i stand corrected wrt your views on this one, though you as curtis make the blithe statement that the Mahairshi lied about so many things. same challenge to you-- come up with five of them that can be proved.
about the rumors, who cares about rumors? not me, but others here use them as a lynchpin for aspects of their identity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > i am curious why some of those here, like Vaj, and Curtis and > > geezerfreak and Barry feel it is so important to cling > > deperately to the possibility that the Maharishi was a liar > > in terms of his sex life? > > I am curious why you are trying to include me > in the group of people you named and portray me > as "clinging desperately" to the idea that MMY > had a sex life. I defy you to find even one > post on this forum in which I said that I knew > the truth about this issue for sure. I defy you > to find one in which I even said that I cared > about it very much. > > Me, I don't know. I find the statements in the > Sexy Sadie files 1) completely credible, and > 2) completely in line with my perceptions of > the man during my occasional "face time" with > him. He had ZERO ability to self-examine and > analyze his own actions in terms of approp- > riateness, and he spent a lifetime hiding > things from his students and the world at > large. So I am *very* open to the *possibility* > that he had a secret sex life. But I don't know. > > Or much care. The man was a proven liar in so > many other ways that the question of whether he > was one with regard to being a lifelong celibate > doesn't really interest me much. > > But I do find it interesting, since YOU were one > of the first on this forum to leap into the fray > and "pounce" on someone's suggestion that the > stories about him having sex were a hoax (a sug- > gestion that itself turned out to be a good- > natured hoax), I'm wondering why you're attempt- > ing now to paint US as the ones who are "attached" > to the issue. > > My only contribution to the thread was to point > out YOUR "piling on" to the hoax post and > attempting to use it to demonize those who > believe the Maharishi sex stories NOT to be > a hoax. And, interestingly, rather than address > that, you've renewed your attempts to portray > anyone who finds these stories credible as > having something wrong with them. > > Me, I don't care whether he was a celibate or > whether he fucked the entire cheerleading squads > of both teams on the field during halftime at > the Super Bowl. Compared to some of the *other* > things he did that were patently illegal or > not in the interest of his students, that would > be "small potatoes" to me. > > But it seems that you care *very much* about > whether these rumors are true. Every time they > come up, you go out of your was to demonize > those who feel they have some credibility. > > Why do you think that is? >
