Barry as near as I can tell you haven't changed in years either. Ken
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq, > > You and John Knapp can't change. That's why you deserve each other's > company so much. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > The re-arrival of John Knapp on FFL, and the > > reaction of the TM TBs to his presence, has > > brought an issue into focus for me, so I > > figured I'd throw it out for others to react > > to. Or not, if you don't think it's relevant. > > > > Most of the people who have reacted so nega- > > tively and so *strongly* to John in the last > > few days are doing so based on their *past* > > interactions with him. They even say this. > > > > This covers Judy (who pretty much dwells > > in the past full-time), Lawson, and feste. > > Their message is consistent: "Why should we > > trust what John says in the present, because > > his past actions (as we see them, that is) > > have convinced us that he is not to be > > trusted." > > > > Now THINK about this statement, and what it > > reveals about the persons making it and their > > belief system. They don't believe that it is > > *possible* for someone they disliked in the > > past to change in the present. Once they have > > developed their first impression of them, that > > impression is fixed, immutable. > > > > And WHY? > > > > Duh, because none of THEM have changed, in > > years. Sometimes decades. If you go back into > > the archives of FFL or a.m.t. and look up posts > > by Judy Stein or by Lawson or by feste, you > > could "swap out" the posts from a decade ago > > with today's posts, and no one would be able > > to tell the difference. There has been no > > change; they are still the same basic selves, > > with the same basic samskaras and same basic > > behavioral patterns, still posting the same > > basic ignorance and bigotry that they posted > > years ago. Nothing *ever* seems to changes > > for them. > > > > Compare and contrast to someone like Curtis. > > There was a time when he was pretty in-your- > > face on these forums, too (and he still can > > be, when it is deserved, although almost always > > with humor these days). But generally we see > > a kinder, gentler, more balanced Curtis in his > > posts these days, a veritable model of behavior > > that many of us look up to. John Knapp seems to > > have learned a few things along the Way, too. > > > > And I'm betting that the *majority* of people > > here notice the difference. Whereas the TM TB > > trio I'm discussing above do not. They see John > > as the same old demon they saw him as before; > > their belief system does not seem to allow for > > the possibility of him having changed over the > > years. > > > > WHY? And WHY do they act like this? > > > > My bet is that what *we* see as their anger at > > these TM critics is in reality anger at *them- > > selves* for their inability to change. They > > cling to the TM dogma, and talk, talk, talk > > about its supposed benefits and the changes it > > can supposedly enable people to make, but they > > never actually *make* any of these changes > > *themselves*. That must get them down after a > > while, seeing others change and evolve around > > them, while they do not. And seemingly cannot. > > > > So, being unable to address what's really bug- > > ging them, they lash out at anyone they can > > find an excuse (and, seemingly, *any* excuse) > > to lash out at, and project onto their victims > > the very inability to change that they see in > > themselves. > > > > I find it curious, and more than a little sad. > > >
