked  during her entire pregnancy with me, and likely my
> > > three sisters.  That's what coming to mind right now.
> >
> > "Slighted"? Oh, you mean because your mother didn't "protect" you in
> the womb you are more likely to "protect" others now?! Did you feel like
> you craved a Marlborough when you emerged?
> That would have been a Kent and vodka martini.
> > >
> > > As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am just
> > > voicing it.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light
> in
> > > a previous post.  Maybe I am wrong about it
> >
> > I think you have an innate protective tendency towards those you feel
> might be being singled out and challenged. Okay, I do get riled up when
> I see something akin to bullying***  Not that we are seeing bullying
> here, but as a tendency on my part, yes I acknowledge that.
> *** 1970's definition in force here.Not a terrible character flaw but in
> this case a grown woman like Share can probably handle whatever Carol is
> likely to bring up in conversation.Uh, really has nothing to do with
> Share fighting her own battles.  She doesn't need my help in that
> regard.  I thought Share brought up a salient point that Carol chose not
> to include in here reasons why the eminent Dr. Oz would choose to
> embrace TM.
>   I hardly see Carol as some malevolent, unreasonable poster here. Nor do
> I.  But as I said, I thought she chose to selectively consider
> possibilities, choosing not include  perhaps the most reasonable
> explanation.  As these things go, I would call it a small infraction, 
> but I chose to comment on it anyway.  And I accept that people might
> feel I am full of sh*t about it.
> Share will probably say otherwise, but I think you should have a little
> more confidence in her ability to respond/deal with interactions here,
> especially with someone as reasonable as Carol.
> You will have to take that up with Share.  I think she weighs the
> cost/reward ratio of who she interacts with.
> Personally, I greatly enjoy your contributions here.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Carol]

Share stated: "My main point is that our issues can often cloud our current 
moment thinking and it's helpful to be aware of that.  "

I agree.

Thinking back, this discourse got started with me when I brought upthe subject 
of that because Oz endorses TM that must mean that TM is a good thing (when 
other equally intelligent people have other opinions) with the comparison of 
Collins as a scientist endorsing Christianity as a good thing (when other 
equally intelligent people have other opinions). That was all. 

And my communication is probably not the greatest. I'm not an academic or a 
debater, and never will be. And I don't excel at clever comebacks and such. I 
find it draining...and moreso after having carpal tunnel surgery on February 
18. Typing is still a bit laborious.

Yes..that bug is beautiful. :)

***

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Hi Carol, that has got to be the most beautiful bug I have ever seen!  
> Thanks so much for including him (-:
> My main point is that our issues can often cloud our current moment thinking 
> and it's helpful to be aware of that.  Especially if we're wanting to 
> communicate convincingly to others, which Michael has said is his goal.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Carol 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:57 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
>  
> 
>   
> Does Dr. Oz endorse TM specifically or does he endorse meditation in general? 
> 
> I have never watched Dr. Oz's show, but the other week I chanced upon him as 
> I was channel surfing. He stated something to the effect that if anyone ever 
> says he endorses a product, to please not believe that he endorses that said 
> product. (The context was in regard to weight loss.) He stated he makes a 
> point to not endorse products even though various products will claim he 
> endorses them. 
> 
> So...I'm just wondering if he really does endorse TM, or rather does he 
> endorse meditation (in any form) in general and that his choice of meditation 
> (at this point in his life) is TM?
> 
> Share stated, "[...] can all these smart and creative people be so deluded 
> about the efficacy of TM? [...]"
> 
> Apparently, TM works for them. That isn't a delusion; it is their reality. 
> That said, they may be deluded (fooled or ignorant) or choose to be 
> complacent regarding the TMO and its colored history; or maybe that just 
> don't have the energy/time to learn about it. 
> 
> Smart and creative people tout other practices/beliefs/products too. I don't 
> think they are deluded, but rather that they like said product/practice. That 
> doesn't mean I or the next person will like said product/practice. I may even 
> have a horrible experience with the said product/practice. Hopefully I am 
> somewhat smart and creative. 
> 
> I am suspicious when anyone pushes anything as the one true technique to 
> bring peace and resolution and absolute health to humanity. I'm not saying 
> any celebrities push TM as such; I don't keep up with that sort of 
> information. 
> 
> As far as Micheal and any of his issues, I think he is the authority on that 
> and he can decide to share or not to share. I have no desire to scrutinize 
> his (or anyone's) issues publicly or even privately. (I'm not saying you want 
> to do that either.)I have enough on my issue plate already.
> 
> Thanks for the response!
> 
> Gekkos are cool. 
> 
> And so is this beetle dude/dudette...Chrysolina cerealis
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=477780895608805&set=a.260816317305265.74666.187139094672988&type=1
> *
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carol, my Mom loves the gekko too.  Of course the fact that Dr. Oz 
> > practices TM doesn't negate MJ's bad experiences with it.  Just as Fr 
> > Keating's Batgap interview does not negate my somewhat bad experiences with 
> > the Catholic Church.  But again, I'm not continuing to speak against 
> > Catholicism, etc.  Whereas Michael does continue to speak against TM, 
> > etc. and seems to have quite a charge when he does so.  From my own 
> > experience with charges, I'd say there's a deeper issue going on that just 
> > what appears on the surface.  
> > 
> > Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who seems pretty 
> > savvy to me, stop being deluded about TMO.  This was in addition to 
> > saying that Dr. Oz is afraid to disagree with Oprah.  This latter 
> > statement 

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Carol]

Steve stated: "As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am 
just voicing it.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light in a 
previous post.  Maybe I am wrong about it."

I'll have to ponder it...regarding having a selective bias. I possibly  
(probably?) do have selective biases. But I think all humans have those; it's a 
matter of determining which ones they helpful or not helpful in any given 
circumstance.

Thanks again...



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> 
> > Er, Steve, you seem to be getting a tad defensive here and it seems it
> is because you have this need to run to somehow divert what you perceive
> as some sort of attack aimed at Share. I think you should give Share
> some respect/credibility and the chance to reply and figure out her own
> dynamics with Carol here. By jumping in like this it makes you look like
> you don't think Share is capable of a one on one dialogue with someone
> exploring possibilities of a subject. You have a very hair trigger
> protective mechanism. Check it out, what are you afraid of?
> 
> 
> I do feel slighted that I was not breast fed, and that my mother
> probably smoked  during her entire pregnancy with me, and likely my
> three sisters.  That's what coming to mind right now.
> 
> 
> As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am just
> voicing it.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light in
> a previous post.  Maybe I am wrong about it
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> I have to admit it is weird when I'm absent from FFL for some time and return 
> to find a discussion about me going on.

You were only 'gone' for 14 hours. Your last post was yesterday at 
approximately 5pm West Coast time. I was thinking of you when writing the post 
but I was more interested in Steve's tendency to defend and protect. He is 
rather gallant that way.

  Anyway, thank you to both Ann and Steve.  I find Carol very reasonable and 
also thought she missed a crucial point of mine.  Which seems like a long time 
ago and I can't even remember what it was (-:
> 
> Also want to say that when turq has been going at me the way he has been the 
> last few days, I appreciate all the support that's offered by others.  Then 
> when Steve comes along in his masculine and gentle way, it reminds me that 
> it's ok to be feminine.  That means a lot to me.

"Masculine and gentle" are okay in my book too. 
> 
> BUT...I also really liked when Steve took up for turq.  Because his buddies 
> generally take up for turq on the intellectual level, which is fine and 
> good.  But Steve took up for turq on an emotional level.  And I still 
> believe that those with the toughest shells are also those with the softest 
> insides.

I think we're all soft on the inside.

  Honestly folks, the turq lives with 3 other adults and a child!  Could he 
do so and be the curmudgeon he often appears to be here?!

2D vs 3D life. No difference in my evaluation. The angels see everything we do, 
no matter where we are!
    
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: seventhray27 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:23 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
>  
> 
>   
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Er, Steve, you seem to be getting a tad defensive here and it seems it
> > > is because you have this need to run to somehow divert what you perceive
> > > as some sort of attack aimed at Share. I think you should give Share
> > > some respect/credibility and the chance to reply and figure out her own
> > > dynamics with Carol here. By jumping in like this it makes you look like
> > > you don't think Share is capable of a one on one dialogue with someone
> > > exploring possibilities of a subject. You have a very hair trigger
> > > protective mechanism. Check it out, what are you afraid of?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I do feel slighted that I was not breast fed, and that my mother
> > > probably smoked  during her entire pregnancy with me, and likely my
> > > three sisters.  That's what coming to mind right now.
> > 
> > "Slighted"? Oh, you mean because your mother didn't "protect" you in the 
> > womb you are more likely to "protect" others now?! Did you feel like you 
> > craved a Marlborough when you emerged?
> That would have been a Kent and vodka martini.
> > > 
> > > As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am just
> > > voicing it.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light in
> > > a previous post.  Maybe I am wrong about it
> > 
> > I think you have an innate protective tendency towards those you feel might 
> > be being singled out and challenged. 
> Okay, I do get riled up when I see something akin to bullying***  Not that 
> we are seeing bullying here, but as a tendency on my part, yes I acknowledge 
> that.
> 
> *** 1970's definition in force here.Not a terrible character flaw but in this 
> case a grown woman like Share can probably handle whatever Carol is likely to 
> bring up in conversation.
> Uh, really has nothing to do with Share fighting her own battles.  She 
> doesn't need my help in that regard.  I thought Share brought up a salient 
> point that Carol chose not to include in here reasons why the eminent Dr. 
> Oz would choose to embrace TM.
> 
>  I hardly see Carol as some malevolent, unreasonable poster here. 
> Nor do I.  But as I said, I thought she chose to selectively consider 
> possibilities, choosing not include  perhaps the most reasonable 
> explanation.  As these things go, I would call it a small infraction,  but 
> I chose to comment on it anyway.  And I accept that people might feel I am 
> full of sh*t about it.
> 
> Share will probably say otherwise, but I think you should have a little more 
> confidence in her ability to respond/deal with interactions here, especially 
> with someone as reasonable as Carol.
> You will have to take that up with Share.  I think she weighs the 
> cost/reward ratio of who she interacts with.  
> 
> Personally, I greatly enjoy your contributions here.  
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Judy

[Share Long]

But I think at least once before, and maybe twice, MJ said that Dr. Oz didn't 
want to or was afraid to disagree with Oprah.  As for issues or traumas, I 
saying that if someone can't move on from some circumstance or event in their 
past, it means the trauma is still present in them and that will affect their 
communications.  It's not meant as a put down.  It's meant as an honest 
response to someone, trying to explain why I  might take what they say with a 
grain of salt.  

It's something I'm trying to learn too.  How to work around my issues and 
communicate in an effective way.  I didn't intend to upset Michael.  I think 
turq is the only person I consciously try to bother.  Mainly by bringing up 
jyotish on a regular basis.    





 From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:13 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Judy
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Hey Judy, thanks for the article on Dr. Oz. Totally
fascinating. So much ambition for so much of his life. Ooo, I
would LOVE to see his jyotish chart. I would guess Sun either
in Aries or Leo. Very strong Sun. Big ego. It's always
fascinating to see ambition and idealism combined in one
person. It's like a balancing act. Which aspect will win on
any given day? He is definitely on a mission to help people.

Most importantly to help Dr. Oz.

> When I was talking about issues with reference to MJ, race
> was farthest from my mind. I tend to be very psychological
> in my outlook and those were the kind of issues I was
> referring to. Traumas from childhood, etc.

Traumas from childhood. Hmm. Michael said Oz was afraid to
go against Oprah because Michael had a childhood trauma?
What could that have been, do you think, and how would
that have led him to such a conclusion? I mean, the point
he actually made--that Oz owes Oprah for having given him
his own show--seemed entirely reasonable on its own terms.

Have you ever asked yourself whether it might be a good
idea not to suggest that someone you're disagreeing with
has "deeper issues" without specifying what you thought
the "deeper issues" were?

If you ever did, I can see why you'd have decided against
it. After all, "deeper issues" implies that the person is
fucked up in some way, and if you leave it at that, you
don't have to risk being wrong by proposing anything
specific. You don't even have to have anything specific
in mind; it's just an all-purpose putdown.

But you *do* run the risk of folks thinking you were
implying something really nasty, like, in this case, 
an accusation of racism.

All things considered, I'd advise being straightforward
and specific rather than vague and insinuating. It avoids
misunderstandings and bad feelings.

You didn't intend to create bad feelings, now, did you?

> ____
>  From: authfriend 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:40 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> (snip)
> > Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who
> > seems pretty savvy to me, stop being deluded about TMO.
> > This was in addition to saying that Dr. Oz is afraid to
> > disagree with Oprah. This latter statement especially
> > indicates to me that there's a deeper issue present. I've
> > got my issues too so I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But
> > I give less weight to what someone says if it seems to me
> > that there are other deeper issues present.
> 
> Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
> a racist.
> 
> {snip)
> > I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
> > endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
> 
> As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
> questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
> this profile in The New Yorker:
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Share Long]

Hi Carol, that has got to be the most beautiful bug I have ever seen!  Thanks 
so much for including him (-:
My main point is that our issues can often cloud our current moment thinking 
and it's helpful to be aware of that.  Especially if we're wanting to 
communicate convincingly to others, which Michael has said is his goal.  






 From: Carol 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:57 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
 

  
Does Dr. Oz endorse TM specifically or does he endorse meditation in general? 

I have never watched Dr. Oz's show, but the other week I chanced upon him as I 
was channel surfing. He stated something to the effect that if anyone ever says 
he endorses a product, to please not believe that he endorses that said 
product. (The context was in regard to weight loss.) He stated he makes a point 
to not endorse products even though various products will claim he endorses 
them. 

So...I'm just wondering if he really does endorse TM, or rather does he endorse 
meditation (in any form) in general and that his choice of meditation (at this 
point in his life) is TM?

Share stated, "[...] can all these smart and creative people be so deluded 
about the efficacy of TM? [...]"

Apparently, TM works for them. That isn't a delusion; it is their reality. That 
said, they may be deluded (fooled or ignorant) or choose to be complacent 
regarding the TMO and its colored history; or maybe that just don't have the 
energy/time to learn about it. 

Smart and creative people tout other practices/beliefs/products too. I don't 
think they are deluded, but rather that they like said product/practice. That 
doesn't mean I or the next person will like said product/practice. I may even 
have a horrible experience with the said product/practice. Hopefully I am 
somewhat smart and creative. 

I am suspicious when anyone pushes anything as the one true technique to bring 
peace and resolution and absolute health to humanity. I'm not saying any 
celebrities push TM as such; I don't keep up with that sort of information. 

As far as Micheal and any of his issues, I think he is the authority on that 
and he can decide to share or not to share. I have no desire to scrutinize his 
(or anyone's) issues publicly or even privately. (I'm not saying you want to do 
that either.)I have enough on my issue plate already.

Thanks for the response!

Gekkos are cool. 

And so is this beetle dude/dudette...Chrysolina cerealis
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=477780895608805&set=a.260816317305265.74666.187139094672988&type=1
*

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Hi Carol, my Mom loves the gekko too.  Of course the fact that Dr. Oz 
> practices TM doesn't negate MJ's bad experiences with it.  Just as Fr 
> Keating's Batgap interview does not negate my somewhat bad experiences with 
> the Catholic Church.  But again, I'm not continuing to speak against 
> Catholicism, etc.  Whereas Michael does continue to speak against TM, etc. 
> and seems to have quite a charge when he does so.  From my own experience 
> with charges, I'd say there's a deeper issue going on that just what appears 
> on the surface.  
> 
> Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who seems pretty savvy 
> to me, stop being deluded about TMO.  This was in addition to saying that 
> Dr. Oz is afraid to disagree with Oprah.  This latter statement especially 
> indicates to me that there's a deeper issue present.  I've got my issues too 
> so I'm not saying it's a bad thing.  But I give less weight to what someone 
> says if it seems to me that there are other deeper issues present.  And I 
> realize when people are overly positive, that too can indicate a deeper issue 
> present.  If someone's energy feels off in either direction, then I take 
> their opinions with a bigger grain of salt.
> 
> So I have been asking:  can all these smart and creative people be so 
> deluded about the efficacy of TM?  Maybe they simply choose to use what's 
> useful about it and leave the rest.
> 
> 
> I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity, endorses TM only 
> because he was asked to do so.  If indeed that is how it happened.  Maybe 
> he approached them.  Maybe he had good experiences and liked what the 
> research said, etc. and decided he wanted to share something valuable with 
> others.  I think most people want to help others.  Then it's up to others 
> to figure out whose opinion can actually be helpful to them.
> Thanks for taking the time to reply.  
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Carol 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Share Long]

I thought Elephant Man was one of the most touching movies I've ever seen.  And 
The Straight Story was quirky, but in a midwestern, down home  kind of way.  I 
also liked it a lot.  I'm not familiar with Lynch's other works and am not 
drawn to explore.

Speaking as a former movie reviewer for the Fairfield Weekly Reader ha ha, I 
think a lot of movie critics get jaded by watching so many movies.  Maybe their 
neural pathways get overloaded so that only the most startling and hyper images 
even make a dent on their awareness. 

BTW, Bhairitu, I used vata
 pitta kapha to critique movies!  After I stopped, people came up to me and 
told me they missed my ayurvedic reviews (-:


It's not about what grabs our attention.  It's about what we choose to focus 
our attention on.

I admit I get a little thrill, as a previous high school English teacher, when 
I end a sentence with a preposition.  And then I remember Churchill's great 
quote about this rule:  Madam, this is the sort of nonsense up with which I 
will not put. 


 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:35 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> he became a "legend" because a lot of people like sick twisted stuff

I disagree. David Lynch became famous because of film
critics who believe that if they can't understand a movie,
it's actually good. 

This has been a problem with the film industry since the
beginning of movies, and contributed to the fleeting fame
of people like Jean Luc Godard (who was always merely
flashy, never brilliant).

Some people actually like David Lynch, and even I will
admit that he did a pretty good job with the real, four-
hour version of "Dune" and with "The Straight Story."
But IMO (and according to someone I used to know who
was his personal secretary) he's LAZY, and tends to 
fall back on being flashy and weird rather than being
actually creative, because he knows that among a certain
contingent of critics, that'll get him good reviews.

It's the same phenomenon in my opinion as those who fall
for flash (or occult "pushing it out") and think it's
charisma. Lacking discrimination, they just glom onto
whatever flashes them out and grabs their attention, and
then *retroactively* try to make up "reasons" why it
grabbed their attention. The reasons are never real;
they're excuses for having no discrimination.

As for why Nabby likes him, I thought MJ (or Sal, whoever
said it) got it right. If there were a person on the street
selling little dolls made out of dogshit and someone told
Nabby that the person was a TMer, he'd call them an "artist." :-)


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Share Long]

I have to admit it is weird when I'm absent from FFL for some time and return 
to find a discussion about me going on.  Anyway, thank you to both Ann and 
Steve.  I find Carol very reasonable and also thought she missed a crucial 
point of mine.  Which seems like a long time ago and I can't even remember what 
it was (-:

Also want to say that when turq has been going at me the way he has been the 
last few days, I appreciate all the support that's offered by others.  Then 
when Steve comes along in his masculine and gentle way, it reminds me that it's 
ok to be feminine.  That means a lot to me.

BUT...I also really liked when Steve took up for turq.  Because his buddies 
generally take up for turq on the intellectual level, which is fine and good.  
But Steve took up for turq on an emotional level.  And I still believe that 
those with the toughest shells are also those with the softest insides.  
Honestly folks, the turq lives with 3 other adults and a child!  Could he do so 
and be the curmudgeon he often appears to be here?!    





