--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > Having so easily bent Barry to my will, I'm happy > > to respond to his questions: > > Wow. Nearly 70 years old, has meditated using > the "fastest, most effective method of achieving > enlightenment on the planet" for more than 30 > years, and this is how petty she still is. :-)
Barry *really* can't stand being laughed at. <snip> > WHY should we believe that you chose never to > mention it then, but choose to mention it now? The question is, why should we believe *Barry* when he claims I never mentioned it then? March 28, 1998, me in response to Andrew Skolnick: ----- > There is no conceivable way that Judy cannot know > that her statement is false. It's widely known that > TM teachers "invite" all initiates to kneel down > before the photo of Maharishi's deceased teacher. > The student invariably does. Andrew here has to resort to distorting the context of my response, as well as employing fractional truths and blatant inaccuracies, in order to claim what I said is false. The invitation to kneel doesn't come till the end of the ceremony, and BY NO MEANS does the student "invariably" kneel. We've discussed this before here, and TMers chimed in about their own initiations; some knelt, some didn't. I didn't. There's no pressure to do so. Some who had more recently learned TM said there hadn't even been an *invitation* to kneel. ----- http://groups.google.com/group/alt.meditation.transcendental/msg/f5e9ccef04333bf4 http://tinyurl.com/cahj7s And of course, as Barry knows, I've mentioned it here as well. Post #114696, Sept. 19, 2006, me to Barry (context was questions TM teachers are asked and the lies they allegedly tell in response): ----- > -- When asked, "Is it mandatory for the student to > kneel during initiation?" -- answer "No." HOWEVER, > in the explicit instructions given to me and other > TM teachers I know when we were made teachers, we > were epxlicitly told to never teach the person > UNLESS they knelt. Never heard this asked either. However, when I learned, I did not kneel and was taught anyway, and I know many others for whom that was the case. ----- For the record, on alt.m.t there had been several previous discussions of kneeling at which a number of TMers said they hadn't knelt, and one TM teacher said none of his students had ever knelt at his invitation. And in the thread I quoted, Lawson had already told Andrew that *he* hadn't knelt. Barry's right when he points out below that TMers saying they hadn't knelt would have dealt a "death blow" to Andrew's argument. It did. He let it drop (without, of course, acknowledging he'd been wrong or apologizing to me) and changed the subject. I'll leave in the rest of Barry's furious attack and allow readers to contemplate why being laughed at makes him so agitated that he missed the post I quoted above, then accuses me of lying on the basis of his own incompetence. (Note that I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here. It's entirely possible he *did* see the post I quoted and decided to lie about it.) > Isn't it more likely that you're LYING about > not having knelt yourself? > > That, after all, is what you would suggest about > me if I made such a claim after *15 years* of never > having mentioned it. > > I think we all know that you are so invested in > your "I never lie" image that you will never ADMIT > to having done this, even if you did, but if you > did lie, YOU know it, and know that it was FAR more > than the "lies of omission" that you justify to > yourself every day. > > So I'll just allow the lurkers to decide for them- > selves whether the person who could not bring her- > self to answer a few simple questions without > becoming hysterical and (in her view) "bending the > questioner to her will" would have passed up an > opportunity to do the same thing with the person > who had created the "Junkyard Dog" website about > her. Saying that YOU had never knelt would have > dealt a "death blow" to some of Andrew's arguments > back then, and YOU NEVER DEALT IT. > > Could it be because it never happened? > > I'll allow the lurkers here to decide for them- > selves. They know that YOU won't ever tell them the > full truth, because as you stated below, you have no > problem with lies of omission. I think we can infer > from that that you have few problems with lies of > commision, either.
