John Knapp's "ugly comment" -- > "I'd sure be more comfortable if researchers would > stick to experimenting on monkeys and leave the kids > alone."
John Knapp is threatening the lives of monkeys! Burn him at the stake! :-) I just love it when Judy *demonstrates* her Bad Intent by demonstrating her ability to read Bad Intent into anything she reads. Even the *promoters* of the teach-kids-to- meditate initiative refer to it as an exper- iment. But when John Knapp does the same thing, that is somehow revealing of his "ugly comment" and his "mask slipping." OF COURSE they are experimenting on school- kids. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. But for Judy, that's OK only when one of the chosen says it. If someone else says it, it's nefarious, evil, an "ugly comment." Someone should send Judy a mirror, because Mr. Dictionary clearly has not been sufficient to teach her the meaning of "ugly." --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> wrote: > > > > On Mar 24, 2009, at 12:38 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > [cardemaister wrote:] > > >>> "..it seems to me that many > > >>> people enjoy their TM -- while a significant minority > > >>> have problems such as depression, anxiety, dissociation, > > >>> involuntary tics, etc." > > >> > > >> Every once in a while John's mask slips, and what's > > >> behind his lip service to TM--such as that in your > > >> quote--gets inadvertently spat out in all its ugliness. > > > > > > What phrase do you object to? If your job is helping > > > people who do have problems like the late Margret Singer > > > then the reality of such a population is just a fact. > > > > I was wondering the same thing--seems to me > > John's quote is right on, realistic. God only > > knows what "mask" Judy is really afraid of. > > Idiot Sal does it again, with assistance from Curtis's > failure to include proper attributions. > > The quote at the top was from *cardemaister*, not > me. He was responding to my earlier post (which, of > course, poor delicate Sal couldn't bring herself to > read, even though Curtis had quoted it in full at > the end of the post). > > The "lip service" I was referring to, the "mask," > rather obviously, is what cardemaister quoted, the > mealy-mouthed acknowledgment that "many people enjoy > their TM" (followed by a carefully disguised plug > for his services for those who don't). > > When that mask *slips*, what comes out is what *I* had > quoted to start with, John's ugly comment about the > plans to do research on the children in Lynch's project: > > "I'd sure be more comfortable if researchers would > stick to experimenting on monkeys and leave the kids > alone." > > One would think folks with a few brain cells to rub > together would have learned that when a post doesn't > seem to make sense, it often helps to backtrack in > the thread to find the original context. In this case > Sal wouldn't even have had to go back; she could have > read the original post included beneath Curtis's > question to me. >