 From: seventhray27 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:23 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
 

  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > 
> > > Er, Steve, you seem to be getting a tad defensive here and it seems it
> > is because you have this need to run to somehow divert what you perceive
> > as some sort of attack aimed at Share. I think you should give Share
> > some respect/credibility and the chance to reply and figure out her own
> > dynamics with Carol here. By jumping in like this it makes you look like
> > you don't think Share is capable of a one on one dialogue with someone
> > exploring possibilities of a subject. You have a very hair trigger
> > protective mechanism. Check it out, what are you afraid of?
> > 
> > 
> > I do feel slighted that I was not breast fed, and that my mother
> > probably smoked  during her entire pregnancy with me, and likely my
> > three sisters.  That's what coming to mind right now.
> 
> "Slighted"? Oh, you mean because your mother didn't "protect" you in the womb 
> you are more likely to "protect" others now?! Did you feel like you craved a 
> Marlborough when you emerged?
That would have been a Kent and vodka martini.
> > 
> > As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am just
> > voicing it.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light in
> > a previous post.  Maybe I am wrong about it
> 
> I think you have an innate protective tendency towards those you feel might 
> be being singled out and challenged. 
Okay, I do get riled up when I see something akin to bullying***  Not that we 
are seeing bullying here, but as a tendency on my part, yes I acknowledge that.

*** 1970's definition in force here.Not a terrible character flaw but in this 
case a grown woman like Share can probably handle whatever Carol is likely to 
bring up in conversation.
Uh, really has nothing to do with Share fighting her own battles.  She doesn't 
need my help in that regard.  I thought Share brought up a salient point that 
Carol chose not to include in here reasons why the eminent Dr. Oz would choose 
to embrace TM.

 I hardly see Carol as some malevolent, unreasonable poster here. 
Nor do I.  But as I said, I thought she chose to selectively consider 
possibilities, choosing not include  perhaps the most reasonable explanation.  
As these things go, I would call it a small infraction,  but I chose to comment 
on it anyway.  And I accept that people might feel I am full of sh*t about it.

Share will probably say otherwise, but I think you should have a little more 
confidence in her ability to respond/deal with interactions here, especially 
with someone as reasonable as Carol.
You will have to take that up with Share.  I think she weighs the cost/reward 
ratio of who she interacts with.  

Personally, I greatly enjoy your contributions here.  
>

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> >
> > > Er, Steve, you seem to be getting a tad defensive here and it
seems it
> > is because you have this need to run to somehow divert what you
perceive
> > as some sort of attack aimed at Share. I think you should give Share
> > some respect/credibility and the chance to reply and figure out her
own
> > dynamics with Carol here. By jumping in like this it makes you look
like
> > you don't think Share is capable of a one on one dialogue with
someone
> > exploring possibilities of a subject. You have a very hair trigger
> > protective mechanism. Check it out, what are you afraid of?
> >
> >
> > I do feel slighted that I was not breast fed, and that my mother
> > probably smoked  during her entire pregnancy with me, and likely my
> > three sisters.  That's what coming to mind right now.
>
> "Slighted"? Oh, you mean because your mother didn't "protect" you in
the womb you are more likely to "protect" others now?! Did you feel like
you craved a Marlborough when you emerged?
That would have been a Kent and vodka martini.
> >
> > As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am just
> > voicing it.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light
in
> > a previous post.  Maybe I am wrong about it
>
> I think you have an innate protective tendency towards those you feel
might be being singled out and challenged. Okay, I do get riled up when
I see something akin to bullying***  Not that we are seeing bullying
here, but as a tendency on my part, yes I acknowledge that.
*** 1970's definition in force here.Not a terrible character flaw but in
this case a grown woman like Share can probably handle whatever Carol is
likely to bring up in conversation.Uh, really has nothing to do with
Share fighting her own battles.  She doesn't need my help in that
regard.  I thought Share brought up a salient point that Carol chose not
to include in here reasons why the eminent Dr. Oz would choose to
embrace TM.
  I hardly see Carol as some malevolent, unreasonable poster here. Nor do
I.  But as I said, I thought she chose to selectively consider
possibilities, choosing not include  perhaps the most reasonable
explanation.  As these things go, I would call it a small infraction, 
but I chose to comment on it anyway.  And I accept that people might
feel I am full of sh*t about it.
Share will probably say otherwise, but I think you should have a little
more confidence in her ability to respond/deal with interactions here,
especially with someone as reasonable as Carol.
You will have to take that up with Share.  I think she weighs the
cost/reward ratio of who she interacts with.
Personally, I greatly enjoy your contributions here.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> 
> > Er, Steve, you seem to be getting a tad defensive here and it seems it
> is because you have this need to run to somehow divert what you perceive
> as some sort of attack aimed at Share. I think you should give Share
> some respect/credibility and the chance to reply and figure out her own
> dynamics with Carol here. By jumping in like this it makes you look like
> you don't think Share is capable of a one on one dialogue with someone
> exploring possibilities of a subject. You have a very hair trigger
> protective mechanism. Check it out, what are you afraid of?
> 
> 
> I do feel slighted that I was not breast fed, and that my mother
> probably smoked  during her entire pregnancy with me, and likely my
> three sisters.  That's what coming to mind right now.

"Slighted"? Oh, you mean because your mother didn't "protect" you in the womb 
you are more likely to "protect" others now?! Did you feel like you craved a 
Marlborough when you emerged?
> 
> 
> As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am just
> voicing it.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light in
> a previous post.  Maybe I am wrong about it

I think you have an innate protective tendency towards those you feel might be 
being singled out and challenged. Not a terrible character flaw but in this 
case a grown woman like Share can probably handle whatever Carol is likely to 
bring up in conversation. I hardly see Carol as some malevolent, unreasonable 
poster here. Share will probably say otherwise, but I think you should have a 
little more confidence in her ability to respond/deal with interactions here, 
especially with someone as reasonable as Carol.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Judy

[seventhray27]

Issues are what we all have.  Our past, present, and future relationship
with the TMO is the main fare here.  When people talk about "issues" in
a general sense I, (and I think  most others) know what is being
referred to.

Verdict: Scolding nullified.  Repeat first down.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:

> Have you ever asked yourself whether it might be a good
> idea not to suggest that someone you're disagreeing with
> has "deeper issues" without specifying what you thought
> the "deeper issues" were?
>
> If you ever did, I can see why you'd have decided against
> it. After all, "deeper issues" implies that the person is
> fucked up in some way, and if you leave it at that, you
> don't have to risk being wrong by proposing anything
> specific. You don't even have to have anything specific
> in mind; it's just an all-purpose putdown.
>
> But you *do* run the risk of folks thinking you were
> implying something really nasty, like, in this case,
> an accusation of racism.
>
> All things considered, I'd advise being straightforward
> and specific rather than vague and insinuating. It avoids
> misunderstandings and bad feelings.
>
> You didn't intend to create bad feelings, now, did you?
>
>
>
>
>
> > ________________
> > From: authfriend authfriend@
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:40 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who
> > > seems pretty savvy to me, stop being deluded about TMO.
> > > This was in addition to saying that Dr. Oz is afraid to
> > > disagree with Oprah. This latter statement especially
> > > indicates to me that there's a deeper issue present. I've
> > > got my issues too so I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But
> > > I give less weight to what someone says if it seems to me
> > > that there are other deeper issues present.
> >
> > Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
> > a racist.
> >
> > {snip)
> > > I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
> > > endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
> >
> > As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
> > questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
> > this profile in The New Yorker:
> >
> > http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:

> Er, Steve, you seem to be getting a tad defensive here and it seems it
is because you have this need to run to somehow divert what you perceive
as some sort of attack aimed at Share. I think you should give Share
some respect/credibility and the chance to reply and figure out her own
dynamics with Carol here. By jumping in like this it makes you look like
you don't think Share is capable of a one on one dialogue with someone
exploring possibilities of a subject. You have a very hair trigger
protective mechanism. Check it out, what are you afraid of?


I do feel slighted that I was not breast fed, and that my mother
probably smoked  during her entire pregnancy with me, and likely my
three sisters.  That's what coming to mind right now.


As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am just
voicing it.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light in
a previous post.  Maybe I am wrong about it

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
> Not only do you have no clue as to whether Carol has any
> "preconceived notions," let alone what they might be if
> she does, but your attempted scolding of her here makes
> no sense whatsoever, either with regard to what Share
> said or with regard to what Carol said. The two of them
> aren't disagreeing, yet you have stupidly leaped to
> defend Share as if you thought Carol was attacking her.
>
The Oracle Speaketh!  The Grand Parser departs from the parsing when it
suits her.  Her petty vendettas will always take precedence.

In a different setting she could and would make the exact opposite case.

Loosen up that petticoat!

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[seventhray27]

s with the Catholic Church. But again, I'm not
continuing
> > to speak against Catholicism, etc. Whereas Michael does continue
to
> > speak against TM, etc. and seems to have quite a charge when he does
> > so. From my own experience with charges, I'd say there's a
deeper
> > issue going on that just what appears on the surface.Â
> > > >
> > > > Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who seems
> > pretty savvy to me, stop being deluded about TMO. This was in
> > addition to saying that Dr. Oz is afraid to disagree with Oprah.Â
> > This latter statement especially indicates to me that there's a
deeper
> > issue present. I've got my issues too so I'm not saying it's a
bad
> > thing. But I give less weight to what someone says if it seems
to
> > me that there are other deeper issues present. And I realize
when
> > people are overly positive, that too can indicate a deeper issue
> > present. If someone's energy feels off in either direction, then
I
> > take their opinions with a bigger grain of salt.
> > > >
> > > > So I have been asking:Â can all these smart and creative
people
> > be so deluded about the efficacy of TM? Maybe they simply choose
to
> > use what's useful about it and leave the rest.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity, endorses
TM
> > only because he was asked to do so. If indeed that is how it
> > happened. Maybe he approached them. Maybe he had good
> > experiences and liked what the research said, etc. and decided he
wanted
> > to share something valuable with others. I think most people
want
> > to help others. Then it's up to others to figure out whose
opinion
> > can actually be helpful to them.
> > > > Thanks for taking the time to reply.Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > From: Carol jchwelch@
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael and
> > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Share stated:
> > > > "Hi Carol, the crucial difference is that I don't continually
have
> > or express negative opinions about Christianity, Christian churches
or
> > Jesus Christ. So there is nothing for me to reconcile. I can easily
> > believe that a smart, successful and healthy person might practice
> > Christianity."
> > > >
> > > > Good point.
> > > >
> > > > I'm around some folks who regularly do criticize Christianity
and
> > belief in God(s). For me that's where the comparison comes in
between
> > Collins and Christianity with Dr. Oz and TM. Sorry I wasn't clear
about
> > that. :)
> > > >
> > > > What is there to reconcile with Oz and TM? I don't get what
needs to
> > be reconciled.
> > > >
> > > > Just because Dr. Oz (or anyone else) likes and practices TM and
> > touts its benefits doesn't negate another person's bad or toxic
> > experiences with TM or the TMO.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, any business/corporation likes to have well known
folks
> > endorse them. Sells more product, practice, whatever the goods are.
Dr.
> > Oz's endorsement of TM and the TMO (if he does endorse them) is good
PR
> > for the TMO.
> > > >
> > > > The gekko endorses Geiko. And then there's Flo for Progressive.
But
> > I'm still with Nationwide; I like my agent and the service.
> > > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your reply Michael. Just a couple of points:
> > > > > I don't know that Dr. Oz is unwilling to disagree with
> > Oprah. Do you know that for a fact? He seems pretty
> > independent to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know enough about mantras to comment on that.ÂÂ
And
> > I don't think TM is superior because anyone said so. I think
it
> > is unique in the effortlessness of it process. My own logic
> > tells me that this effortlessness is what makes it the best
meditation
> > technique that I know of. I am happy with it so don't feel
> > compelled to look for another.
> > > > >
> > > >

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Ann]

 opinions with a bigger grain of salt.
> > >
> > > So I have been asking:Â  can all these smart and creative people
> be so deluded about the efficacy of TM?  Maybe they simply choose to
> use what's useful about it and leave the rest.
> > >
> > >
> > > I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity, endorses TM
> only because he was asked to do so.  If indeed that is how it
> happened.  Maybe he approached them.  Maybe he had good
> experiences and liked what the research said, etc. and decided he wanted
> to share something valuable with others.  I think most people want
> to help others.  Then it's up to others to figure out whose opinion
> can actually be helpful to them.
> > > Thanks for taking the time to reply.Â
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > From: Carol jchwelch@
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael and
> Carol
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Share stated:
> > > "Hi Carol, the crucial difference is that I don't continually have
> or express negative opinions about Christianity, Christian churches or
> Jesus Christ. So there is nothing for me to reconcile. I can easily
> believe that a smart, successful and healthy person might practice
> Christianity."
> > >
> > > Good point.
> > >
> > > I'm around some folks who regularly do criticize Christianity and
> belief in God(s). For me that's where the comparison comes in between
> Collins and Christianity with Dr. Oz and TM. Sorry I wasn't clear about
> that. :)
> > >
> > > What is there to reconcile with Oz and TM? I don't get what needs to
> be reconciled.
> > >
> > > Just because Dr. Oz (or anyone else) likes and practices TM and
> touts its benefits doesn't negate another person's bad or toxic
> experiences with TM or the TMO.
> > >
> > > Of course, any business/corporation likes to have well known folks
> endorse them. Sells more product, practice, whatever the goods are. Dr.
> Oz's endorsement of TM and the TMO (if he does endorse them) is good PR
> for the TMO.
> > >
> > > The gekko endorses Geiko. And then there's Flo for Progressive. But
> I'm still with Nationwide; I like my agent and the service.
> > >
> > > **
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your reply Michael.  Just a couple of points:
> > > > I don't know that Dr. Oz is unwilling to disagree with
> Oprah.  Do you know that for a fact?  He seems pretty
> independent to me.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know enough about mantras to comment on that.  And
> I don't think TM is superior because anyone said so.  I think it
> is unique in the effortlessness of it process.  My own logic
> tells me that this effortlessness is what makes it the best meditation
> technique that I know of.  I am happy with it so don't feel
> compelled to look for another.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Carol, the crucial difference is that I don't continually have
> or express negative opinions about Christianity, Christian churches or
> Jesus Christ.  So there is nothing for me to reconcile.  I
> can easily believe that a smart, successful and healthy person might
> practice Christianity.ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > From: Michael Jackson
> > > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:55 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > Let's see - there are a whole bunch of people who practice and
> tout TM who could variously be characterized as Bliss Ninny's and other
> such names, I should start TM again because he agrees with them?
> > > >
> > > > Should I take his word for it when he agrees with, hmmm let's see,
> the German Purusha guys I have read about here on FFL who wear swastikas
> under their ties and party when it is Hitler's birthday?
> > > >
> > > > Or should I continue to
> > > > chart my own course? The bottom line answer to your question is
> six fold, Shary.
> > > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Judy

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Hey Judy, thanks for the article on Dr. Oz. Totally
fascinating. So much ambition for so much of his life. Ooo, I
would LOVE to see his jyotish chart. I would guess Sun either
in Aries or Leo. Very strong Sun. Big ego. It's always
fascinating to see ambition and idealism combined in one
person. It's like a balancing act. Which aspect will win on
any given day? He is definitely on a mission to help people.

Most importantly to help Dr. Oz.

> When I was talking about issues with reference to MJ, race
> was farthest from my mind. I tend to be very psychological
> in my outlook and those were the kind of issues I was
> referring to. Traumas from childhood, etc.

Traumas from childhood. Hmm. Michael said Oz was afraid to
go against Oprah because Michael had a childhood trauma?
What could that have been, do you think, and how would
that have led him to such a conclusion? I mean, the point
he actually made--that Oz owes Oprah for having given him
his own show--seemed entirely reasonable on its own terms.

Have you ever asked yourself whether it might be a good
idea not to suggest that someone you're disagreeing with
has "deeper issues" without specifying what you thought
the "deeper issues" were?

If you ever did, I can see why you'd have decided against
it. After all, "deeper issues" implies that the person is
fucked up in some way, and if you leave it at that, you
don't have to risk being wrong by proposing anything
specific. You don't even have to have anything specific
in mind; it's just an all-purpose putdown.

But you *do* run the risk of folks thinking you were
implying something really nasty, like, in this case, 
an accusation of racism.

All things considered, I'd advise being straightforward
and specific rather than vague and insinuating. It avoids
misunderstandings and bad feelings.

You didn't intend to create bad feelings, now, did you?





> 
>  From: authfriend 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:40 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
>  
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> (snip)
> > Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who
> > seems pretty savvy to me, stop being deluded about TMO.
> > This was in addition to saying that Dr. Oz is afraid to
> > disagree with Oprah. This latter statement especially
> > indicates to me that there's a deeper issue present. I've
> > got my issues too so I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But
> > I give less weight to what someone says if it seems to me
> > that there are other deeper issues present.
> 
> Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
> a racist.
> 
> {snip)
> > I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
> > endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
> 
> As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
> questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
> this profile in The New Yorker:
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Judy

[Share Long]

Hey Judy, thanks for the article on Dr. Oz.  Totally fascinating.  So much 
ambition for so much of his life.  Ooo, I would LOVE to see his jyotish chart.  
I would guess Sun either in Aries or Leo.  Very strong Sun.  Big ego.  It's 
always fascinating to see ambition and idealism combined in one person.  It's 
like a balancing act.  Which aspect will win on any given day?  He is 
definitely on a mission to help people.


When I was talking about issues with reference to MJ, race was farthest from my 
mind.  I tend to be very psychological in my outlook and those were the kind of 
issues I was referring to.  Traumas from childhood, etc.




 From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:40 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
(snip)
> Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who
> seems pretty savvy to me, stop being deluded about TMO.
> This was in addition to saying that Dr. Oz is afraid to
> disagree with Oprah. This latter statement especially
> indicates to me that there's a deeper issue present. I've
> got my issues too so I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But
> I give less weight to what someone says if it seems to me
> that there are other deeper issues present.

Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
a racist.

{snip)
> I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
> endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.

As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
this profile in The New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol"  wrote:

> > Share stated, "[...] can all these smart and creative people
> > be so deluded about the efficacy of TM? [...]"
> >
> > Apparently, TM works for them. That isn't a delusion; it is
> > their reality. That said, they may be deluded (fooled or 
> > ignorant) or choose to be complacent regarding the TMO and
> > its colored history; or maybe that just don't have the 
> > energy/time to learn about it.
> 
> I guess you conveniently forgot the point that Share made,
> that perhaps they embrace the positive aspects of the
> technique, and feel that those positive aspects outweigh
> the negative parts of the organization.  Sorry if that
> skews your preconceived notions.

Not only do you have no clue as to whether Carol has any
"preconceived notions," let alone what they might be if
she does, but your attempted scolding of her here makes
no sense whatsoever, either with regard to what Share
said or with regard to what Carol said. The two of them
aren't disagreeing, yet you have stupidly leaped to
defend Share as if you thought Carol was attacking her.

