(#186025) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > I think the bottom line in this discussion is > that two people who have never been TM teachers, > have never lived in Fairfield and been subject > to these Inquisitions, and for that matter have > never done diddleysquat for MMY or the TM move- > ment in their entire lives are saying that it's > OK for the TM movement to make lifestyle demands.
Anyone who has actually read what Lawson and I have been saying knows Barry's lying about it. We've both been explicit that what we aren't condemning is the policy regarding TM teachers only. Lawson made an excellent logical case for it, which Barry hasn't been able to address at all; he has to resort to claiming Lawson and I believe Lawson's argument applies across the board, when Barry knows otherwise. Moreover, he's also lying in his description of us. Both of us *have* spent time doing things for the movement. Lawson's done a lot, and Barry's well aware of that because Lawson has talked about his TMO-related activities often here and on alt.m.t. I've done much less, but I know I've mentioned assisting at initiations and manning the center reception desk. Barry also knows I spent months living at the TM facility at Asbury Park back in 1995 and interacting with the resident TM lifers there, so I'm quite familiar with how the movement operates in terms of lifestyle requirements. > After all, it's not *their* lifestyle that > is being impacted. Actually both Lawson and I have been subject to it. > People who make excuses for tyrants have rarely > experienced tyranny themselves. > > Please remember, no matter how much doubletalk > is thrown out, that what these two people are > essentially saying is that the TM movement is > RIGHT in saying that seeing any other spiritual > teacher is a crime punishable by banishment. No, that isn't what either of us have said, and Barry knows it. > They'll try to dazzle you with nitpicky argu- > ments and distractions, Barry's talking about the entirely logical case Lawson made for requiring TM teachers not to be seen consorting with the competition, something that is pretty standard in any large organization. Barry, of course, cannot address that argument. but that's really the > stance they're taking. They're *defending* the > people who think they have the right to control > other people's lives. Organizations have the right to require that their official representatives not behave publicly in a manner that the organization feels puts the organization in a bad light, yes indeed.
