First, restoring what Vaj carefully snipped, without noting that he'd snipped it:
A participant on alt.m.t back in 1994 described the problem Barry's having very well. Referring to the TM critics on the newsgroup, that person wrote: "The frequency of their posts and the anger you can feel behind them tells the real story. They're on a crusade. They probably spend more time reading the newsgroup and posting to it than the gung-ho TM people. IMHO, these guys are basically children who feel somehow slighted because their experience with TM didn't turn out the way they expected it to. "But what I think really galls them the most is the fact that, for so many others, it _did_ turn out the way they expected it to. No matter what they say outwardly, inwardly, they suspect that any failure was theirs, not TM's, and they want to make sure that no one else has the opportunity to succeed where they failed." http://groups.google.com/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/msg/485213dc6ebc20b\ 1 http://tinyurl.com/c6b68n --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > On Mar 6, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Peter wrote: > > >> Whoever it is the post certainly hit at the > >> heart of Turq's problem. > > > > Nabs, There certainly is a level of truth in > > the above, but the problem I have with it is > > that it completely dismisses any legitimacy > > their experience might have. For the record, in the original post he did say, "They're more than entitled to their opinions about TM." <snip> > Actually the only way the above post-link [The one Vaj carefully snipped in an attempt to protect Barry...] > would have any validity would be if you > actually believed that people were static, > non-evolving entities that did not change > over time, based on their life experiences. Yes, we really *don't want to see* how certain people have changed over time. We'd rather imagine that they've always been just as they are now. > Pretty sad really. Yes, indeed. Don't you agree, Dr. Pete? > It should seem pretty pathetic I would think > to a trained psychologist, no? What are we > to conclude about people who live this much > in the past? The post linked to was written over > 14 years ago! Too funny! "But she was *already* in full 'Gotta Get Barry' mode back in 1994. Google still has the posts." "I'm *sure* she'd like to portray the interaction some other way, but I just went back and re-read the posts last night, and that's how it went down." --Barry Wright, earlier today (before I'd posted his own 1994 tirade) I should think it would be pretty pathetic if one couldn't laugh at oneself for having dumped heavily on folks for doing the same exact thing one is now doing oneself, and for proposing a psychological explanation for the behavior that one now furiously rejects--and denounces others for suggesting (even in contexts where nobody's suggested it). It's a bit more drastic than your typical "change over time based on life experiences"--so drastic, in fact, that Vaj doesn't even want you to see it, let alone find out who wrote it. ed11 has it right: it's "freaky." As is Vaj's very strange response. We'll see how Barry reacts. My guess is he'll pretend to ignore the whole conversation, as he does with anything that embarrasses him. But in a day or two he'll come out with an even more crazy outburst-- or series thereof--than those of the past few days.