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Carol]

 present.  And I realize when
> people are overly positive, that too can indicate a deeper issue
> present.  If someone's energy feels off in either direction, then I
> take their opinions with a bigger grain of salt.
> > >
> > > So I have been asking:Â  can all these smart and creative people
> be so deluded about the efficacy of TM?  Maybe they simply choose to
> use what's useful about it and leave the rest.
> > >
> > >
> > > I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity, endorses TM
> only because he was asked to do so.  If indeed that is how it
> happened.  Maybe he approached them.  Maybe he had good
> experiences and liked what the research said, etc. and decided he wanted
> to share something valuable with others.  I think most people want
> to help others.  Then it's up to others to figure out whose opinion
> can actually be helpful to them.
> > > Thanks for taking the time to reply.Â
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > From: Carol jchwelch@
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael and
> Carol
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Share stated:
> > > "Hi Carol, the crucial difference is that I don't continually have
> or express negative opinions about Christianity, Christian churches or
> Jesus Christ. So there is nothing for me to reconcile. I can easily
> believe that a smart, successful and healthy person might practice
> Christianity."
> > >
> > > Good point.
> > >
> > > I'm around some folks who regularly do criticize Christianity and
> belief in God(s). For me that's where the comparison comes in between
> Collins and Christianity with Dr. Oz and TM. Sorry I wasn't clear about
> that. :)
> > >
> > > What is there to reconcile with Oz and TM? I don't get what needs to
> be reconciled.
> > >
> > > Just because Dr. Oz (or anyone else) likes and practices TM and
> touts its benefits doesn't negate another person's bad or toxic
> experiences with TM or the TMO.
> > >
> > > Of course, any business/corporation likes to have well known folks
> endorse them. Sells more product, practice, whatever the goods are. Dr.
> Oz's endorsement of TM and the TMO (if he does endorse them) is good PR
> for the TMO.
> > >
> > > The gekko endorses Geiko. And then there's Flo for Progressive. But
> I'm still with Nationwide; I like my agent and the service.
> > >
> > > **
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your reply Michael.  Just a couple of points:
> > > > I don't know that Dr. Oz is unwilling to disagree with
> Oprah.  Do you know that for a fact?  He seems pretty
> independent to me.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know enough about mantras to comment on that.  And
> I don't think TM is superior because anyone said so.  I think it
> is unique in the effortlessness of it process.  My own logic
> tells me that this effortlessness is what makes it the best meditation
> technique that I know of.  I am happy with it so don't feel
> compelled to look for another.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Carol, the crucial difference is that I don't continually have
> or express negative opinions about Christianity, Christian churches or
> Jesus Christ.  So there is nothing for me to reconcile.  I
> can easily believe that a smart, successful and healthy person might
> practice Christianity.ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > From: Michael Jackson
> > > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:55 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > Let's see - there are a whole bunch of people who practice and
> tout TM who could variously be characterized as Bliss Ninny's and other
> such names, I should start TM again because he agrees with them?
> > > >
> > > > Should I take his word for it when he agrees with, hmmm let's see,
> the German Purusha guys I have read about here on FFL who wear swastikas
> under their ties and party when it is Hitler's birthda

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who
> > > seems pretty savvy to me, stop being deluded about TMO.
> > > This was in addition to saying that Dr. Oz is afraid to
> > > disagree with Oprah. This latter statement especially
> > > indicates to me that there's a deeper issue present. I've
> > > got my issues too so I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But
> > > I give less weight to what someone says if it seems to me
> > > that there are other deeper issues present.
> >
> > Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
> > a racist.
> 
> Hooboy.  I think I hear a stretching sound.snap!

Better fix it before your pants fall down.



> > {snip)
> > > I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
> > > endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
> >
> > As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
> > questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
> > this profile in The New Yorker:
> >
> > http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> (snip)
> > Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who
> > seems pretty savvy to me, stop being deluded about TMO.
> > This was in addition to saying that Dr. Oz is afraid to
> > disagree with Oprah. This latter statement especially
> > indicates to me that there's a deeper issue present. I've
> > got my issues too so I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But
> > I give less weight to what someone says if it seems to me
> > that there are other deeper issues present.
>
> Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
> a racist.

Hooboy.  I think I hear a stretching sound.snap!


>
> {snip)
> > I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
> > endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.
>
> As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
> questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
> this profile in The New Yorker:
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol"  wrote:
>
> Does Dr. Oz endorse TM specifically or does he endorse meditation in
general?
>
> I have never watched Dr. Oz's show, but the other week I chanced upon
him as I was channel surfing. He stated something to the effect that if
anyone ever says he endorses a product, to please not believe that he
endorses that said product. (The context was in regard to weight loss.)
He stated he makes a point to not endorse products even though various
products will claim he endorses them.
>
> So...I'm just wondering if he really does endorse TM, or rather does
he endorse meditation (in any form) in general and that his choice of
meditation (at this point in his life) is TM?
>
> Share stated, "[...] can all these smart and creative people be so
deluded about the efficacy of TM? [...]"
>
> Apparently, TM works for them. That isn't a delusion; it is their
reality. That said, they may be deluded (fooled or ignorant) or choose
to be complacent regarding the TMO and its colored history; or maybe
that just don't have the energy/time to learn about it.


I guess you conveniently forgot the point that Share made, that perhaps
they embrace the positive aspects of the technique, and feel that those
positive aspects outweigh the negative parts of the organization.  Sorry
if that skews your preconceived notions.


> Smart and creative people tout other practices/beliefs/products too. I
don't think they are deluded, but rather that they like said
product/practice. That doesn't mean I or the next person will like said
product/practice. I may even have a horrible experience with the said
product/practice. Hopefully I am somewhat smart and creative.
>
> I am suspicious when anyone pushes anything as the one true technique
to bring peace and resolution and absolute health to humanity. I'm not
saying any celebrities push TM as such; I don't keep up with that sort
of information.
>
> As far as Micheal and any of his issues, I think he is the authority
on that and he can decide to share or not to share. I have no desire to
scrutinize his (or anyone's) issues publicly or even privately. (I'm not
saying you want to do that either.)I have enough on my issue plate
already.
>
> Thanks for the response!
>
> Gekkos are cool.
>
> And so is this beetle dude/dudette...Chrysolina cerealis
>
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=477780895608805&set=a.2608163173\
05265.74666.187139094672988&type=1
> *
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carol, my Mom loves the gekko too.  Of course the fact that
Dr. Oz practices TM doesn't negate MJ's bad experiences with it. 
Just as Fr Keating's Batgap interview does not negate my somewhat bad
experiences with the Catholic Church.  But again, I'm not continuing
to speak against Catholicism, etc.  Whereas Michael does continue to
speak against TM, etc. and seems to have quite a charge when he does
so.  From my own experience with charges, I'd say there's a deeper
issue going on that just what appears on the surface.Â
> >
> > Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who seems
pretty savvy to me, stop being deluded about TMO.  This was in
addition to saying that Dr. Oz is afraid to disagree with Oprah. 
This latter statement especially indicates to me that there's a deeper
issue present.  I've got my issues too so I'm not saying it's a bad
thing.  But I give less weight to what someone says if it seems to
me that there are other deeper issues present.  And I realize when
people are overly positive, that too can indicate a deeper issue
present.  If someone's energy feels off in either direction, then I
take their opinions with a bigger grain of salt.
> >
> > So I have been asking:Â  can all these smart and creative people
be so deluded about the efficacy of TM?  Maybe they simply choose to
use what's useful about it and leave the rest.
> >
> >
> > I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity, endorses TM
only because he was asked to do so.  If indeed that is how it
happened.  Maybe he approached them.  Maybe he had good
experiences and liked what the research said, etc. and decided he wanted
to share something valuable with others.  I think most people want
to help others.  Then it's up to others to figure out whose opinion
can actually be helpful to them.
> > Thanks for taking the time to reply.Â
> >
> >
> > 
> > From: Carol jchwelch@
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael and
Carol
> >
> >

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Carol]

Thanks Nab!

Dr. Oz obviously does specifically endorse.

***

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol"  wrote:
> >
> > Does Dr. Oz endorse TM specifically or does he endorse meditation in 
> > general? 
> > 
> > I have never watched Dr. Oz's show, but the other week I chanced upon him 
> > as I was channel surfing. He stated something to the effect that if anyone 
> > ever says he endorses a product, to please not believe that he endorses 
> > that said product. (The context was in regard to weight loss.) He stated he 
> > makes a point to not endorse products even though various products will 
> > claim he endorses them. 
> > 
> > So...I'm just wondering if he really does endorse TM, or rather does he 
> > endorse meditation (in any form) in general and that his choice of 
> > meditation (at this point in his life) is TM?
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Oz on why he uses and endorse Transcendental Meditation
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1M4GwIbKjM
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Richard J. Williams]

> Poor MJ. If the TMO decides to sue him for lies and 
> > slander he will loose his trailer.
> >
Michael Jackson:
> Let 'em come on!
> 
Just pay off the student loans fer chrissakes and maybe
they'll leave you alone. LoL!
 

> > > > > > And another batch--it's 61 now. I didn't count them up,
> > > > > > but it looks to me as though most of the new ones are
> > > > > > negative.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Tsk, the governors aren't pulling their weight. In the UK
> > > > > if someone gets an article published it goes out on the
> > > > > gov's email list so loads of positive comments can be put
> > > > > out before the cynics get find it.
> > > > 
> > > > It would be smarter, it seems to me, for the devotees to
> > > > comment *after* the cynics.
> > > 
> > > Wouldn't work in the Grauniad case as the first comments stay at 
> > > the top of the list.
> > 
> > Well, but then as you read the comments, your last
> > impression is of the positive ones rather than the
> > negative ones.
> > 
> > But if there are a lot of comments, you're right, because
> > folks would be unlikely to read all of them and might not
> > even *get* to the positive ones.
> > 
> > Maybe half the team should post right away, and the other
> > half after the cynics are done?
> > 
> > > Perhaps the NYT list will have some more
> > > positive remarks near the top by tomorrow?
> > 
> > How about Jack Forem? He just got added at the top.
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
(snip)
> Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who
> seems pretty savvy to me, stop being deluded about TMO.
> This was in addition to saying that Dr. Oz is afraid to
> disagree with Oprah. This latter statement especially
> indicates to me that there's a deeper issue present. I've
> got my issues too so I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But
> I give less weight to what someone says if it seems to me
> that there are other deeper issues present.

Hmmm, sounds like Share is insinuating that Michael is
a racist.

{snip)
> I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity,
> endorses TM only because he was asked to do so.

As I've already pointed out, there are some serious
questions about his integrity. Oz fans might want to read
this profile in The New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/04/130204fa_fact_specter

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol"  wrote:
>
> Does Dr. Oz endorse TM specifically or does he endorse meditation in general? 
> 
> I have never watched Dr. Oz's show, but the other week I chanced upon him as 
> I was channel surfing. He stated something to the effect that if anyone ever 
> says he endorses a product, to please not believe that he endorses that said 
> product. (The context was in regard to weight loss.) He stated he makes a 
> point to not endorse products even though various products will claim he 
> endorses them. 
> 
> So...I'm just wondering if he really does endorse TM, or rather does he 
> endorse meditation (in any form) in general and that his choice of meditation 
> (at this point in his life) is TM?



Dr. Oz on why he uses and endorse Transcendental Meditation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1M4GwIbKjM

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Carol]

Does Dr. Oz endorse TM specifically or does he endorse meditation in general? 

I have never watched Dr. Oz's show, but the other week I chanced upon him as I 
was channel surfing. He stated something to the effect that if anyone ever says 
he endorses a product, to please not believe that he endorses that said 
product. (The context was in regard to weight loss.) He stated he makes a point 
to not endorse products even though various products will claim he endorses 
them. 

So...I'm just wondering if he really does endorse TM, or rather does he endorse 
meditation (in any form) in general and that his choice of meditation (at this 
point in his life) is TM?

Share stated, "[...] can all these smart and creative people be so deluded 
about the efficacy of TM? [...]"

Apparently, TM works for them. That isn't a delusion; it is their reality. That 
said, they may be deluded (fooled or ignorant) or choose to be complacent 
regarding the TMO and its colored history; or maybe that just don't have the 
energy/time to learn about it. 

Smart and creative people tout other practices/beliefs/products too. I don't 
think they are deluded, but rather that they like said product/practice. That 
doesn't mean I or the next person will like said product/practice. I may even 
have a horrible experience with the said product/practice. Hopefully I am 
somewhat smart and creative. 

I am suspicious when anyone pushes anything as the one true technique to bring 
peace and resolution and absolute health to humanity. I'm not saying any 
celebrities push TM as such; I don't keep up with that sort of information. 

As far as Micheal and any of his issues, I think he is the authority on that 
and he can decide to share or not to share. I have no desire to scrutinize his 
(or anyone's) issues publicly or even privately. (I'm not saying you want to do 
that either.)I have enough on my issue plate already.

Thanks for the response!

Gekkos are cool. 

And so is this beetle dude/dudette...Chrysolina cerealis
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=477780895608805&set=a.260816317305265.74666.187139094672988&type=1
*


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Hi Carol, my Mom loves the gekko too.  Of course the fact that Dr. Oz 
> practices TM doesn't negate MJ's bad experiences with it.  Just as Fr 
> Keating's Batgap interview does not negate my somewhat bad experiences with 
> the Catholic Church.  But again, I'm not continuing to speak against 
> Catholicism, etc.  Whereas Michael does continue to speak against TM, etc. 
> and seems to have quite a charge when he does so.  From my own experience 
> with charges, I'd say there's a deeper issue going on that just what appears 
> on the surface.  
> 
> Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who seems pretty savvy 
> to me, stop being deluded about TMO.  This was in addition to saying that 
> Dr. Oz is afraid to disagree with Oprah.  This latter statement especially 
> indicates to me that there's a deeper issue present.  I've got my issues too 
> so I'm not saying it's a bad thing.  But I give less weight to what someone 
> says if it seems to me that there are other deeper issues present.  And I 
> realize when people are overly positive, that too can indicate a deeper issue 
> present.  If someone's energy feels off in either direction, then I take 
> their opinions with a bigger grain of salt.
> 
> So I have been asking:  can all these smart and creative people be so 
> deluded about the efficacy of TM?  Maybe they simply choose to use what's 
> useful about it and leave the rest.
> 
> 
> I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity, endorses TM only 
> because he was asked to do so.  If indeed that is how it happened.  Maybe 
> he approached them.  Maybe he had good experiences and liked what the 
> research said, etc. and decided he wanted to share something valuable with 
> others.  I think most people want to help others.  Then it's up to others 
> to figure out whose opinion can actually be helpful to them.
> Thanks for taking the time to reply.  
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Carol 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael and Carol
>  
> 
>   
> Share stated: 
> "Hi Carol, the crucial difference is that I don't continually have or express 
> negative opinions about Christianity, Christian churches or Jesus Christ.  So 
> there is nothing for me to reconcile.  I can easily believe that a smart, 
> successful and healthy person might practice Christianity."
> 
> Good point. 
> 
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Richard J. Williams]

emptybill:
> They know even less about the differences in basic 
> view between Zen, Tantra, Mahamudra and Dzogchen...
>
According to the Sage Patanjali, Raja Yoga has nothing to 
do with 'union with the gods', but has everything to do 
with 'isolation from prakriti'.

That is, the 'cessation of the fluctuations of the 
mindstuff'. 

To Patanjali, the Royal Yoga is the attainment of freedom, 
based on the sheer willpower of the individual. The Sage 
Kapila said that success in attaining freedom from 
suffering is found in individual willpower to knowledge; 
individual freedom is not the result of any source of 
power outside one's own body-mind. 

It is obvious, to even a casual seeker, that the term 
'god' and 'yoga' are contradictory. You can't have 
freewill and be under the power of another; that would 
be a contradiction in terms, would it not? We are either 
free or we are not; if free, then there is no need for 
yoga practice. If we are not free, then by what means 
are we to free ourselves? 

It's that simple - there is either other-power or 
self-power.

"Confusion arises from erroneously identifying words, 
objects, and ideas with one another; knowledge of the 
cries of all creatures comes through perfect discipline 
of the distinctions between them" (YS 3.17).

So, ask yourself 'who am I' and then look inside yourself 
for the answer, inside your own mind, and apply common 
sense and intelligence based on your own experience and 
reasoning. 

Now, having tested and known your Self by yourself, know 
such to be wise and true, not by mere speculation, 
hearsay or because you read it, overheard it or were 
told it, but because you, yourself, having known it, 
experienced it, and confirmed it, found it to be wise 
and true.

So, let's review:

The gods, if they exist, are subject to the same laws of 
karma as humans, and when their store of karma runs out 
they will experience rebirth just like you and I. 

According to the law of cause and effect, whatever goes 
up must come down - that is, human excrement always flows 
down stream - the second law of thermodynamics. 

The Shakya, Patanjali, Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, 
Nimbarka, Chaitanya, and Vallabah and Maharishi all agree 
on this. 

In contrast to the gods, a Yogin, that is, one who has 
attained Freedom and Immortality, has broken the chain 
that binds him or her to the law of karma: a Yogin is 
free, liberated, that is, he has attained 'Siddhi' and he 
is a fully realized master of his own Self. 

A Yogin is not bound by time, neither is he bound by the 
restrictions of caste or religious conventions. A Yogin, 
having mastered himself, by himself, does not see ritual 
acts as the saving grace, yet he acts, due to the 
propensities still functioning within his mortal coil. 

A Yogin is liberated while yet living, a 'jivan mukti'. 
Being liberated, a Yogin is not bound by the notion of 
duality, thinking, "I do this, this is my body, this is 
my soul, this is my self..." etc.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol

[Share Long]

Hi Carol, my Mom loves the gekko too.  Of course the fact that Dr. Oz practices 
TM doesn't negate MJ's bad experiences with it.  Just as Fr Keating's Batgap 
interview does not negate my somewhat bad experiences with the Catholic Church. 
 But again, I'm not continuing to speak against Catholicism, etc.  Whereas 
Michael does continue to speak against TM, etc. and seems to have quite a 
charge when he does so.  From my own experience with charges, I'd say there's a 
deeper issue going on that just what appears on the surface.  

Just yesterday Michael expressed the wish that Dr. Oz who seems pretty savvy to 
me, stop being deluded about TMO.  This was in addition to saying that Dr. Oz 
is afraid to disagree with Oprah.  This latter statement especially indicates 
to me that there's a deeper issue present.  I've got my issues too so I'm not 
saying it's a bad thing.  But I give less weight to what someone says if it 
seems to me that there are other deeper issues present.  And I realize when 
people are overly positive, that too can indicate a deeper issue present.  If 
someone's energy feels off in either direction, then I take their opinions with 
a bigger grain of salt.

So I have been asking:  can all these smart and creative people be so deluded 
about the efficacy of TM?  Maybe they simply choose to use what's useful about 
it and leave the rest.


I doubt that Dr. Oz, who seems to me to have integrity, endorses TM only 
because he was asked to do so.  If indeed that is how it happened.  Maybe he 
approached them.  Maybe he had good experiences and liked what the research 
said, etc. and decided he wanted to share something valuable with others.  I 
think most people want to help others.  Then it's up to others to figure out 
whose opinion can actually be helpful to them.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.  



 From: Carol 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:48 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael and Carol
 

  
Share stated: 
"Hi Carol, the crucial difference is that I don't continually have or express 
negative opinions about Christianity, Christian churches or Jesus Christ.  So 
there is nothing for me to reconcile.  I can easily believe that a smart, 
successful and healthy person might practice Christianity."

Good point. 

I'm around some folks who regularly do criticize Christianity and belief in 
God(s). For me that's where the comparison comes in between Collins and 
Christianity with Dr. Oz and TM. Sorry I wasn't clear about that. :)

What is there to reconcile with Oz and TM? I don't get what needs to be 
reconciled.

Just because Dr. Oz (or anyone else) likes and practices TM and touts its 
benefits doesn't negate another person's bad or toxic experiences with TM or 
the TMO.

Of course, any business/corporation likes to have well known folks endorse 
them. Sells more product, practice, whatever the goods are. Dr. Oz's 
endorsement of TM and the TMO (if he does endorse them) is good PR for the TMO.

The gekko endorses Geiko. And then there's Flo for Progressive. But I'm still 
with Nationwide; I like my agent and the service. 

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply Michael.  Just a couple of points:
> I don't know that Dr. Oz is unwilling to disagree with Oprah.  Do you know 
> that for a fact?  He seems pretty independent to me.
> 
> I don't know enough about mantras to comment on that.  And I don't think TM 
> is superior because anyone said so.  I think it is unique in the 
> effortlessness of it process.  My own logic tells me that this 
> effortlessness is what makes it the best meditation technique that I know 
> of.  I am happy with it so don't feel compelled to look for another.
> 
> Hi Carol, the crucial difference is that I don't continually have or express 
> negative opinions about Christianity, Christian churches or Jesus Christ.  
> So there is nothing for me to reconcile.  I can easily believe that a smart, 
> successful and healthy person might practice Christianity.  
> 
> 
> 
> ________
>  From: Michael Jackson 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
> 
> 
>   
> Let's see - there are a whole bunch of people who practice and tout TM who 
> could variously be characterized as Bliss Ninny's and other such names, I 
> should start TM again because he agrees with them? 
> 
> Should I take his word for it when he agrees with, hmmm let's see, the German 
> Purusha guys I have read about

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for bringing up a traditional use of the mantra as pure sound > 
> > value. 
> 
> Yes, Like Om Aim Klim Shrim Hrim.
>

No wonder the Catholic Church is in such a disarray.  They should have also 
gone with the TM mantras in ripping off TM for Centering Prayer instead of 
making up their own.  Little did they know.

