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