This whole subject is so old I cannot develop even a hint of an interest in it.
However, the thing I find interesting is that John Knapp and the "We don't trust the TMO" folks in this discussion are essentially saying the SAME THING as Judy and the "We don't trust John Knapp and the anti-TMers" folks in the discussion. BOTH ARE USING *EXACTLY* THE SAME TACTICS: * These people (the TMO or John Knapp, et al) are not to be trusted. * These people (the TMO or John Knapp, et al) have a "hidden agenda." * These people (the TMO or John Knapp, et al) are really in it for the money. * These people (the TMO or John Knapp, et al) have a "history," and that history says more about them than their own words do. Doncha think it's fascinating that "graduates" of TMO indoctrination use *exactly the same techniques* to present their arguments and demonize the other side? Doncha think that's sad? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > >But he does have a very finely tuned B.S. > > > detector. > > > > My experience with Knapp indicates to me that he is > > forthright and stands up for what he believes. > > And my (much, much longer) experience with him indicates > something very different. Others who hung out on alt.m.t > when he was there had the same impression I did. > > > I respect him for that. > > I don't respect him or his methods. > > > He spent a long time around the TMO, he knows the > > cult of the TMO. > > "The cult of the TMO." <snicker> > > > IIRC, you did not support TM in the schools, erring > > on the side of separation of church and state. Or > > am I remembering wrong? > > I supported the court decision as discussed in the > concurring opinion of Judge Adams with regard to > TM plus SCI. TM *without* SCI is a different > situation. > > > There is no secular TM: there is the puja, there > > are the lectures. > > We disagree. > > > You don't just learn the technique. > > We disagree. > > > Plus, as Curtis and I have argued, people has the > > right to know the philosophical underpinnings of TM > > and the TMO. > > I think the whole objection is farcical on its face > and in most cases insincere. It isn't reality-based. > > > I know in the form proposed by Lynch no court has > > addressed whether it violates the separation of church > > and state. We will see what happens or if anyone wants > > to fund a court case if TM begins to spread in the > > schools. > > Yes, we will. > > > My hunch is that it will not go far. Schools and > > their administrators have too many things on their > > plates to mess around with TM. > > That's just what Knapp is hoping, that he can stir up > enough trouble to make the schools decide it's not > worth it. (And I'm sure he won't mind if he can > generate publicity for his counseling practice into > the bargain.) > > It's no surprise you support his efforts. >