 
> 
> 
> I am hardly knowledgeable about the Veda, but it IS all about the 
> transformation and manifestation of vibration (sound). 
> > 
> > Aside from doing my 9th grade science project on what sound waves at 
> > various frequencies look like, when iron filings on an aluminum sheet are 
> > laid atop a speaker, and later, all the TM stuff, that's about as far as it 
> > goes for me.
> > 
> > Nowadays, its either my tinnitus, or everything sings, or both.:-)
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I didn't say it was HIndu worship, I said it is a Hindu
> > > > devotional practice
> > > 
> > > Oh, please. That's a distinction without a difference,
> > > and you know it.
> > > 
> > > emptybill's posts are a strong rebuttal of your skinboy
> > > pal's claims, and you've made it only too clear you have
> > > no substantive counter-rebuttal.
> > > 
> > > If somebody else has a good response, let's hear it.
> > > We're sure not going to get one from Michael.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  From: authfriend 
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:23 PM
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > empty, if I may, I'm going to quote your follow-up post
> > > > reinforcing the point:
> > > > 
> > > > "Baba Hari Dass is an impeccable yogin possessed of vairagya and 
> > > > dispossessed of any agenda. He is the "yogin's yogin". My point was to 
> > > > call attention to an alternate authoritative source  - someone able to 
> > > > explain the distinction between mantra-dhyana and mantra-japa. The key 
> > > > is to recognize that a mantra can be used in meditation simply for its 
> > > > sound value, without any reference to meaning. While this may seem 
> > > > over-obvious to TM and Sahaj Samadhi meditators, this is what 
> > > > demarcates it from ordinary language. 
> > > > 
> > > > "Used in this way, mantric sound is part of the human sensorium but is 
> > > > self-generated in the same way that speech is. This kind of bare 
> > > > sensoria is non-conceptual and does not require analysis to be 
> > > > perceived. Bija mantras are yogic tools for just this type of 
> > > > non-conceptual (nirvikalpa) direct cognition.
> > > > 
> > > > "The fact is that MMY told us the truth about mantras and their proper 
> > > > yogic use in TM. The cultural artifact is that Indians use mantras for 
> > > > Japa to a hindu deity - it is just a datum of the Indian mind set. No 
> > > > self-respecting "Hindu" conducts their life without a least 20-30 
> > > > mantras on-hand at all times (except the Indian communists). TM/Sahaj 
> > > > Samadhi meditators do not, unless they choose to worship a deva. 
> > > > 
> > > > "When someone tells us such meditation is hindu worship then they are 
> > > > simply misinformed, ignorant or ideologues." 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Outside of your personal opinions, your statements  about the TM
> > > > > technique are not accurate.
> > > > > 
> > > > > M.Jack says:
> > > > > 
> > > > > TM is not a simple mental technique making use of meaningless sounds.
> > > > > It is in fact a Hindu devotional practice of chanting (silently) the
> > > > > names of Hindu goddesses.
> > > > > 
> > > > > In reply, he

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Thanks for bringing up a traditional use of the mantra as pure sound > value. 

Yes, Like Om Aim Klim Shrim Hrim.



I am hardly knowledgeable about the Veda, but it IS all about the 
transformation and manifestation of vibration (sound). 
> 
> Aside from doing my 9th grade science project on what sound waves at various 
> frequencies look like, when iron filings on an aluminum sheet are laid atop a 
> speaker, and later, all the TM stuff, that's about as far as it goes for me.
> 
> Nowadays, its either my tinnitus, or everything sings, or both.:-)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > I didn't say it was HIndu worship, I said it is a Hindu
> > > devotional practice
> > 
> > Oh, please. That's a distinction without a difference,
> > and you know it.
> > 
> > emptybill's posts are a strong rebuttal of your skinboy
> > pal's claims, and you've made it only too clear you have
> > no substantive counter-rebuttal.
> > 
> > If somebody else has a good response, let's hear it.
> > We're sure not going to get one from Michael.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > >  From: authfriend 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:23 PM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
> > >  
> > > 
> > >   
> > > empty, if I may, I'm going to quote your follow-up post
> > > reinforcing the point:
> > > 
> > > "Baba Hari Dass is an impeccable yogin possessed of vairagya and 
> > > dispossessed of any agenda. He is the "yogin's yogin". My point was to 
> > > call attention to an alternate authoritative source  - someone able to 
> > > explain the distinction between mantra-dhyana and mantra-japa. The key is 
> > > to recognize that a mantra can be used in meditation simply for its sound 
> > > value, without any reference to meaning. While this may seem over-obvious 
> > > to TM and Sahaj Samadhi meditators, this is what demarcates it from 
> > > ordinary language. 
> > > 
> > > "Used in this way, mantric sound is part of the human sensorium but is 
> > > self-generated in the same way that speech is. This kind of bare sensoria 
> > > is non-conceptual and does not require analysis to be perceived. Bija 
> > > mantras are yogic tools for just this type of non-conceptual (nirvikalpa) 
> > > direct cognition.
> > > 
> > > "The fact is that MMY told us the truth about mantras and their proper 
> > > yogic use in TM. The cultural artifact is that Indians use mantras for 
> > > Japa to a hindu deity - it is just a datum of the Indian mind set. No 
> > > self-respecting "Hindu" conducts their life without a least 20-30 mantras 
> > > on-hand at all times (except the Indian communists). TM/Sahaj Samadhi 
> > > meditators do not, unless they choose to worship a deva. 
> > > 
> > > "When someone tells us such meditation is hindu worship then they are 
> > > simply misinformed, ignorant or ideologues." 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Outside of your personal opinions, your statements  about the TM
> > > > technique are not accurate.
> > > > 
> > > > M.Jack says:
> > > > 
> > > > TM is not a simple mental technique making use of meaningless sounds.
> > > > It is in fact a Hindu devotional practice of chanting (silently) the
> > > > names of Hindu goddesses.
> > > > 
> > > > In reply, here is a previous post discussing the differences between
> > > > meditation-mantra and devotional-japa.
> > > > 
> > > > \
> > > > *
> > > > 
> > > > Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by some former
> > > > TM'ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were
> > > > deceived about the "meaning" of mantras.
> > > > 
> > > > Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The
> > > > claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for
> > >

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael and Carol

[Carol]

Share stated: 
"Hi Carol, the crucial difference is that I don't continually have or express 
negative opinions about Christianity, Christian churches or Jesus Christ.  So 
there is nothing for me to reconcile.  I can easily believe that a smart, 
successful and healthy person might practice Christianity."

Good point. 

I'm around some folks who regularly do criticize Christianity and belief in 
God(s). For me that's where the comparison comes in between Collins and 
Christianity with Dr. Oz and TM. Sorry I wasn't clear about that. :)

What is there to reconcile with Oz and TM? I don't get what needs to be 
reconciled.

Just because Dr. Oz (or anyone else) likes and practices TM and touts its 
benefits doesn't negate another person's bad or toxic experiences with TM or 
the TMO.

Of course, any business/corporation likes to have well known folks endorse 
them. Sells more product, practice, whatever the goods are. Dr. Oz's 
endorsement of TM and the TMO (if he does endorse them) is good PR for the TMO.

The gekko endorses Geiko. And then there's Flo for Progressive. But I'm still 
with Nationwide; I like my agent and the service. 

**

 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply Michael.  Just a couple of points:
> I don't know that Dr. Oz is unwilling to disagree with Oprah.  Do you know 
> that for a fact?  He seems pretty independent to me.
> 
> I don't know enough about mantras to comment on that.  And I don't think TM 
> is superior because anyone said so.  I think it is unique in the 
> effortlessness of it process.  My own logic tells me that this 
> effortlessness is what makes it the best meditation technique that I know 
> of.  I am happy with it so don't feel compelled to look for another.
> 
> Hi Carol, the crucial difference is that I don't continually have or express 
> negative opinions about Christianity, Christian churches or Jesus Christ.  
> So there is nothing for me to reconcile.  I can easily believe that a smart, 
> successful and healthy person might practice Christianity.  
> 
> 
> 
> ________
>  From: Michael Jackson 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
>  
> 
>   
> Let's see - there are a whole bunch of people who practice and tout TM who 
> could variously be characterized as Bliss Ninny's and other such names, I 
> should start TM again because he agrees with them? 
> 
> Should I take his word for it when he agrees with, hmmm let's see, the German 
> Purusha guys I have read about here on FFL who wear swastikas under their 
> ties and party when it is Hitler's birthday?
> 
> Or should I continue to
>  chart my own course? The bottom line answer to your question is six fold, 
> Shary. 
> 
> One - I am confident enough in my own experience and ability to decide things
>  for myself that I do not suddenly reverse course on the word of a celebrity 
> who owes his fame to Oprah and is unwilling to disagree with her. 
> 
> Two - I agree he is intelligent and the fact that he thinks TM is a good 
> thing, I don't hold against
>  him. 
> One day I trust he will come out of that particular delusion.
> 
> Three - Other intelligent people, like me, were deluded by Marshy and TM 
> sales pitches, cuz that is exactly what they have always been, sales pitches. 
> Therefore I don't hold it against him that he too is deluded about TM.
> 
> Four - This is speculation, but I do not believe he has the benefit of the 
> experiences of seeing some of the things I have seen in TM - abusive behavior 
> on the part of TM longtimers especially the popinjay Governors with a little 
> bit of TM authority and the unstressing phenomenon, particularly that seen on 
> long rounding courses. Were he aware of these things, I trust he would be 
> intelligent enough to alter his opinion of TM and its pimps.
> 
> Five - He is unaware the TMO treats himself and all TM celebrities far 
> differently than they treat rank and file meditators, sidhas and Governors 
> who have no money, celebrity or TM authority within the Movement. 
> 
> As
>  an aside, I must admit that the TMO is an equal opportunity abuser. 
> Those donkeys will abuse anyone whom they think they have authority over, be 
> they meditators or Governors. 
> 
> The difference in treatment of celebrities and money people on the one hand 
> and regular folks on the other were he to see it, I am sure his magnificent 
> intelligence would enable him to question the efficacy of TM.
> 
> Six - I agree that the simple practice o

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael and Carol

[Share Long]

Thanks for your reply Michael.  Just a couple of points:
I don't know that Dr. Oz is unwilling to disagree with Oprah.  Do you know that 
for a fact?  He seems pretty independent to me.

I don't know enough about mantras to comment on that.  And I don't think TM is 
superior because anyone said so.  I think it is unique in the effortlessness of 
it process.  My own logic tells me that this effortlessness is what makes it 
the best meditation technique that I know of.  I am happy with it so don't feel 
compelled to look for another.

Hi Carol, the crucial difference is that I don't continually have or express 
negative opinions about Christianity, Christian churches or Jesus Christ.  So 
there is nothing for me to reconcile.  I can easily believe that a smart, 
successful and healthy person might practice Christianity.  




 From: Michael Jackson 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
 

  
Let's see - there are a whole bunch of people who practice and tout TM who 
could variously be characterized as Bliss Ninny's and other such names, I 
should start TM again because he agrees with them? 

Should I take his word for it when he agrees with, hmmm let's see, the German 
Purusha guys I have read about here on FFL who wear swastikas under their ties 
and party when it is Hitler's birthday?

Or should I continue to
 chart my own course? The bottom line answer to your question is six fold, 
Shary. 

One - I am confident enough in my own experience and ability to decide things
 for myself that I do not suddenly reverse course on the word of a celebrity 
who owes his fame to Oprah and is unwilling to disagree with her. 

Two - I agree he is intelligent and the fact that he thinks TM is a good thing, 
I don't hold against
 him. 
One day I trust he will come out of that particular delusion.

Three - Other intelligent people, like me, were deluded by Marshy and TM sales 
pitches, cuz that is exactly what they have always been, sales pitches. 
Therefore I don't hold it against him that he too is deluded about TM.

Four - This is speculation, but I do not believe he has the benefit of the 
experiences of seeing some of the things I have seen in TM - abusive behavior 
on the part of TM longtimers especially the popinjay Governors with a little 
bit of TM authority and the unstressing phenomenon, particularly that seen on 
long rounding courses. Were he aware of these things, I trust he would be 
intelligent enough to alter his opinion of TM and its pimps.

Five - He is unaware the TMO treats himself and all TM celebrities far 
differently than they treat rank and file meditators, sidhas and Governors who 
have no money, celebrity or TM authority within the Movement. 

As
 an aside, I must admit that the TMO is an equal opportunity abuser. 
Those donkeys will abuse anyone whom they think they have authority over, be 
they meditators or Governors. 

The difference in treatment of celebrities and money people on the one hand and 
regular folks on the other were he to see it, I am sure his magnificent 
intelligence would enable him to question the efficacy of TM.

Six - I agree that the simple practice of TM itself can make one feel refreshed 
and rested under the right circumstances (i.e. - the TM meditator generally has 
to have had a good night's sleep the night before, can't be hung over, kapha, 
pitta and vata has to be balanced just right, has to sleep in a vastu ved 
house, had the proper amount of Amrit Kalash upon arising, had the proper 
amount of yagyas done that month, but only by a certified Marshy pundit) with 
all those parameters being met, one can feel good after TM.

But this does not happen
 because there is something special about TM
 itself,
 contrary to what Bobby Roth, David Lynch, Johnnie Hagelin and all the other TM 
pimps claim. It happens because Pure Awareness is natural and we connect with 
it, we are it, every minute of every day. Just settling in and getting quiet or 
using other mantras or following the breath will do it. TM people believe TM is 
superior for one reason - because Marshy said it was. For TM to be superior, 
there would have to be something about the TM mantras that is superior and 
there is not. If you believe the TM mantras are superior tell me how? If it 
isn't that TM mantras that are superior, then what is it that makes TM superior?

So given the fact that I know TM is not superior to any other way of being 
myself I am not stupid enough to change my life based on Mehmet Oz's incorrect 
assumptions and TM delusions that I have already cured myself of. So there is 
your answer Share. 







 From: Share Long 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife]

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
(snip)
> Six - I agree that the simple practice of TM itself can make
> one feel refreshed and rested under the right circumstances
> (i.e. - the TM meditator generally has to have had a good
> night's sleep the night before, can't be hung over, kapha,
> pitta and vata has to be balanced just right, has to sleep
> in a vastu ved house, had the proper amount of Amrit Kalash
> upon arising, had the proper amount of yagyas done that month,
> but only by a certified Marshy pundit) with all those
> parameters being met, one can feel good after TM.

The better the circumstances, the better one will feel
after TM (although I'm dubious that some of the circumstances
you list make a significant difference). But it's certainly
not the case that one won't feel good unless all those
parameters are met.

> But this does not happen because there is something special
> about TM itself, contrary to what Bobby Roth, David Lynch,
> Johnnie Hagelin and all the other TM pimps claim. It happens
> because Pure Awareness is natural and we connect with it, we
> are it, every minute of every day. Just settling in and
> getting quiet or using other mantras or following the breath
> will do it. TM people believe TM is superior for one reason -
> because Marshy said it was. For TM to be superior, there would
> have to be something about the TM mantras that is superior and
> there is not. If you believe the TM mantras are superior tell
> me how? If it isn't that TM mantras that are superior, then
> what is it that makes TM superior?

It's the way Maharishi designed TM instruction (and
checking) to ensure effortlessness. Not that Oz would have
been likely to get this, and not that other techniques
don't facilitate connecting with pure awareness. But TM is
more efficient in that regard. (Some teachers say the puja
makes a difference too.)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[Michael Jackson]

Let's see - there are a whole bunch of people who practice and tout TM who 
could variously be characterized as Bliss Ninny's and other such names, I 
should start TM again because he agrees with them? 

Should I take his word for it when he agrees with, hmmm let's see, the German 
Purusha guys I have read about here on FFL who wear swastikas under their ties 
and party when it is Hitler's birthday?

Or should I continue to chart my own course? The bottom line answer to your 
question is six fold, Shary. 

One - I am confident enough in my own experience and ability to decide things
 for myself that I do not suddenly reverse course on the word of a celebrity 
who owes his fame to Oprah and is unwilling to disagree with her. 

Two - I agree he is intelligent and the fact that he thinks TM is a good thing, 
I don't hold against
 him. 
One day I trust he will come out of that particular delusion.

Three - Other intelligent people, like me, were deluded by Marshy and TM sales 
pitches, cuz that is exactly what they have always been, sales pitches. 
Therefore I don't hold it against him that he too is deluded about TM.

Four - This is speculation, but I do not believe he has the benefit of the 
experiences of seeing some of the things I have seen in TM - abusive behavior 
on the part of TM longtimers especially the popinjay Governors with a little 
bit of TM authority and the unstressing phenomenon, particularly that seen on 
long rounding courses. Were he aware of these things, I trust he would be 
intelligent enough to alter his opinion of TM and its pimps.

Five - He is unaware the TMO treats himself and all TM celebrities far 
differently than they treat rank and file meditators, sidhas and Governors who 
have no money, celebrity or TM authority within the Movement. 

As
 an aside, I must admit that the TMO is an equal opportunity abuser. 
Those donkeys will abuse anyone whom they think they have authority over, be 
they meditators or Governors. 

The difference in treatment of celebrities and money people on the one hand and 
regular folks on the other were he to see it, I am sure his magnificent 
intelligence would enable him to question the efficacy of TM.

Six - I agree that the simple practice of TM itself can make one feel refreshed 
and rested under the right circumstances (i.e. - the TM meditator generally has 
to have had a good night's sleep the night before, can't be hung over, kapha, 
pitta and vata has to be balanced just right, has to sleep in a vastu ved 
house, had the proper amount of Amrit Kalash upon arising, had the proper 
amount of yagyas done that month, but only by a certified Marshy pundit) with 
all those parameters being met, one can feel good after TM.

But this does not happen because there is something special about TM
 itself,
 contrary to what Bobby Roth, David Lynch, Johnnie Hagelin and all the other TM 
pimps claim. It happens because Pure Awareness is natural and we connect with 
it, we are it, every minute of every day. Just settling in and getting quiet or 
using other mantras or following the breath will do it. TM people believe TM is 
superior for one reason - because Marshy said it was. For TM to be superior, 
there would have to be something about the TM mantras that is superior and 
there is not. If you believe the TM mantras are superior tell me how? If it 
isn't that TM mantras that are superior, then what is it that makes TM superior?

So given the fact that I know TM is not superior to any other way of being 
myself I am not stupid enough to change my life based on Mehmet Oz's incorrect 
assumptions and TM delusions that I have already cured myself of. So there is 
your answer Share. 







 From: Share Long 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
 

  
Well it makes it grosser.  But grosser is not plainer.  And it has nothing to 
do with taking the word of a famous, rich person.  It has to do with taking the 
word of an intelligent, independent person who also happens to be rich and 
famous.  That's what you keep avoiding, isn't it?  That Dr. Oz is smart and 
completely independent of TMO.  I'm guessing that's really what you can't 
reconcile with all your beliefs about TM.  That someone really smart and 
successful and knowledgeable about health would choose to practice it.    





 From: Michael Jackson 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
 

  
Why should I take his word because he has money and fame? That is a bullshit 
premise from the get go. Does that make it any plainer?





