Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
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. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
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. > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
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. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
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
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 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 ta
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
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.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 Chri
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
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. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Is Back to Carol
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 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
