> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. > > > > > > > > Very interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why that was? > > > > > > Yup. I'm sure many of the TM critics gave money for > > > Haiti relief as well; they just didn't want it to look as > > > though they might have been inspired to do so by TMers. > > > > Nope, but nice swipe at the non TMers. For some of us > > donating to the cause had nothing to do with this agenda > > of proving something about TM or non TM. It was not a > > wedge issue that needed to be used to prove something else. > > But you're suggesting it was on the TMers' part, right? > > I didn't even notice that the donors were all TMers until > after it was over and done with. Nobody waved a TM banner. > Raunchy waved an *FFL* banner. She and I were thinking of > it as a group effort on the part of FFL participants. I > doubt any of the other contributors thought of it as > anything else either. > > > > They should have started a TM Critics' Drive. Then we > > > could have had a competition and probably raised even > > > more... > > > > If our world revolved around being anti-TM. The issues > > of giving are not associated with my views on TM although > > you have chosen to link them. We can conclude nothing > > about non TM people from their lack of participation in > > the FFL drive. > > But we can attribute lowly motives to TM people for > having participated, right?
No I did not. > > > Being individuals I suspect there were many reasons. > > > > > > My point, of course--which Curtis attempts to distract > > > attention from while nastily insinuating lowly motives-- > > > > Lowly motives you ascribe to the non TMers. > > Right. You can ascribe lowly motives, but I can't. > Hypocrite. > > > You are linking the concepts here Judy you don't get to > > shove your own connection on me for challenging it. I > > just asked why that was > > There was no need to ask "why that was." The *only* point > I was making was that TMers aren't slackers about doing > their bit, contrary to the impression your pal Barry > tried to create. I accept that point. > > > and true to form you assumed the worst about non TMers > > Hardly. I said I was sure many of them had donated as > well. > > > turning this into a wedge issue. You even suggest that > > it becomes a contest > > Sarcasm in response to your nasty insinuation. > > > showing that for you this proved a point about TM people. > > One that is bogus as I have pointed out. > > If the point I was making--that TMers contribute just like > others--was bogus, then why *did* the TMers contribute? > > Come on, Curtis, spit it out. Have the balls to let us see > how you really think. Because they felt sorry for the poor people in Haiti? That would be my guess. And the drive here seemed like a good way to do it for them. (I don't think my balls need to be included in such a discussion.) > > > > is that householder TMers don't just sit back and assume > > > their practice is all they need to contribute to the > > > general welfare. Like most other decent human beings, > > > they're moved to do whatever they can to help others in > > > material ways as well. > > > > I couldn't agree more in your case. The fact that the > > movement believers tend to think their inner magic cures > > social problems is too documented to debate. It is part > > of the doctrine of beliefs. > > That doesn't mean they don't *also* help in material ways. > > > I'm glad you got to donate and feel good about it. > > It's not about "feeling good about it." It's about doing > something helpful to others. It is whatever it is for you. I believe feeling good is a natural reaction to acts of altruism, it is hardwired. > > And just how do you imagine I wouldn't have gotten to > donate, such that you can be glad I did get to? Are you > suggesting I wouldn't have had any motivation to do so > if there hadn't been a TMers' effort here? No I think linking the charity to TM vs Non TM is bogus. You are over focusing on words without getting my meaning. > > You > > didn't need to make the statement about non TMers and you > > certainly didn't need to accuse me of nastiness for > > calling you out on it. > > Wait *just* a minute. I didn't accuse you of nastiness for > "calling me out" on non-TMers' nonparticipation in the > donation drive. I accused you of nastiness for suggesting > that the reason TMers donated was to "prove" something > about TMers. I did not suggest this. You have made this up to make me look bad for challenging your making charity into a partition issue. And an anti-Barry issue at that by your own admission. Get the sequence straight before you get all > self-righteous. That was funny. > > It didn't occur to me to wonder why non-TMers hadn't > participated until you suggested the TMers had ulterior > motives for contributing. Seems I was late in realizing > how the non-TMers here viewed the drive. Silly me. I did no such thing. I asked a question why you thought it was that non TMers didn't contribute. YOU > > Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. > > > > MEs> > > > Very interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why that was? You want to show me how this means I was accusing TMers for having ulterior motives for contributing? Think you might have jumped the gun a bit? Made some stuff up to make me look bad? Judy > There was no need to ask "why that was." The *only* point > I was making was that TMers aren't slackers about doing > their bit, contrary to the impression your pal Barry > tried to create. That wasn't your ONLY point. You have neglected to mention your other point which was : Judy > Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. snip > > > Yup. I'm sure many of the TM critics gave money for > > > Haiti relief as well; they just didn't want it to look as > > > though they might have been inspired to do so by TMers. Speaking only for myself, your reason is bogus. >