 From: Share Long 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Monday

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[Carol]

I should proof read better... "That's like saying, 'How do you explain that 
someone like Dr. Francis Collins (who is smart, successful, healthy, and a 
respected scientist that helped discover the human genome) practices prayer and 
shares about Christianity and
his belief in God?' "

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol"  wrote:
>
> 
> Share stated: " So again, if you are able, how do you explain that someone 
> like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and healthy, practices and promotes TM?"
> 
> That's like saying, "How do you explain that someone like Dr. Francis Collins 
> who is smart, successful, healthy, and a respected scientist that helped 
> discover the  human genome practicing prayer and sharing about Christianity 
> and his belief in God?" 
> 
> Point being, there are smart, successful, healthy people all over the planet 
> that practice/believe different things.  
> 
> And now I think of Keith Richards. He sure seems to be keeping keeping on in 
> spite of his practices. I wonder if he does TM? ;)
> 
>  
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > What I notice is how you evade the real point.  Which I'll elucidate by 
> > saying that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.  So again, if you are 
> > able, how do you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and 
> > healthy, practices and promotes TM?
> > 
> > I'm also noticing that none of the anti TM people can answer this one.  
> > And so they are evading it.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Michael Jackson 
> > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:28 AM
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do what 
> > they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Share Long 
> > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > Michael, I'm genuinely curious:  how do you reconcile all that you believe 
> > about TM with the fact that someone as smart and 
> > successful and healthy as Dr. Oz practices TM and endorses it?  I'm 
> > thinking that for famous people like Lynch and Paul McCartney, Howard Stern 
> > and Seinfeld, etc. they're just grateful to have found a technique that 
> > enables them to not only survive but thrive in the very demanding 
> > entertainment field.  
> > 
> > PS to Emily, thanks for your reply smile.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: salyavin808 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:40 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > 
> > > > How about Jack Forem? He just got added at the top.
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > 
> > > From NYTimes page:
> > > Jack Forem Boise, Idaho
> > > "I recently released an updated version of a book on TM written in the 
> > > 1970s. I thought the update would take me a couple of months, but the 
> > > process of sorting through the vast amount of published, top-quality, 
> > > peer-reviewed scientific research, and the number of compassionate and 
> > > helpful programs such as those cited in the article on David Lynch's 
> > > foundation, kept me engaged in research and writing for two years. I have 
> > > practiced TM since 1967, taught it, and helped to train TM teachers. Yet 
> > > I must say I was overwhelmed â€" and I do not use that word lightly â€" 
> > > by the extent and depth of the benefits I uncovered in my research. From 
> > > greatly improved health, better educational outcomes, stress reduction, 
> > > and the awakening to higher states of consciousness, to replicated 
> > > interventions in war-torn areas that resulted in calm and peace, the 
> > > benefits of TM are thoroughly demonstrated and truly extraordinary. I 
> > > find it sad that some misinformed and/or
> >  angry people find it necessary to attack such a good thing, that has 
> > helped, and is helping, so many. I would urge them to investigate more 
> > deeply and re-think their position."
> > > 
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-meditation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&;
> > 
> > But all of these angry people are TMers for whom it didn't work
> > or who got fed up with the way the organisation operated after 
> > working there for years and thus can't really be said to be misinformed.
> > 
> > But their story was somehow neglected from his research?
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[Carol]

Share stated: " So again, if you are able, how do you explain that someone like 
Dr. Oz, smart, successful and healthy, practices and promotes TM?"

That's like saying, "How do you explain that someone like Dr. Francis Collins 
who is smart, successful, healthy, and a respected scientist that helped 
discover the  human genome practicing prayer and sharing about Christianity and 
his belief in God?" 

Point being, there are smart, successful, healthy people all over the planet 
that practice/believe different things.  

And now I think of Keith Richards. He sure seems to be keeping keeping on in 
spite of his practices. I wonder if he does TM? ;)

 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> What I notice is how you evade the real point.  Which I'll elucidate by 
> saying that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.  So again, if you are 
> able, how do you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and 
> healthy, practices and promotes TM?
> 
> I'm also noticing that none of the anti TM people can answer this one.  And 
> so they are evading it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Michael Jackson 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
>  
> 
>   
> I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do what 
> they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru
> 
> 
> 
> ____
>  From: Share Long 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
>  
> 
>   
> Michael, I'm genuinely curious:  how do you reconcile all that you believe 
> about TM with the fact that someone as smart and 
> successful and healthy as Dr. Oz practices TM and endorses it?  I'm thinking 
> that for famous people like Lynch and Paul McCartney, Howard Stern and 
> Seinfeld, etc. they're just grateful to have found a technique that enables 
> them to not only survive but thrive in the very demanding entertainment 
> field.  
> 
> PS to Emily, thanks for your reply smile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:40 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> 
> > > How about Jack Forem? He just got added at the top.
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > From NYTimes page:
> > Jack Forem Boise, Idaho
> > "I recently released an updated version of a book on TM written in the 
> > 1970s. I thought the update would take me a couple of months, but the 
> > process of sorting through the vast amount of published, top-quality, 
> > peer-reviewed scientific research, and the number of compassionate and 
> > helpful programs such as those cited in the article on David Lynch's 
> > foundation, kept me engaged in research and writing for two years. I have 
> > practiced TM since 1967, taught it, and helped to train TM teachers. Yet I 
> > must say I was overwhelmed â€" and I do not use that word lightly â€" by 
> > the extent and depth of the benefits I uncovered in my research. From 
> > greatly improved health, better educational outcomes, stress reduction, and 
> > the awakening to higher states of consciousness, to replicated 
> > interventions in war-torn areas that resulted in calm and peace, the 
> > benefits of TM are thoroughly demonstrated and truly extraordinary. I find 
> > it sad that some misinformed and/or
>  angry people find it necessary to attack such a good thing, that has helped, 
> and is helping, so many. I would urge them to investigate more deeply and 
> re-think their position."
> > 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-meditation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&;
> 
> But all of these angry people are TMers for whom it didn't work
> or who got fed up with the way the organisation operated after 
> working there for years and thus can't really be said to be misinformed.
> 
> But their story was somehow neglected from his research?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> man you are funny - even when you have a cussing fit aimed 
> at me, I can only laugh - for some reason your energy always 
> makes me think of the Jethro Tull song "Jack in the Green"

I would have gone for "Thick As A Brick."  :-)

> 
>  From: Ravi Chivukula 
>  
> Oh my darling son MJ - you will ignore my instructions at your own peril. 
> This powerful sutra - The Channeler Sutra - is the product of my incredible 
> tapas I have been performing on the beautiful peaks of Sierra Nevadas over 
> the last few weekends. Being Kali Yuga I am unable to travel to Himalayas - 
> you are free to donate $1008 for this noble worthy cause. 
> 
> Dear son - I watched sinners ski while I rolled around naked in the snow as 
> part of my incredible tapas. Being Kali Yuga - I had to buy the damn lift 
> tickets- once again you are free to donate $108 for lift tickets.
> 
> I see your aura my son, it is bright and you are destined to bring forth the 
> light of 108 galaxies to the suffering humanity this lifetime. This would 
> have been your last life time and you would have obtained moksha if not for 
> the damn scientists who keep discovering more galaxies - so you will have to 
> reincarnate. But fear not - you will have my grace and blessings to get off 
> the wheel of death and rebirth.
> 
> Love and blessings,
> Sri Sri Sri Bhagwan Ravi Yogi Maharaj
> Avatar of the age of Enlightenment
> Powerful healer, channeler
> 
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> 
> > I don't actually channel anymore Rav.
> >
> >
> > From: Ravi Chivukula 
> >
> >Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
> > 
> >Dear MJ - Chant this 108 times every day it will help you calm down - The 
> >Channeler Sutra.
> >
> >
> >-
> >I have these memories. Or they're myths of another age or mythologized 
> >aspects of my psyche, archetypal truths or fabrications of my imaginative 
> >lunacy. You decide. To me they're memories. 
> >
> >I rest in the center of the galaxy near the Great Central Sun, whole and in 
> >bliss, indwelling a nearby star, hanging in space, basking in the love. 
> >
> >I commune with the Great Central Sun and the Great Central Yoni, our 
> >galaxy's great black hole vortex, from which the Milky Way sprang forth and 
> >to which it will return. 
> >
> >
> >
> >Reference - http://www.iloveyouandforgiveyou.org/newbook.htm
> >
> >
> >Love and Light,
> >Ravi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
> >
> >
> >No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>  
> >>>Why should I take his word because he has money and fame? That is a 
> >>>bullshit premise from the get go. Does that make it any plainer?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Share Long 
> >>>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> >>>Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:49 PM
> >>>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>What I notice is how you evade the real point.  Which I'll elucidate by 
> >>>saying that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.  So again, if you are 
> >>>able, how do you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and 
> >>>healthy, practices and promotes TM?
> >>>
> >>>I'm also noticing that none of the anti TM people can answer this one.  
> >>>And so they are evading it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Michael Jackson 
> >>>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> >>>Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:28 AM
> >>>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do 
> >>>what they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru
> >>>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[Michael Jackson]

man you are funny - even when you have a cussing fit aimed at me, I can only 
laugh - for some reason your energy always makes me think of the Jethro Tull 
song "Jack in the Green"





 From: Ravi Chivukula 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
 

  
Oh my darling son MJ - you will ignore my instructions at your own peril. This 
powerful sutra - The Channeler Sutra - is the product of my incredible tapas I 
have been performing on the beautiful peaks of Sierra Nevadas over the last few 
weekends. Being Kali Yuga I am unable to travel to Himalayas - you are free to 
donate $1008 for this noble worthy cause. 

Dear son - I watched sinners ski while I rolled around naked in the snow as 
part of my incredible tapas. Being Kali Yuga - I had to buy the damn lift 
tickets- once again you are free to donate $108 for lift tickets.

I see your aura my son, it is bright and you are destined to bring forth the 
light of 108 galaxies to the suffering humanity this lifetime. This would have 
been your last life time and you would have obtained moksha if not for the damn 
scientists who keep discovering more galaxies - so you will have to 
reincarnate. But fear not - you will have my grace and blessings to get off the 
wheel of death and rebirth.

Love and blessings,
Sri Sri Sri Bhagwan Ravi Yogi Maharaj
Avatar of the age of Enlightenment
Powerful healer, channeler

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Michael Jackson  wrote:

 
>  
>I don't actually channel anymore Rav.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Ravi Chivukula 
>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:26 PM
>
>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
> 
>
>
>  
>Dear MJ - Chant this 108 times every day it will help you calm down - The 
>Channeler Sutra.
>
>
>-
>I have these memories. Or they're myths of another age or mythologized aspects 
>of my psyche, archetypal truths or fabrications of my imaginative lunacy. You 
>decide. To me they're memories. 
>
>I rest in the center of the galaxy near the Great Central Sun, whole and in 
>bliss, indwelling a nearby star, hanging in space, basking in the love. 
>
>I commune with the Great Central Sun and the Great Central Yoni, our galaxy's 
>great black hole vortex, from which the Milky Way sprang forth and to which it 
>will return. 
>
>
>
>Reference - http://www.iloveyouandforgiveyou.org/newbook.htm
>
>
>Love and Light,
>Ravi
>
>
>
>
>On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
>
>No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes.
>>
>>
>>
>>On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>  
>>>Why should I take his word because he has money and fame? That is a bullshit 
>>>premise from the get go. Does that make it any plainer?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Share Long 
>>>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>>>Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:49 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
>>> 
>>>
>>>  
>>>What I notice is how you evade the real point.  Which I'll elucidate by 
>>>saying that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.  So again, if you are 
>>>able, how do you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and 
>>>healthy, practices and promotes TM?
>>>
>>>I'm also noticing that none of the anti TM people can answer this one.  And 
>>>so they are evading it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Michael Jackson 
>>>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>>>Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:28 AM
>>>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
>>> 
>>>
>>>  
>>>I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do what 
>>>they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Share Long 
>>>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>>>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:10 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
>>> 
>>>
>>>  
>>>Michael, I'm genuinely curious:  how

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[authfriend]

Don't ask me what I think of your capacity for critical
thinking, Michael.

I'll just point out one thing, because it's symptomatic:
You have a quite remarkable inability to discern where
the folks you talk to here are coming from.

I did a better job of debunking Oz's endorsement of TM
in a post to Share last night than you've done below.

Now read the last sentence of your post again and ponder
how you could have gotten it so wrong.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Maybe Ravi is right and I am retarded - that would explain why I have no idea 
> how to respond to what seems pretty obvious to me - just because Oz has dough 
> and climbed the fame ladder on Oprah's back does not make him an authority on 
> all things in the Universe and when his pronouncements are at odds with what 
> I have experienced with TM and its organization, I would be truly an idiot to 
> just throw up my hands and say "Oh Lawdy! Dr. Oz says its good so all my 
> experiences must be wrong! Lemme run go git checked right quick and beg Bevan 
> for forgiveness!"
> 
> Oz is an entertainer more than anything else and if you think he will go up 
> against Oprah, the person who put him on the map then maybe you need lessons 
> in critical thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: authfriend 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:33 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
>  
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
> >
> > No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as
> > each day passes.
> 
> It's interesting that the folks who make the most noise
> in promoting their ideas also seem to be the folks who
> are the most afraid of engaging with challenges to those
> ideas.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > 
> > > Why should I take his word because he has money and fame? That is a 
> > > bullshit premise from the get go. Does that make it any plainer?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > From: Share Long 
> > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:49 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
> > > 
> > > 
> > > What I notice is how you evade the real point.  Which I'll elucidate by 
> > > saying that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.  So again, if you are 
> > > able, how do you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and 
> > > healthy, practices and promotes TM?
> > > I'm also noticing that none of the anti TM people can answer this one.  
> > > And so they are evading it.
> > > 
> > > From: Michael Jackson 
> > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:28 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do 
> > > what they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru
> > > 
> > > From: Share Long 
> > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:10 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Michael, I'm genuinely curious:  how do you reconcile all that you 
> > > believe about TM with the fact that someone as smart and successful and 
> > > healthy as Dr. Oz practices TM and endorses it?  I'm thinking that for 
> > > famous people like Lynch and Paul McCartney, Howard Stern and Seinfeld, 
> > > etc. they're just grateful to have found a technique that enables them to 
> > > not only survive but thrive in the very demanding entertainment field.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[Share Long]

Well it makes it grosser.  But grosser is not plainer.  And it has nothing to 
do with taking the word of a famous, rich person.  It has to do with taking the 
word of an intelligent, independent person who also happens to be rich and 
famous.  That's what you keep avoiding, isn't it?  That Dr. Oz is smart and 
completely independent of TMO.  I'm guessing that's really what you can't 
reconcile with all your beliefs about TM.  That someone really smart and 
successful and knowledgeable about health would choose to practice it.    





 From: Michael Jackson 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
 

  
Why should I take his word because he has money and fame? That is a bullshit 
premise from the get go. Does that make it any plainer?





 From: Share Long 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
 

  
What I notice is how you evade the real point.  Which I'll elucidate by saying 
that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.  So again, if you are able, how do 
you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and healthy, practices 
and promotes TM?

I'm also noticing that none of the anti TM people can answer this one.  And so 
they are evading it.




 From: Michael Jackson 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
 

  
I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do what 
they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru




 From: Share Long 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
 

  
Michael, I'm genuinely curious:  how do you reconcile all that you believe 
about TM with the fact that someone as smart and 
successful and healthy as Dr. Oz practices TM and endorses it?  I'm thinking 
that for famous people like Lynch and Paul McCartney, Howard Stern and 
Seinfeld, etc. they're just grateful to have found a technique that enables 
them to not only survive but thrive in the very demanding entertainment field.  

PS to Emily, thanks for your reply smile.




 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:40 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >

> > How about Jack Forem? He just got added at the top.
> > 
> >
> 
> From NYTimes page:
> Jack Forem Boise, Idaho
> "I recently released an updated version of a book on TM written in the 1970s. 
> I thought the update would take me a couple of months, but the process of 
> sorting through the vast amount of published, top-quality, peer-reviewed 
> scientific research, and the number of compassionate and helpful programs 
> such as those cited in the article on David Lynch's foundation, kept me 
> engaged in research and writing for two years. I have practiced TM since 
> 1967, taught it, and helped to train TM teachers. Yet I must say I was 
> overwhelmed – and I do not use that word lightly – by the extent and depth of 
> the benefits I uncovered in my research. From greatly improved health, better 
> educational outcomes, stress reduction, and the awakening to higher states of 
> consciousness, to replicated interventions in war-torn areas that resulted in 
> calm and peace, the benefits of TM are thoroughly demonstrated and truly 
> extraordinary. I find it sad that some misinformed and/or
 angry people find it necessary to attack such a good thing, that has helped, 
and is helping, so many. I would urge them to investigate more deeply and 
re-think their position."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-meditation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&;

But all of these angry people are TMers for whom it didn't work
or who got fed up with the way the organisation operated after 
working there for years and thus can't really be said to be misinformed.

But their story was somehow neglected from his research?










 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[Michael Jackson]

Maybe Ravi is right and I am retarded - that would explain why I have no idea 
how to respond to what seems pretty obvious to me - just because Oz has dough 
and climbed the fame ladder on Oprah's back does not make him an authority on 
all things in the Universe and when his pronouncements are at odds with what I 
have experienced with TM and its organization, I would be truly an idiot to 
just throw up my hands and say "Oh Lawdy! Dr. Oz says its good so all my 
experiences must be wrong! Lemme run go git checked right quick and beg Bevan 
for forgiveness!"

Oz is an entertainer more than anything else and if you think he will go up 
against Oprah, the person who put him on the map then maybe you need lessons in 
critical thinking.





 From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:33 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as
> each day passes.

It's interesting that the folks who make the most noise
in promoting their ideas also seem to be the folks who
are the most afraid of engaging with challenges to those
ideas.

> 
> 
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> 
> > Why should I take his word because he has money and fame? That is a 
> > bullshit premise from the get go. Does that make it any plainer?
> > 
> > 
> > From: Share Long 
> > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:49 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
> > 
> > 
> > What I notice is how you evade the real point.  Which I'll elucidate by 
> > saying that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.  So again, if you are 
> > able, how do you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and 
> > healthy, practices and promotes TM?
> > I'm also noticing that none of the anti TM people can answer this one.  And 
> > so they are evading it.
> > 
> > From: Michael Jackson 
> > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:28 AM
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
> > 
> > 
> > I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do what 
> > they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru
> > 
> > From: Share Long 
> > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
> > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
> > 
> > 
> > Michael, I'm genuinely curious:  how do you reconcile all that you believe 
> > about TM with the fact that someone as smart and successful and healthy as 
> > Dr. Oz practices TM and endorses it?  I'm thinking that for famous people 
> > like Lynch and Paul McCartney, Howard Stern and Seinfeld, etc. they're just 
> > grateful to have found a technique that enables them to not only survive 
> > but thrive in the very demanding entertainment field. 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[Ravi Chivukula]

Oh my darling son MJ - you will ignore my instructions at your own peril.
This powerful sutra - The Channeler Sutra - is the product of my incredible
tapas I have been performing on the beautiful peaks of Sierra Nevadas over
the last few weekends. Being Kali Yuga I am unable to travel to Himalayas -
you are free to donate $1008 for this noble worthy cause.

Dear son - I watched sinners ski while I rolled around naked in the snow as
part of my incredible tapas. Being Kali Yuga - I had to buy the damn lift
tickets- once again you are free to donate $108 for lift tickets.

I see your aura my son, it is bright and you are destined to bring forth
the light of 108 galaxies to the suffering humanity this lifetime. This
would have been your last life time and you would have obtained moksha if
not for the damn scientists who keep discovering more galaxies - so you
will have to reincarnate. But fear not - you will have my grace and
blessings to get off the wheel of death and rebirth.

