Says the guy who practically invented the concept. :) Lawson, I don't really think we need to revisit why the posting limit was implemented in the first place... do we? :) Sal
On May 20, 2011, at 3:42 PM, sparaig wrote: Sorry to not edit the below, but just wanted to emphasize the response ratio: one line vs spew. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: >>> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <drpetersutphen@> wrote: >>>> >>>> These ex-TM people who spent a decade or less in the >>>> TMO and then spend the rest of their lives "coming to >>>> terms" with their cult "indoctrination" make me scratch >>>> my head. >>> >>> You're not a TRUE cultist until you've spent >>> at least three decades in the cult. >> >> What does it mean when you pronounce everyone else is >> a cultist while missing that you might have issues, >> yourself... > > What does it mean when current cultists feel the > need to portray former cultists who are honest > enough with themselves to realized they were a > part of a cult and who still have some lingering > curiosity about those who have never reached that > point as having something *wrong* with them? > > I mean, there is a concerted attempt on this forum > to portray anyone who still finds the machinations > of current-day cultists fascinating from a curiosity > standpoint as having something *wrong* with us. Our > curiosity doesn't mean that we're still attached to > the cult or its leader or its dogma the way the > current-day cultists are, merely that we find those > who still feel that way curious. > > As I suggested before, it's sorta like going to a > high school reunion and running into people for > whom high school was the high point of their lives. > You've got yer "popular kids" (those who became TM > teachers and worked for the TMO) who were members of > all the right clubs and were voted "Most likely to..." > and who still identify so strongly with that image > of themselves that they attempt to pretend that they > are still those same people, and not the owner of > a car wash in Peoria. Then you've got yer folks who > never fit it even back in high school (the ones who > never became TM teachers, never did a lick of work > for the TMO, but feel that they deserve being treated > as if they did). They were members of the Debate Club, > or the National Honor Society or some other group of > dweebs, and none of the popular kids ever wanted to > have anything to do with them. On some level they're > *still* trying to get the popular kids to accept them > as their equals, which is never going to happen. Even > sadder, at every high school reunion there is someone > like Ravi, who never even *went* to that high school, > but is so desperate for attention that he attends its > reunions anyway. It's all so Romy And Michele's High > School Reunion. > > I'm just curious, that's all. High school (the TM > movement) was not that big a part of my life, and > certainly not on any level that fueled attachment. > But I'm still fascinated by those for whom the > attachment factor (and the seemingly corollary need > to praise the similarly-attached and demonize those > who got over it) is as present for them now as it was > back in the heyday of TM's fleeting popularity. > > All I do is point out some of the silliness of the TM > movement, past and present. There is more than enough > of this silliness so that I never lack for material. > It's not the silliness *itself* that fascinates me, > but the *reactions* to it by those who've seemingly > never realized how much allegiance and attachment they > have for the silliness, and how much anger they have > towards people who do nothing but point out that it's > ...uh...silly. >