Love and blessings,
Sri Sri Sri Bhagwan Ravi Yogi Maharaj
Avatar of the age of Enlightenment
Powerful healer, channeler

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Michael Jackson wrote:

> **
>
>
> I don't actually channel anymore Rav.
>
>
>   --
> *From:* Ravi Chivukula 
> *To:* "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" 
> *Sent:* Monday, February 25, 2013 1:26 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
>
>
> Dear MJ - Chant this 108 times every day it will help you calm down - The
> Channeler Sutra.
>
> -
> I have these memories. Or they're myths of another age or mythologized
> aspects of my psyche, archetypal truths or fabrications of my imaginative
> lunacy. You decide. To me they're memories.
>
> I rest in the center of the galaxy near the Great Central Sun, whole and
> in bliss, indwelling a nearby star, hanging in space, basking in the love.
>
> I commune with the Great Central Sun and the Great Central Yoni, our
> galaxy's great black hole vortex, from which the Milky Way sprang forth and
> to which it will return.
> 
>
> Reference - http://www.iloveyouandforgiveyou.org/newbook.htm
>
> Love and Light,
> Ravi
>
>
>
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
>
> No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes.
>
>
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson 
> wrote:
>
>
> Why should I take his word because he has money and fame? That is a
> bullshit premise from the get go. Does that make it any plainer?
>
>
>   --
> *From:* Share Long 
> *To:* "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" 
> *Sent:* Monday, February 25, 2013 12:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
>
>
> What I notice is how you evade the real point.  Which I'll elucidate by
> saying that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.  So again, if you are
> able, how do you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and
> healthy, practices and promotes TM?
> I'm also noticing that none of the anti TM people can answer this one.
> And so they are evading it.
>
>   --
> *From:* Michael Jackson 
> *To:* "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" 
> *Sent:* Monday, February 25, 2013 11:28 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and
> Michael
>
>
> I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do
> what they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru
>
>   --
> *From:* Share Long 
> *To:* "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" 
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:10 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and
> Michael
>
>
> Michael, I'm genuinely curious:  how do you reconcile all that you believe
> about TM with the fact that someone as smart and successful and healthy as
> Dr. Oz practices TM and endorses it?  I'm thinking that for famous people
> like Lynch and Paul McCartney, Howard Stern and Seinfeld, etc. they're just
> grateful to have found a technique that enables them to not only survive
> but thrive in the very demanding entertainment field.
>
> PS to Emily, thanks for your reply smile.
>
>   --
> *From:* salyavin808 
> *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:40 PM
> *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
>
> >

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[Michael Jackson]

I don't actually channel anymore Rav.





 From: Ravi Chivukula 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
 

  
Dear MJ - Chant this 108 times every day it will help you calm down - The 
Channeler Sutra.

-
I have these memories. Or they're myths of another age or mythologized aspects 
of my psyche, archetypal truths or fabrications of my imaginative lunacy. You 
decide. To me they're memories. 

I rest in the center of the galaxy near the Great Central Sun, whole and in 
bliss, indwelling a nearby star, hanging in space, basking in the love. 

I commune with the Great Central Sun and the Great Central Yoni, our galaxy's 
great black hole vortex, from which the Milky Way sprang forth and to which it 
will return. 


Reference - http://www.iloveyouandforgiveyou.org/newbook.htm

Love and Light,
Ravi




On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:


No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes.
>
>
>
>On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
>
>  
>>Why should I take his word because he has money and fame? That is a bullshit 
>>premise from the get go. Does that make it any plainer?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Share Long 
>>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>>Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:49 PM
>>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
>> 
>>
>>  
>>What I notice is how you evade the real point.  Which I'll elucidate by 
>>saying that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.  So again, if you are 
>>able, how do you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and 
>>healthy, practices and promotes TM?
>>
>>I'm also noticing that none of the anti TM people can answer this one.  And 
>>so they are evading it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Michael Jackson 
>>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>>Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:28 AM
>>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
>> 
>>
>>  
>>I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do what 
>>they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Share Long 
>>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:10 PM
>>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
>> 
>>
>>  
>>Michael, I'm genuinely curious:  how do you reconcile all that you believe 
>>about TM with the fact that someone as smart and 
successful and healthy as Dr. Oz practices TM and endorses it?  I'm thinking 
that for famous people like Lynch and Paul McCartney, Howard Stern and 
Seinfeld, etc. they're just grateful to have found a technique that enables 
them to not only survive but thrive in the very demanding entertainment field.  
>>
>>
>>PS to Emily, thanks for your reply smile.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: salyavin808 
>>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:40 PM
>>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
>> 
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>>>
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>>> >
>>
>>> > How about Jack Forem? He just got added at the top.
>>> > 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> From NYTimes page:
>>> Jack Forem Boise, Idaho
>>> "I recently released an updated version of a book on TM written in the 
>>> 1970s. I thought the update would take me a couple of months, but the 
>>> process of sorting through the vast amount of published, top-quality, 
>>> peer-reviewed scientific research, and the number of compassionate and 
>>> helpful programs such as those cited in the article on David Lynch's 
>>> foundation, kept me engaged in research and writing for two years. I have 
>>> practiced TM since 1967, taught it, and helped to train TM teachers. Yet I 
>>> must say I was overwhelmed – and I do not use that word lightly – by the 
>>> extent and depth of the benefits I uncovered in my research. From greatly 
>>> improved health, better educational outcomes, str

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as
> each day passes.

It's interesting that the folks who make the most noise
in promoting their ideas also seem to be the folks who
are the most afraid of engaging with challenges to those
ideas.


> 
> 
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> 
> > Why should I take his word because he has money and fame? That is a 
> > bullshit premise from the get go. Does that make it any plainer?
> > 
> > 
> > From: Share Long 
> > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:49 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
> > 
> >  
> > What I notice is how you evade the real point.  Which I'll elucidate by 
> > saying that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.  So again, if you are 
> > able, how do you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and 
> > healthy, practices and promotes TM?
> > I'm also noticing that none of the anti TM people can answer this one.  And 
> > so they are evading it.
> > 
> > From: Michael Jackson 
> > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:28 AM
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
> > 
> >  
> > I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do what 
> > they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru
> > 
> > From: Share Long 
> > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
> > 
> >  
> > Michael, I'm genuinely curious:  how do you reconcile all that you believe 
> > about TM with the fact that someone as smart and successful and healthy as 
> > Dr. Oz practices TM and endorses it?  I'm thinking that for famous people 
> > like Lynch and Paul McCartney, Howard Stern and Seinfeld, etc. they're just 
> > grateful to have found a technique that enables them to not only survive 
> > but thrive in the very demanding entertainment field.  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[Michael Jackson]

You might actually have a good shot at replacing Jerry Lewis Ravi.





 From: Ravi Chivukula 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
 

  
No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes.



On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson  wrote:


  
>Why should I take his word because he has money and fame? That is a bullshit 
>premise from the get go. Does that make it any plainer?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Share Long 
>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:49 PM
>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
> 
>
>  
>What I notice is how you evade the real point.  Which I'll elucidate by saying 
>that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.  So again, if you are able, how 
>do you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and healthy, 
>practices and promotes TM?
>
>I'm also noticing that none of the anti TM people can answer this one.  And so 
>they are evading it.
>
>
>
>
>____
> From: Michael Jackson 
>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:28 AM
>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
> 
>
>  
>I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do what 
>they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru
>
>
>
>
>____
> From: Share Long 
>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:10 PM
>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
> 
>
>  
>Michael, I'm genuinely curious:  how do you reconcile all that you believe 
>about TM with the fact that someone as smart and 
successful and healthy as Dr. Oz practices TM and endorses it?  I'm thinking 
that for famous people like Lynch and Paul McCartney, Howard Stern and 
Seinfeld, etc. they're just grateful to have found a technique that enables 
them to not only survive but thrive in the very demanding entertainment field.  
>
>
>PS to Emily, thanks for your reply smile.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: salyavin808 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:40 PM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
> 
>
>  
>
>
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>> >
>
>> > How about Jack Forem? He just got added at the top.
>> > 
>> >
>> 
>> From NYTimes page:
>> Jack Forem Boise, Idaho
>> "I recently released an updated version of a book on TM written in the 
>> 1970s. I thought the update would take me a couple of months, but the 
>> process of sorting through the vast amount of published, top-quality, 
>> peer-reviewed scientific research, and the number of compassionate and 
>> helpful programs such as those cited in the article on David Lynch's 
>> foundation, kept me engaged in research and writing for two years. I have 
>> practiced TM since 1967, taught it, and helped to train TM teachers. Yet I 
>> must say I was overwhelmed – and I do not use that word lightly – by the 
>> extent and depth of the benefits I uncovered in my research. From greatly 
>> improved health, better educational outcomes, stress reduction, and the 
>> awakening to higher states of consciousness, to replicated interventions in 
>> war-torn areas that resulted in calm and peace, the benefits of TM are 
>> thoroughly demonstrated and truly extraordinary. I find it sad that some 
>> misinformed and/or
 angry people find it necessary to attack such a good thing, that has helped, 
and is helping, so many. I would urge them to investigate more deeply and 
re-think their position."
>> 
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-meditation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&;
>
>But all of these angry people are TMers for whom it didn't work
>or who got fed up with the way the organisation operated after 
>working there for years and thus can't really be said to be misinformed.
>
>But their story was somehow neglected from his research?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[Ravi Chivukula]

Dear MJ - Chant this 108 times every day it will help you calm down - The 
Channeler Sutra.

-
I have these memories. Or they're myths of another age or mythologized aspects 
of my psyche, archetypal truths or fabrications of my imaginative lunacy. You 
decide. To me they're memories. 

I rest in the center of the galaxy near the Great Central Sun, whole and in 
bliss, indwelling a nearby star, hanging in space, basking in the love. 

I commune with the Great Central Sun and the Great Central Yoni, our galaxy's 
great black hole vortex, from which the Milky Way sprang forth and to which it 
will return. 


Reference - http://www.iloveyouandforgiveyou.org/newbook.htm

Love and Light,
Ravi



On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:

> No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes.
> 
> 
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> 
>> Why should I take his word because he has money and fame? That is a bullshit 
>> premise from the get go. Does that make it any plainer?
>> 
>> 
>> From: Share Long 
>> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
>> 
>>  
>> What I notice is how you evade the real point.  Which I'll elucidate by 
>> saying that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.  So again, if you are 
>> able, how do you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and 
>> healthy, practices and promotes TM?
>> I'm also noticing that none of the anti TM people can answer this one.  And 
>> so they are evading it.
>> 
>> From: Michael Jackson 
>> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:28 AM
>> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
>> 
>>  
>> I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do what 
>> they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru
>> 
>> From: Share Long 
>> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:10 PM
>> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
>> 
>>  
>> Michael, I'm genuinely curious:  how do you reconcile all that you believe 
>> about TM with the fact that someone as smart and successful and healthy as 
>> Dr. Oz practices TM and endorses it?  I'm thinking that for famous people 
>> like Lynch and Paul McCartney, Howard Stern and Seinfeld, etc. they're just 
>> grateful to have found a technique that enables them to not only survive but 
>> thrive in the very demanding entertainment field.  
>> 
>> PS to Emily, thanks for your reply smile.
>> 
>> From: salyavin808 
>> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:40 PM
>> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
>> >
>> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>> > >
>> 
>> > > How about Jack Forem? He just got added at the top.
>> > > 
>> > >
>> > 
>> > From NYTimes page:
>> > Jack Forem Boise, Idaho
>> > "I recently released an updated version of a book on TM written in the 
>> > 1970s. I thought the update would take me a couple of months, but the 
>> > process of sorting through the vast amount of published, top-quality, 
>> > peer-reviewed scientific research, and the number of compassionate and 
>> > helpful programs such as those cited in the article on David Lynch's 
>> > foundation, kept me engaged in research and writing for two years. I have 
>> > practiced TM since 1967, taught it, and helped to train TM teachers. Yet I 
>> > must say I was overwhelmed – and I do not use that word lightly – by the 
>> > extent and depth of the benefits I uncovered in my research. From greatly 
>> > improved health, better educational outcomes, stress reduction, and the 
>> > awakening to higher states of consciousness, to replicated interventions 
>> > in war-torn areas that resulted in calm and peace, the benefits of TM are 
>> > thoroughly demonstrated and truly extraordinary. I find it sad that some 
>> > misinformed and/or angry people find it necessary to attack such a good 
>> > thing, that has helped, and is helping, so many. I would urge them to 
>> > investigate more deeply and re-think their position."
>> > 
>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-meditation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&;
>> 
>> But all of these angry people are TMers for whom it didn't work
>> or who got fed up with the way the organisation operated after 
>> working there for years and thus can't really be said to be misinformed.
>> 
>> But their story was somehow neglected from his research?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[Ravi Chivukula]

No dear MJ it doesn't - makes you look more retarded as each day passes.


On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Michael Jackson  wrote:

> Why should I take his word because he has money and fame? That is a bullshit 
> premise from the get go. Does that make it any plainer?
> 
> 
> From: Share Long 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
> 
>  
> What I notice is how you evade the real point.  Which I'll elucidate by 
> saying that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.  So again, if you are 
> able, how do you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and 
> healthy, practices and promotes TM?
> I'm also noticing that none of the anti TM people can answer this one.  And 
> so they are evading it.
> 
> From: Michael Jackson 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
> 
>  
> I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do what 
> they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru
> 
> From: Share Long 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
> 
>  
> Michael, I'm genuinely curious:  how do you reconcile all that you believe 
> about TM with the fact that someone as smart and successful and healthy as 
> Dr. Oz practices TM and endorses it?  I'm thinking that for famous people 
> like Lynch and Paul McCartney, Howard Stern and Seinfeld, etc. they're just 
> grateful to have found a technique that enables them to not only survive but 
> thrive in the very demanding entertainment field.  
> 
> PS to Emily, thanks for your reply smile.
> 
> From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:40 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
> 
>  
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
> 
> > > How about Jack Forem? He just got added at the top.
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > From NYTimes page:
> > Jack Forem Boise, Idaho
> > "I recently released an updated version of a book on TM written in the 
> > 1970s. I thought the update would take me a couple of months, but the 
> > process of sorting through the vast amount of published, top-quality, 
> > peer-reviewed scientific research, and the number of compassionate and 
> > helpful programs such as those cited in the article on David Lynch's 
> > foundation, kept me engaged in research and writing for two years. I have 
> > practiced TM since 1967, taught it, and helped to train TM teachers. Yet I 
> > must say I was overwhelmed – and I do not use that word lightly – by the 
> > extent and depth of the benefits I uncovered in my research. From greatly 
> > improved health, better educational outcomes, stress reduction, and the 
> > awakening to higher states of consciousness, to replicated interventions in 
> > war-torn areas that resulted in calm and peace, the benefits of TM are 
> > thoroughly demonstrated and truly extraordinary. I find it sad that some 
> > misinformed and/or angry people find it necessary to attack such a good 
> > thing, that has helped, and is helping, so many. I would urge them to 
> > investigate more deeply and re-think their position."
> > 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-meditation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&;
> 
> But all of these angry people are TMers for whom it didn't work
> or who got fed up with the way the organisation operated after 
> working there for years and thus can't really be said to be misinformed.
> 
> But their story was somehow neglected from his research?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[Michael Jackson]

Why should I take his word because he has money and fame? That is a bullshit 
premise from the get go. Does that make it any plainer?





 From: Share Long 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael
 

  
What I notice is how you evade the real point.  Which I'll elucidate by saying 
that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.  So again, if you are able, how do 
you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and healthy, practices 
and promotes TM?

I'm also noticing that none of the anti TM people can answer this one.  And so 
they are evading it.




 From: Michael Jackson 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
 

  
I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do what 
they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru




 From: Share Long 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
 

  
Michael, I'm genuinely curious:  how do you reconcile all that you believe 
about TM with the fact that someone as smart and 
successful and healthy as Dr. Oz practices TM and endorses it?  I'm thinking 
that for famous people like Lynch and Paul McCartney, Howard Stern and 
Seinfeld, etc. they're just grateful to have found a technique that enables 
them to not only survive but thrive in the very demanding entertainment field.  

PS to Emily, thanks for your reply smile.




 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:40 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >

> > How about Jack Forem? He just got added at the top.
> > 
> >
> 
> From NYTimes page:
> Jack Forem Boise, Idaho
> "I recently released an updated version of a book on TM written in the 1970s. 
> I thought the update would take me a couple of months, but the process of 
> sorting through the vast amount of published, top-quality, peer-reviewed 
> scientific research, and the number of compassionate and helpful programs 
> such as those cited in the article on David Lynch's foundation, kept me 
> engaged in research and writing for two years. I have practiced TM since 
> 1967, taught it, and helped to train TM teachers. Yet I must say I was 
> overwhelmed – and I do not use that word lightly – by the extent and depth of 
> the benefits I uncovered in my research. From greatly improved health, better 
> educational outcomes, stress reduction, and the awakening to higher states of 
> consciousness, to replicated interventions in war-torn areas that resulted in 
> calm and peace, the benefits of TM are thoroughly demonstrated and truly 
> extraordinary. I find it sad that some misinformed and/or
 angry people find it necessary to attack such a good thing, that has helped, 
and is helping, so many. I would urge them to investigate more deeply and 
re-think their position."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-meditation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&;

But all of these angry people are TMers for whom it didn't work
or who got fed up with the way the organisation operated after 
working there for years and thus can't really be said to be misinformed.

But their story was somehow neglected from his research?








 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Michael

[Share Long]

What I notice is how you evade the real point.  Which I'll elucidate by saying 
that I don't consider The Donald as healthy.  So again, if you are able, how do 
you explain that someone like Dr. Oz, smart, successful and healthy, practices 
and promotes TM?

I'm also noticing that none of the anti TM people can answer this one.  And so 
they are evading it.




 From: Michael Jackson 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
 

  
I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do what 
they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru




 From: Share Long 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
 

  
Michael, I'm genuinely curious:  how do you reconcile all that you believe 
about TM with the fact that someone as smart and 
successful and healthy as Dr. Oz practices TM and endorses it?  I'm thinking 
that for famous people like Lynch and Paul McCartney, Howard Stern and 
Seinfeld, etc. they're just grateful to have found a technique that enables 
them to not only survive but thrive in the very demanding entertainment field.  

PS to Emily, thanks for your reply smile.




 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:40 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >

> > How about Jack Forem? He just got added at the top.
> > 
> >
> 
> From NYTimes page:
> Jack Forem Boise, Idaho
> "I recently released an updated version of a book on TM written in the 1970s. 
> I thought the update would take me a couple of months, but the process of 
> sorting through the vast amount of published, top-quality, peer-reviewed 
> scientific research, and the number of compassionate and helpful programs 
> such as those cited in the article on David Lynch's foundation, kept me 
> engaged in research and writing for two years. I have practiced TM since 
> 1967, taught it, and helped to train TM teachers. Yet I must say I was 
> overwhelmed – and I do not use that word lightly – by the extent and depth of 
> the benefits I uncovered in my research. From greatly improved health, better 
> educational outcomes, stress reduction, and the awakening to higher states of 
> consciousness, to replicated interventions in war-torn areas that resulted in 
> calm and peace, the benefits of TM are thoroughly demonstrated and truly 
> extraordinary. I find it sad that some misinformed and/or
 angry people find it necessary to attack such a good thing, that has helped, 
and is helping, so many. I would urge them to investigate more deeply and 
re-think their position."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-meditation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&;

But all of these angry people are TMers for whom it didn't work
or who got fed up with the way the organisation operated after 
working there for years and thus can't really be said to be misinformed.

But their story was somehow neglected from his research?






 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael

[Michael Jackson]

I don't take the amount of money or fame someone has as an edict to do what 
they recommend. If I did, I would have Donal Trump as my guru




 From: Share Long 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
 

  
Michael, I'm genuinely curious:  how do you reconcile all that you believe 
about TM with the fact that someone as smart and 
successful and healthy as Dr. Oz practices TM and endorses it?  I'm thinking 
that for famous people like Lynch and Paul McCartney, Howard Stern and 
Seinfeld, etc. they're just grateful to have found a technique that enables 
them to not only survive but thrive in the very demanding entertainment field.  

PS to Emily, thanks for your reply smile.




 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:40 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >

> > How about Jack Forem? He just got added at the top.
> > 
> >
> 
> From NYTimes page:
> Jack Forem Boise, Idaho
> "I recently released an updated version of a book on TM written in the 1970s. 
> I thought the update would take me a couple of months, but the process of 
> sorting through the vast amount of published, top-quality, peer-reviewed 
> scientific research, and the number of compassionate and helpful programs 
> such as those cited in the article on David Lynch's foundation, kept me 
> engaged in research and writing for two years. I have practiced TM since 
> 1967, taught it, and helped to train TM teachers. Yet I must say I was 
> overwhelmed – and I do not use that word lightly – by the extent and depth of 
> the benefits I uncovered in my research. From greatly improved health, better 
> educational outcomes, stress reduction, and the awakening to higher states of 
> consciousness, to replicated interventions in war-torn areas that resulted in 
> calm and peace, the benefits of TM are thoroughly demonstrated and truly 
> extraordinary. I find it sad that some misinformed and/or
 angry people find it necessary to attack such a good thing, that has helped, 
and is helping, so many. I would urge them to investigate more deeply and 
re-think their position."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-meditation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&;

But all of these angry people are TMers for whom it didn't work
or who got fed up with the way the organisation operated after 
working there for years and thus can't really be said to be misinformed.

But their story was somehow neglected from his research?




 

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[doctordumbass]

Very good, but the lil' quacker really oughta have a stethoscope around his 
neck...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ 
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. I oughta come out with a line of coffee mugs, huh? :-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for bringing up a traditional use of the mantra as pure
> sound value. I am hardly knowledgeable about the Veda, but it IS all
> about the transformation and manifestation of vibration (sound).
> > > >
> > > > Aside from doing my 9th grade science project on what sound waves
> at various frequencies look like, when iron filings on an aluminum sheet
> are laid atop a speaker, and later, all the TM stuff, that's about as
> far as it goes for me.
> > > >
> > > > Nowadays, its either my tinnitus, or everything sings, or both.:-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Doc, I really appreciate your writings about enlightenment.  Spot on
> in my experience too.  For a while I was thinking of saving your quips
> about this as aphorisms but I ain't got the time to edit that now.
> > > -Buck
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... 
wrote:
>
> Thanks. I oughta come out with a line of coffee mugs, huh? :-)








>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ 
wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for bringing up a traditional use of the mantra as pure
sound value. I am hardly knowledgeable about the Veda, but it IS all
about the transformation and manifestation of vibration (sound).
> > >
> > > Aside from doing my 9th grade science project on what sound waves
at various frequencies look like, when iron filings on an aluminum sheet
are laid atop a speaker, and later, all the TM stuff, that's about as
far as it goes for me.
> > >
> > > Nowadays, its either my tinnitus, or everything sings, or both.:-)
> > >
> >
> > Doc, I really appreciate your writings about enlightenment.  Spot on
in my experience too.  For a while I was thinking of saving your quips
about this as aphorisms but I ain't got the time to edit that now.
> > -Buck
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[doctordumbass]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> idiots that would pay a mill for his darshan could have had him puke in their 
> faces and would have considered it a blessing.
> 
One thing to consider is that a million dollars looks like a lot to you, but 
not to those who spent it. Wealthy people don't "feel" a million dollars, the 
same way you and I do. 

The ultra-rich could have a hundred gurus puke in their faces, at a million a 
pop, and not notice the debit (though the presumed gallons of vomit would be 
difficult to ignore - Now *there's* a "Fabreze Challenge" for you...).

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> God that is hilarious! Thank you for posting this Barry.

Consider it merely a warning against believing everything
you read in TMO press releases. Sorta like when most of
the TM-related press releases about the controversial
(withdrawn from publication at the last minute and then
later re-released) study on heart disease and TM failed
to mention that the study participants were all black.
African Americans are 40% more likely to have high blood 
pressure than other ethnic groups, and 10% less likely to 
have it under control. The TMO writeup didn't mention the 
ethnic makeup of the study *at all*. ALL that was important
to them was that there was something that they could spin 
into making TM look good.

As for the French, well...I lived there for many years,
and I've never really understood their overly SERIOUS
side, and their tendency to take any play or movie or
novel that is ponderous and dark and incomprehensible
and assume that it's ART. And at the same time, their
favorite performers -- both on the stage and in movies 
-- have always been irredeemably stupid clowns like
Jerry Lewis, whose humor appeals to the lowest, least
intelligent common denominator. So drawing any conclu-
sions from them honoring David Lynch is a bit suspect. :-)

> 
>  From: turquoiseb 
>  
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > he became a "legend" because a lot of people like sick 
> > > > twisted stuff
> > > 
> > > I disagree. David Lynch became famous because of film
> > > critics who believe that if they can't understand a movie,
> > > it's actually good. 
> > 
> > I see, so that's why the french President Sarcozy gave Lynch 
> > the HIGHEST order of achievements in arts that's possible to 
> > receive. Must be because he wasn't listening to an OLD lover 
> > of B-movies and films living in Leiden :-)
> 
> You mean the same French who believe that *Jerry Lewis*
> was one of the greatest geniuses of the cinema? :-)
> 
> FYI, Lynch was awarded the *lowest* rank of Officer of 
> the Legion of Honor -- Chevalier -- not the highest:
> 
> The order has had five levels since the reign of King Louis 
> XVIII, who restored the order in 1815. Since the reform, the 
> following distinctions have existed :
> 
> * Chevalier (knight)
> * Commandeur (Commander)
> * Grand Officier (Grand Officer)
> * Grand-Croix (Grand Cross) 
> 
> Others so honored include Celine Dion, David Cronenberg,
> and Bruce Willis. Even Michele Yeoh, Hong Kong martial 
> arts movie star, was awarded a higher honor, Commandeur. :-)
> 
> For the record, Jerry Lewis was honored as a Chevalier
> in 1984, but then elevated to the rank of Commandeur
> in 2006, so even *he* ranks higher than David Lynch
> in the discerning eye of the French. :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[doctordumbass]

In my opinion, critics are the bottom feeders of the arts. Possessing no talent 
of their own, they pronounce judgement on entertainment they have enjoyed 
passively, but could never reproduce. The sole function for the paid ones, 
these days, is to function as money whores for the public to follow, pro or con.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > he became a "legend" because a lot of people like sick 
> > > > twisted stuff
> > > 
> > > I disagree. David Lynch became famous because of film
> > > critics who believe that if they can't understand a movie,
> > > it's actually good. 
> > 
> > I see, so that's why the french President Sarcozy gave Lynch 
> > the HIGHEST order of achievements in arts that's possible to 
> > receive. Must be because he wasn't listening to an OLD lover 
> > of B-movies and films living in Leiden :-)
> 
> You mean the same French who believe that *Jerry Lewis*
> was one of the greatest geniuses of the cinema? :-)
> 
> FYI, Lynch was awarded the *lowest* rank of Officer of 
> the Legion of Honor -- Chevalier -- not the highest:
> 
> The order has had five levels since the reign of King Louis XVIII, who 
> restored the order in 1815. Since the reform, the following distinctions have 
> existed :
> 
> Three ranks :
> * Chevalier (knight)
> * Commandeur (Commander)
> * Grand Officier (Grand Officer)
> * Grand-Croix (Grand Cross) 
> 
> Others so honored include Celine Dion, David Cronenberg,
> and Bruce Willis. Even Michele Yeoh, Hong Kong martial 
> arts movie star, was awarded a higher honor, Commandeur. :-)
> 
> For the record, Jerry Lewis was honored as a Chevalier
> in 1984, but then elevated to the rank of Commandeur
> in 2006, so even *he* ranks higher than David Lynch
> in the discerning eye of the French. :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[doctordumbass]

Thanks. I oughta come out with a line of coffee mugs, huh? :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for bringing up a traditional use of the mantra as pure sound value. 
> > I am hardly knowledgeable about the Veda, but it IS all about the 
> > transformation and manifestation of vibration (sound). 
> > 
> > Aside from doing my 9th grade science project on what sound waves at 
> > various frequencies look like, when iron filings on an aluminum sheet are 
> > laid atop a speaker, and later, all the TM stuff, that's about as far as it 
> > goes for me.
> > 
> > Nowadays, its either my tinnitus, or everything sings, or both.:-)
> > 
> 
> Doc, I really appreciate your writings about enlightenment.  Spot on in my 
> experience too.  For a while I was thinking of saving your quips about this 
> as aphorisms but I ain't got the time to edit that now.
> -Buck
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Michael Jackson]

God that is hilarious! Thank you for posting this Barry.





 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:13 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > he became a "legend" because a lot of people like sick 
> > > twisted stuff
> > 
> > I disagree. David Lynch became famous because of film
> > critics who believe that if they can't understand a movie,
> > it's actually good. 
> 
> I see, so that's why the french President Sarcozy gave Lynch 
> the HIGHEST order of achievements in arts that's possible to 
> receive. Must be because he wasn't listening to an OLD lover 
> of B-movies and films living in Leiden :-)

You mean the same French who believe that *Jerry Lewis*
was one of the greatest geniuses of the cinema? :-)

FYI, Lynch was awarded the *lowest* rank of Officer of 
the Legion of Honor -- Chevalier -- not the highest:

The order has had five levels since the reign of King Louis XVIII, who restored 
the order in 1815. Since the reform, the following distinctions have existed :

Three ranks :
* Chevalier (knight)
* Commandeur (Commander)
* Grand Officier (Grand Officer)
* Grand-Croix (Grand Cross) 

Others so honored include Celine Dion, David Cronenberg,
and Bruce Willis. Even Michele Yeoh, Hong Kong martial 
arts movie star, was awarded a higher honor, Commandeur. :-)

For the record, Jerry Lewis was honored as a Chevalier
in 1984, but then elevated to the rank of Commandeur
in 2006, so even *he* ranks higher than David Lynch
in the discerning eye of the French. :-)


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@ wrote:
> > >
> > > And another batch--it's 61 now. I didn't count them up,
> > > but it looks to me as though most of the new ones are
> > > negative.
> >
> > Tsk, the governors aren't pulling their weight. In the UK
> > if someone gets an article published it goes out on the
> > gov's email list so loads of positive comments can be put
> > out before the cynics get find it.
> >
> > It really backfired in the Guardian once when one of the
> > regular commenters noticed that all the positive remarks
> > were from people who joined within an hour or so of the
> > article appearing. Made me laugh as I knew everyone and
> > found it quite sweet that they had all got the hang of
> > modern PR methods as they were usually not the most tech-
> > nically minded people I'd ever met.
> >
> > So it's good that the NYT have posted negative stuff too
> > as some of it is rather interesting. But the most interesting
> > bit for me is that MMY didn't actually appear in person on
> > the millionaires courses. I didn't know that, the big attraction
> > for everyone of course was the personal intuition, but via TV!
> > Very odd behaviour, and they kept it quiet very well. But what
> > did the CPs think? I guess if you've handed over that much dosh
> > to who knows where you must be used to the TMO way of operating.
> > I would be well hacked off of course, but then I wouldn't have
> > given them the cash in the first place so it's probably self
> > selecting who gets disappointed with the misleading course
> > details.
> >
> 
> 
> Instructions finally came yesterday...better late than never I guess...
> 
> Time-Sensitive: Your Help Needed—Please Leave Comments
> on New York Times Article on David Lynch & TM Program
>

I got to go feed livestock and get to the Dome now for the morning meditation 
but if I had time to log in to the NYTimes I'd send them this to help out:

"Dear NYTimes readers,  Scroll through and read the range of views and insight 
of the broader TM community about this article in the message replies that 
started in this post:   
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/336181
-Buck

 
> February 24, 2013
> 
> Dear Certified Governors and Friends,
> 
> Please take 1-2 minutes, this evening if possible, and leave a brief
> comment on the online New York Times article about David Lynch and the
> TM® program. It is one of their top featured articles today and
> highlighted as top news on their mobile front page.
> 
> You can read the article and leave a comment here:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-me\
> ditation.html?pagewanted=all
>  editation.html?pagewanted=all>
> 
> Several people who are unfamiliar with our program are leaving
> ill-informed comments which can easily mislead NY Times readers. We
> would like to show support for these powerful programs with a brief
> comment at the end of the article that supports the great works of the
> David Lynch Foundation and the TM program in a simple and balanced way.
> 
> Thanks so much,
> 
> Jai Guru Dev
> 
> Sam and Melody Katz
> National Directors of Communication
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > he became a "legend" because a lot of people like sick twisted stuff
>
> 
> As for why Nabby likes him, I thought MJ (or Sal, whoever
> said it) got it right. If there were a person on the street
> selling little dolls made out of dogshit and someone told
> Nabby that the person was a TMer, he'd call them an "artist." :-)


Let's be thankful that stale, old nitwits like the Turq was not around to 
critizise the now world famous artists. Without even a trace of talent for or 
understanding of art he'd be the first to label the art of Picasso, Van Gogh 
and others as "trash" and "twisted".

When in addition the artist create something FAR beyond the scope of his 
limited comprehension happens to be a TM'er we know the outcome. 

We've seen fools like him in action before; Hitler called art he did'nt like or 
made by jews "entarted" and had it banned and burned. 

That's what the Turq would have liked to do too if he wasn't an impotent old 
fart.

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@ wrote:
> >
> > And another batch--it's 61 now. I didn't count them up,
> > but it looks to me as though most of the new ones are
> > negative.
>
> Tsk, the governors aren't pulling their weight. In the UK
> if someone gets an article published it goes out on the
> gov's email list so loads of positive comments can be put
> out before the cynics get find it.
>
> It really backfired in the Guardian once when one of the
> regular commenters noticed that all the positive remarks
> were from people who joined within an hour or so of the
> article appearing. Made me laugh as I knew everyone and
> found it quite sweet that they had all got the hang of
> modern PR methods as they were usually not the most tech-
> nically minded people I'd ever met.
>
> So it's good that the NYT have posted negative stuff too
> as some of it is rather interesting. But the most interesting
> bit for me is that MMY didn't actually appear in person on
> the millionaires courses. I didn't know that, the big attraction
> for everyone of course was the personal intuition, but via TV!
> Very odd behaviour, and they kept it quiet very well. But what
> did the CPs think? I guess if you've handed over that much dosh
> to who knows where you must be used to the TMO way of operating.
> I would be well hacked off of course, but then I wouldn't have
> given them the cash in the first place so it's probably self
> selecting who gets disappointed with the misleading course
> details.
>


Instructions finally came yesterday...better late than never I guess...

Time-Sensitive: Your Help Needed—Please Leave Comments
on New York Times Article on David Lynch & TM Program

February 24, 2013

Dear Certified Governors and Friends,

Please take 1-2 minutes, this evening if possible, and leave a brief
comment on the online New York Times article about David Lynch and the
TM® program. It is one of their top featured articles today and
highlighted as top news on their mobile front page.

You can read the article and leave a comment here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/david-lynch-transcendental-me\
ditation.html?pagewanted=all


Several people who are unfamiliar with our program are leaving
ill-informed comments which can easily mislead NY Times readers. We
would like to show support for these powerful programs with a brief
comment at the end of the article that supports the great works of the
David Lynch Foundation and the TM program in a simple and balanced way.

Thanks so much,

Jai Guru Dev

Sam and Melody Katz
National Directors of Communication

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > he became a "legend" because a lot of people like sick 
> > > twisted stuff
> > 
> > I disagree. David Lynch became famous because of film
> > critics who believe that if they can't understand a movie,
> > it's actually good. 
> 
> I see, so that's why the french President Sarcozy gave Lynch 
> the HIGHEST order of achievements in arts that's possible to 
> receive. Must be because he wasn't listening to an OLD lover 
> of B-movies and films living in Leiden :-)

You mean the same French who believe that *Jerry Lewis*
was one of the greatest geniuses of the cinema? :-)

FYI, Lynch was awarded the *lowest* rank of Officer of 
the Legion of Honor -- Chevalier -- not the highest:

The order has had five levels since the reign of King Louis XVIII, who restored 
the order in 1815. Since the reform, the following distinctions have existed :

Three ranks :
* Chevalier (knight)
* Commandeur (Commander)
* Grand Officier (Grand Officer)
* Grand-Croix (Grand Cross) 

Others so honored include Celine Dion, David Cronenberg,
and Bruce Willis. Even Michele Yeoh, Hong Kong martial 
arts movie star, was awarded a higher honor, Commandeur. :-)

For the record, Jerry Lewis was honored as a Chevalier
in 1984, but then elevated to the rank of Commandeur
in 2006, so even *he* ranks higher than David Lynch
in the discerning eye of the French. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > he became a "legend" because a lot of people like sick twisted stuff
> 
> I disagree. David Lynch became famous because of film
> critics who believe that if they can't understand a movie,
> it's actually good. 

I see, so that's why the french President Sarcozy gave Lynch the HIGHEST order 
of achievements in arts that's possible to receive. 
Must be because he wasn't listening to an OLD lover of B-movies and films 
living in Leiden :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> he became a "legend" because a lot of people like sick twisted stuff

I disagree. David Lynch became famous because of film
critics who believe that if they can't understand a movie,
it's actually good. 

This has been a problem with the film industry since the
beginning of movies, and contributed to the fleeting fame
of people like Jean Luc Godard (who was always merely
flashy, never brilliant).

Some people actually like David Lynch, and even I will
admit that he did a pretty good job with the real, four-
hour version of "Dune" and with "The Straight Story."
But IMO (and according to someone I used to know who
was his personal secretary) he's LAZY, and tends to 
fall back on being flashy and weird rather than being
actually creative, because he knows that among a certain
contingent of critics, that'll get him good reviews.

It's the same phenomenon in my opinion as those who fall
for flash (or occult "pushing it out") and think it's
charisma. Lacking discrimination, they just glom onto
whatever flashes them out and grabs their attention, and
then *retroactively* try to make up "reasons" why it
grabbed their attention. The reasons are never real;
they're excuses for having no discrimination.

As for why Nabby likes him, I thought MJ (or Sal, whoever
said it) got it right. If there were a person on the street
selling little dolls made out of dogshit and someone told
Nabby that the person was a TMer, he'd call them an "artist." :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> My stepfather has dementia and a couple other people I know
> had it before they died - when you have been around it as
> much as I have, you recognize the signs - Marshy had it and
> the bastards who were around him knew it and kept everyone
> in the dark so they could keep the gravy train coming into
> the station right on time

Michael, you may not have dementia, but you have a 
disorderly mind. If you want to keep people from
knowing somebody has dementia, you don't put them
in front of people on live video for press
conferences and celebrations and to discuss 
business with folks who've known them for years.

I mean, you saw him, so obviously you weren't being
kept in the dark. And you're hardly the only person
to have remarked on his mental deterioration. It
wasn't anything that *could* be kept in the dark as
long as he was still communicating with people.

So you can just can that particular conspiracy
theory. It makes no sense.

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And another batch--it's 61 now. I didn't count them up,
> > > > > > but it looks to me as though most of the new ones are
> > > > > > negative.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Tsk, the governors aren't pulling their weight. In the UK
> > > > > if someone gets an article published it goes out on the
> > > > > gov's email list so loads of positive comments can be put
> > > > > out before the cynics get find it.
> > > > 
> > > > It would be smarter, it seems to me, for the devotees to
> > > > comment *after* the cynics.
> > > 
> > > Wouldn't work in the Grauniad case as the first comments stay at 
> > > the top of the list.
> > 
> > Well, but then as you read the comments, your last
> > impression is of the positive ones rather than the
> > negative ones.
> > 
> > But if there are a lot of comments, you're right, because
> > folks would be unlikely to read all of them and might not
> > even *get* to the positive ones.
> > 
> > Maybe half the team should post right away, and the other
> > half after the cynics are done?
> > 
> > > Perhaps the NYT list will have some more
> > > positive remarks near the top by tomorrow?
> > 
> > How about Jack Forem? He just got added at the top.
> 
> 
> Poor MJ. If the TMO decides to sue him for lies and slander he will loose his 
> trailer.

Assuming he loses and owns a trailer.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> >
> > Goodness Judy, that's twice you've been wrong in the recent past. > Smiley 
> > face.
> 
> Ain't it awful? If I'm to maintain my average, it means
> I can't be wrong again for another two years. )-:

Oh, but at least you admit it when you are wrong. This is a long way from what 
lots of others are capable of. Being wrong and admitting it makes you 
endearingly human. (Barry?)
>  
> 
> 
> 
> > >
> > > From: authfriend 
> > >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > >Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:42 AM
> > >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily
> > > 
> > >
> > >  
> > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Just a figure of speech, conversational, if I really "hated
> > >> to say it," I wouldn't have said it. Smile.
> > >
> > >I'm wrong again. "Figure of speech" would have been my
> > >second wild guess, though. ;-)
> > >
> > >> > From: Share Long 
> > >> >To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
> > >> >Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:24 AM
> > >> >Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily
> > >> > 
> > >> >
> > >> >  
> > >> >Emily, what is it you hate to say?  And why?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > From: Emily Reyn 
> > >> >To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
> > >> >Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 1:01 PM
> > >> >Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
> > >> > 
> > >> >
> > >> >  
> > >> >I read it and the comments last night; hate to say, but leaving 
> > >> >Maharishi and the TMO out, benefits from TM come across.  
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>________________
> > >> >> From: Michael Jackson 
> > >> >>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
> > >> >>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:51 AM
> > >> >>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
> > >> >> 
> > >> >>
> > >> >>  
> > >> >>Oh by the way, why not go visit the New York Times magazine article on 
> > >> >>Raja David and his band of con artists again and see how many post 
> > >> >>there are.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> From: authfriend 
> > >> >>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > >> >>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 AM
> > >> >>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
> > >> >> 
> > >> >>
> > >> >>  
> > >> >>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> While I do not want to get into this particular sparring match
> > >> >>> between MJ and JS about whether TM is a devotional practice or
> > >> >>> not,
> > >> >>
> > >> >>What Michael and I are actually "sparring" about is
> > >> >>Michael's unwillingness--or inability--to address the
> > >> >>case emptybill made that TM is not a devotional
> > >> >>practice.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> the following link points to a few pages of Maharishi's Theory
> > >> >>> of Spiritual development from 1955, which is the earliest
> > >> >>> document I know of that describes his system of meditation.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Actually the link doesn't "point to" anything. It doesn't
> > >> >>work (HTTP 404).
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> This is a PDF document, an excerpt from 'Beacon Light of the 
> > >> >>> Himalayas'.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>And I'll just bet it's the excerpt in which Maharishi says:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>"...We find that any sound can serve our purpose of training the
> > >> >>mind to become sharp. But we do not select any sound like 'mike',
> > >> >>flower, table, pen, wall etc. because such ordinary sounds can
> > >> >>do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind; whereas there
> > >> >>are some special sounds which have the additional efficacy of
> > >> >>producing vibrations whose effects are found to be congenial
> > >> >>to our way of life. This is the scientific reason why we do not
> > >> >>select any word at random. For our practice we select only the
> > >> >>suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the
> > >> >>grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of
> > >> >>life."
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Right?
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> Because the TMO did not exist then, and this was published without a 
> > >> >>> copyright, I will assume it is in the public domain.
> > >> >>> 
> > >> >>> http://bit.ly/YQmNKW
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > 
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Michael Jackson]

Let 'em come on!





 From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 6:22 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And another batch--it's 61 now. I didn't count them up,
> > > > > but it looks to me as though most of the new ones are
> > > > > negative.
> > > > 
> > > > Tsk, the governors aren't pulling their weight. In the UK
> > > > if someone gets an article published it goes out on the
> > > > gov's email list so loads of positive comments can be put
> > > > out before the cynics get find it.
> > > 
> > > It would be smarter, it seems to me, for the devotees to
> > > comment *after* the cynics.
> > 
> > Wouldn't work in the Grauniad case as the first comments stay at 
> > the top of the list.
> 
> Well, but then as you read the comments, your last
> impression is of the positive ones rather than the
> negative ones.
> 
> But if there are a lot of comments, you're right, because
> folks would be unlikely to read all of them and might not
> even *get* to the positive ones.
> 
> Maybe half the team should post right away, and the other
> half after the cynics are done?
> 
> > Perhaps the NYT list will have some more
> > positive remarks near the top by tomorrow?
> 
> How about Jack Forem? He just got added at the top.

Poor MJ. If the TMO decides to sue him for lies and slander he will loose his 
trailer.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Michael Jackson]

My stepfather has dementia and a couple other people I know had it before they 
died - when you have been around it as much as I have, you recognize the signs 
- Marshy had it and the bastards who were around him knew it and kept everyone 
in the dark so they could keep the gravy train coming into the station right on 
time





 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 4:03 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > I believe he was already in the beginning stages of dementia
> > and his handlers wouldn't let him be seen by anyone - that's
> > why it was over closed circuit tv
> 
> Well, of course. There's no way you could possibly tell
> if someone was suffering from dementia just from seeing
> them via videoconference.

I could tell there was something seriously wrong with him
during his appearances on the Marshy channel, shaking hands, forgetfulness, 
repetitive speech and all his fading in and out
of conciousness. Probably enough for a doctor to make a preliminary diagnosis 
or have him brought into hospital. 

It was certainly enough for me to think he should be propped up
in bed with a hot water bottle at the very least, and not waffling
on live television. I thought that if they cared about him at all 
they would make him lie down and rest, it wasn't like he was making sense at 
that stage.

> Jesus, Michael. You're beginning to sound like *you're*
> suffering from dementia.
> 
>  
> >  From: salyavin808 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 2:43 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > And another batch--it's 61 now. I didn't count them up,
> > > but it looks to me as though most of the new ones are
> > > negative.
> > 
> > Tsk, the governors aren't pulling their weight. In the UK
> > if someone gets an article published it goes out on the
> > gov's email list so loads of positive comments can be put
> > out before the cynics get find it.
> > 
> > It really backfired in the Guardian once when one of the 
> > regular commenters noticed that all the positive remarks
> > were from people who joined within an hour or so of the
> > article appearing. Made me laugh as I knew everyone and
> > found it quite sweet that they had all got the hang of
> > modern PR methods as they were usually not the most tech-
> > nically minded people I'd ever met.
> > 
> > So it's good that the NYT have posted negative stuff too
> > as some of it is rather interesting. But the most interesting
> > bit for me is that MMY didn't actually appear in person on
> > the millionaires courses. I didn't know that, the big attraction
> > for everyone of course was the personal intuition, but via TV!
> > Very odd behaviour, and they kept it quiet very well. But what
> > did the CPs think? I guess if you've handed over that much dosh
> > to who knows where you must be used to the TMO way of operating.
> > I would be well hacked off of course, but then I wouldn't have
> > given them the cash in the first place so it's probably self
> > selecting who gets disappointed with the misleading course
> > details.
> >
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Michael Jackson]

I have never had contact with disembodied souls as I have said many times but 
you enjoy ignoring that bit of info





 From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:51 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>

> 
> Well, of course. There's no way you could possibly tell
> if someone was suffering from dementia just from seeing
> them via videoconference.
> 
> Jesus, Michael. You're beginning to sound like *you're*
> suffering from dementia.

More likely severe confusion brought about by contact with too many disembodied 
souls.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Michael Jackson]

he became a "legend" because a lot of people like sick twisted stuff





 From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:44 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > 
> > And even if you like Lynch's movies for their artistic value as films, the 
> > subject matter is often some sick twisted stuff - and he credits TM with 
> > unleashing his creativity to make such trash
> > 
> > Oh really ? You are as off about art as on any other subject.
> > The films of Lynch is about human struggle towards dignity, love and Light. 
> > Terms utterly alien to MJ.
> 
> 
> So in what way is Eraserhead about the human struggle towards dignity, love 
> and light? It's about a guy whose wife gives birth to an alien
> baby with its internal organs on the outside, then his head falls off
> and gets made into pencils. Great movie (Lynch's first and best) but
> highly disturbing.

Eraserhead is the most spiritual film Lynch ever made, something he also 
acknowledges himself. But the same struggle and reach for human dignity can be 
seen in all his films. Every one of them without exception. Lynch didn't become 
a living legend by making what to some simple souls seems to be horror movies.

To see light and love in art can't be taught. Either it resonates with you or 
it doesn't. Which mean those, ten and thousands of his fans, experience 
something which you don't. 
You might find it "disturbing" and MJ calls it "trash". Perhaps this says 
something about your ability to perceive. 
Just an idea.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Michael Jackson]

idiots that would pay a mill for his darshan could have had him puke in their 
faces and would have considered it a blessing.





 From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:11 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> I believe he was already in the beginning stages of dementia
> and his handlers wouldn't let him be seen by anyone - that's
> why it was over closed circuit tv

Well, of course. There's no way you could possibly tell
if someone was suffering from dementia just from seeing
them via videoconference.

Jesus, Michael. You're beginning to sound like *you're*
suffering from dementia.


>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 2:43 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > And another batch--it's 61 now. I didn't count them up,
> > but it looks to me as though most of the new ones are
> > negative.
> 
> Tsk, the governors aren't pulling their weight. In the UK
> if someone gets an article published it goes out on the
> gov's email list so loads of positive comments can be put
> out before the cynics get find it.
> 
> It really backfired in the Guardian once when one of the 
> regular commenters noticed that all the positive remarks
> were from people who joined within an hour or so of the
> article appearing. Made me laugh as I knew everyone and
> found it quite sweet that they had all got the hang of
> modern PR methods as they were usually not the most tech-
> nically minded people I'd ever met.
> 
> So it's good that the NYT have posted negative stuff too
> as some of it is rather interesting. But the most interesting
> bit for me is that MMY didn't actually appear in person on
> the millionaires courses. I didn't know that, the big attraction
> for everyone of course was the personal intuition, but via TV!
> Very odd behaviour, and they kept it quiet very well. But what
> did the CPs think? I guess if you've handed over that much dosh
> to who knows where you must be used to the TMO way of operating.
> I would be well hacked off of course, but then I wouldn't have
> given them the cash in the first place so it's probably self
> selecting who gets disappointed with the misleading course
> details.
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Michael Jackson]

I noticed he was on the perverted side when I saw BLue Velvet, but Twins Peaks 
let him really explore his sick twisted side. That sob has problems that TM has 
never touched (not to mention the chain smoking)





 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:01 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> 
> And even if you like Lynch's movies for their artistic value as films, the 
> subject matter is often some sick twisted stuff - and he credits TM with 
> unleashing his creativity to make such trash
> 
> Oh really ? You are as off about art as on any other subject.
> The films of Lynch is about human struggle towards dignity, love and Light. 
> Terms utterly alien to MJ.

So in what way is Eraserhead about the human struggle towards dignity, love and 
light? It's about a guy whose wife gives birth to an alien
baby with its internal organs on the outside, then his head falls off
and gets made into pencils. Great movie (Lynch's first and best) but
highly disturbing.

But his explanations of how he combines meditation with psycho-sexual
violence have never been very convincing, he probably never expected 
to get his orders to go out proselytising and didn't think he'd need
to explain it. Not in a positive way anyway, if he said "I just like
weird, pervy shit" and left it like that, no one would mind I'm sure.

He did have a good chat up line though. When he met Isabella Rosselini
he said: My God, you're so beautiful you could be Ingrid Bergman's daughter.

And she replied: I am Ingrid Berman's daughter.

Blue Velvet was his second best film which is interesting as he
always says the TM experience takes him to greater creative heights
but it seems that his career has been going downhill for a long time.
Some good bits but the first few were classics, the rest like Lost Highway, 
Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire are just tired and weird
either for it's own sake or to detract from the fact no one could be bothered 
to finish the script. IMO of course.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to grumpy rump turq

[Emily Reyn]

Well, Dr. Oz is famous in certain circles - he is a TV star now.  What's funny 
is that I read "smart, successful and wealthy."  Whoops!  



>
> From: Share Long 
>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:34 PM
>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to grumpy rump turq
> 
>
>  
>How do you reconcile presenting yourself as so together and your life as so 
>wonderful and yet be so grumpy most of the time?
>How do you reconcile being older than me and yet idiotic enough to chose my 
>excerpt that doesn't even contain the word famous?!
>IOW, in this excerpt of mine that you chose, I used the words smart, 
>successful and healthy to describe Dr. Oz.  Duh!
>Something about jr high and brains and nose blowing and dynamite sneezing but 
>I don't feel like looking up the post.  
>last but not least, BAH!
>
>
>
>
> From: turquoiseb 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 4:57 PM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
> 
>
>  
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>>
>> Michael, I'm genuinely curious: how do you reconcile all 
>> that you believe about TM with the fact that someone as 
>> smart and successful and healthy as Dr. Oz practices TM 
>> and endorses it? 
>
>How do you reconcile being 64 years old and still
>being idiotic enough to believe that something is
>good because someone famous does it?
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to grumpy rump turq

[Share Long]

How do you reconcile presenting yourself as so together and your life as so 
wonderful and yet be so grumpy most of the time?
How do you reconcile being older than me and yet idiotic enough to chose my 
excerpt that doesn't even contain the word famous?!
IOW, in this excerpt of mine that you chose, I used the words smart, successful 
and healthy to describe Dr. Oz.  Duh!
Something about jr high and brains and nose blowing and dynamite sneezing but I 
don't feel like looking up the post.  
last but not least, BAH!




 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 4:57 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Emily and Michael
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Michael, I'm genuinely curious: how do you reconcile all 
> that you believe about TM with the fact that someone as 
> smart and successful and healthy as Dr. Oz practices TM 
> and endorses it? 

How do you reconcile being 64 years old and still
being idiotic enough to believe that something is
good because someone famous does it?


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Ravi Chivukula]

A must read for anyone who is still not convinced by my reference to
channeling and healing as delusional - a clear example here -
http://www.iloveyouandforgiveyou.org/newbook.htm

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Ravi Chivukula wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
>
>> Look MJ - you need to do better than this pathetic, retarded retort of
>> yours and if its not obvious to you - unless you are a woman or my friend -
>> my attention is a curse and worse for someone stunted, paranoid and/or
>> delusional like you.
>>
>> So go again or learn from Barry and/or Share on how to avoid my attention.
>>
>> Anyway it's confirmed - Mark and you are pals then huh? LOL - a great
>> pairing BTW - I'm not complaining.
>>
>
> May be you are Mark yourself - now that would make lot of sense. He was
> into this healing/channeling delusional bullshit and would explain your
> childish stubbornness in your mention of the skin boy for every argument.
> You are probably screaming in your head every time your write about the
> skin boy - it's me, it's me goddammit  Nice, harmless guy - but totally
> stunted, tortured soul. OMG get some therapy, get some healing, go on some
> medication dude.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Michael Jackson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Ahh, I am blessed with attention from Ravi - thank you for your darshan
>> Ram Ravi
>>
>>
>>   --
>> *From:* Ravi Chivukula 
>> *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 24, 2013 2:48 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
>>
>>
>> OMG - you really need to get a grip on yourself MJ - need to separate out
>> Marshy, Lynch from the technique, the practices. Marshy was doomed to begin
>> with but can't blame the technique or his intent. Is this skin boy Mark
>> Landau - he is as nice and emotionally stunted as you. You are sounding
>> very paranoid at this point.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Michael Jackson wrote:
>>
>> **
>>
>>  You already answered your own question:
>>
>> For our practice we select only the
>> > suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the
>> > grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of
>> > life."
>>
>>
>>   --
>> *From:* authfriend 
>> *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:55 AM
>> *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
>>
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
>> >
>> > that is a good quote - and it points out something else the
>> > former skin boy told me which was that in his opinion, TM is
>> > all about the the accumulation of personal power rather than
>> > being a path to enlightenment as in we repeat the names of
>> > gods or goddesses
>>
>> Back to the original issue: Did Maharishi say in this quote
>> that TM involves repeating the names of gods or goddesses?
>>
>> Or did he say something a little different?
>>
>> (Just for the record, we've had several lengthy discussions
>> of this Beacon Light quote here over the years. I guess
>> Xeno wasn't here for the last one. I'm not sure there's
>> anything to be said about the quote that hasn't been said
>> before more than once, but we might as well go over it
>> again.)
>>
>> Oh, and are enlightenment and "the accumulation of personal
>> power" mutually exclusive? For that matter, does "make us
>> happier in every walk of life" even refer to "personal
>> power"?
>>
>> > so they will give us good stuff - either way, the end result
>> > is the kinds of behavior that the TMO leaders and even low
>> > to mid level managers exhibit - unpleasant, deceitful,
>> > arrogant etc. Yep TM is a goood thing to do. And even if
>> > you like Lynch's movies for their artistic value as films,
>> > the subject matter is often some sick twisted stuff - and he
>> > credits TM with unleashing his creativity to make such trash
>>
>> Wait. Is it trash, or does it have artistic value?
>>
>> > And to answer J's question - empty's quoting an old post don't
>> > cut no ice wid me cuz I don't believe it. Period.
>>
>> Right. As I said, you are unwilling or unable to address
>> the case emptybill mad

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Ravi Chivukula wrote:

> Look MJ - you need to do better than this pathetic, retarded retort of
> yours and if its not obvious to you - unless you are a woman or my friend -
> my attention is a curse and worse for someone stunted, paranoid and/or
> delusional like you.
>
> So go again or learn from Barry and/or Share on how to avoid my attention.
>
> Anyway it's confirmed - Mark and you are pals then huh? LOL - a great
> pairing BTW - I'm not complaining.
>

May be you are Mark yourself - now that would make lot of sense. He was
into this healing/channeling delusional bullshit and would explain your
childish stubbornness in your mention of the skin boy for every argument.
You are probably screaming in your head every time your write about the
skin boy - it's me, it's me goddammit  Nice, harmless guy - but totally
stunted, tortured soul. OMG get some therapy, get some healing, go on some
medication dude.



>
>
> On Feb 24, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Michael Jackson 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ahh, I am blessed with attention from Ravi - thank you for your darshan
> Ram Ravi
>
>
>   --
> *From:* Ravi Chivukula 
> *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 24, 2013 2:48 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
>
>
> OMG - you really need to get a grip on yourself MJ - need to separate out
> Marshy, Lynch from the technique, the practices. Marshy was doomed to begin
> with but can't blame the technique or his intent. Is this skin boy Mark
> Landau - he is as nice and emotionally stunted as you. You are sounding
> very paranoid at this point.
>
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Michael Jackson wrote:
>
> **
>
>  You already answered your own question:
>
> For our practice we select only the
> > suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the
> > grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of
> > life."
>
>
>   ------
> *From:* authfriend 
> *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:55 AM
> *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> >
> > that is a good quote - and it points out something else the
> > former skin boy told me which was that in his opinion, TM is
> > all about the the accumulation of personal power rather than
> > being a path to enlightenment as in we repeat the names of
> > gods or goddesses
>
> Back to the original issue: Did Maharishi say in this quote
> that TM involves repeating the names of gods or goddesses?
>
> Or did he say something a little different?
>
> (Just for the record, we've had several lengthy discussions
> of this Beacon Light quote here over the years. I guess
> Xeno wasn't here for the last one. I'm not sure there's
> anything to be said about the quote that hasn't been said
> before more than once, but we might as well go over it
> again.)
>
> Oh, and are enlightenment and "the accumulation of personal
> power" mutually exclusive? For that matter, does "make us
> happier in every walk of life" even refer to "personal
> power"?
>
> > so they will give us good stuff - either way, the end result
> > is the kinds of behavior that the TMO leaders and even low
> > to mid level managers exhibit - unpleasant, deceitful,
> > arrogant etc. Yep TM is a goood thing to do. And even if
> > you like Lynch's movies for their artistic value as films,
> > the subject matter is often some sick twisted stuff - and he
> > credits TM with unleashing his creativity to make such trash
>
> Wait. Is it trash, or does it have artistic value?
>
> > And to answer J's question - empty's quoting an old post don't
> > cut no ice wid me cuz I don't believe it. Period.
>
> Right. As I said, you are unwilling or unable to address
> the case emptybill made. You won't even address the
> question of whether the opinion of a skin boy trumps that
> of a respected scholarly Hindu yogi.
>
> "The skin boy said it, I believe it, that settles it." I
> could swear I've seen that on a bumper sticker somewhere.
>
> > 
> > From: authfriend
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back
> >
> >
> > Â
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote:
> > >
> > > While I do