--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@...> wrote: > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 4:42 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > One, a newbie, seems to be dedicated to creating in other > > people the least favorable opinion possible of a guy who > > did nothing more than be honest about his TM experience > > with a filmmaker. > > Come on, Barry~~that's not the problem. > Why didn't he mention it upfront then, > if he's so "honest" about it? > It's deceptive.
I disagree. The word I would us is "irrelevant." Why should what he personally believes about Maharishi have any relationship to the value of what he's trying to sell *to those who would consider it of value*? To me Ted's position is the equivalent of finding a real estate listing in Fairfield for someone trying to sell their S-V house, realizing who was selling it, and going online to prospective buyers and saying, "You *know* that this person has had his dome pass taken away for 'seeing other teachers' don't you? Do you really want to live in a place that has been infected by such low vibes? Do you want to 'support' such a person?" > Not to mention that > every suggestion (or almost every) that > he's gotten as to how he could go about > selling the sandals he has made excuses as > to why that's beyond him, and whined about > why nobody is giving him millions, and how is > he going to live for the next 20 years, blah > blah blah. As if it's the responsibility of anyone > else other than himself to remedy his > situation. That I'll give you. I think that's a bit "off," but not necessarily surprising for someone who has been "out of the world" as long as Mark has. > This guy is 65?? It's pathetic. > He's wasted his life in flaky, pseudo- > spiritual pursuits (take a look at his > website) instead of actually, you know, > working, and now he expects the universe, > apparently, to reimburse him. Or some > TM-related sugar-daddy. I wish him > luck. I would not say that he has "wasted his life," no more than I'd say that about Nabby, or Curtis, or myself. We made choices. Now we get to "make do" with the fallout of those choices. These sandals represent one of the only tangible assets Mark has as a result of his choices; I think it's his prerogative to do with them what he wants. I also think it's the right of people who might consider them a kind of holy relic (and I think you know that I'm not one of them) to purchase them from him if they want to, without being told that by doing so they are supporting an "enemy of the movement." THAT is what Ted is trying to say IMO. > > Another relative newb is on a campaign > > to "out" anyone who posts here, so that he can know who > > exactly they are and where they live; one can only wonder > > why he wants to know this, and what plans he has for the > > heretics once he has learned this information. > > Dan, as my kids would say, clearly has "issues." Clearly. DQ does not always stand for Dairy Queen. :-) > > Several > > others seem to be able to contribute little more than > > "piling on" to demonize the posters who don't toe the > > TM Party Line, and call them uplifting names like donkeys. > > Dumb and immature. But rarely called what it is on this forum. People accept it as if it's normal. What does THAT say about the spiritual environment in which this behavior came to be regarded as "normal?" > > On the other "side," consider the simple post made by > > one of the people these "TM supporters" have been trying > > to demonize lately. Mark Landau made an honest and forth- > > right post, containing no antagonism and stooping to > > no name-calling, expressing more positive sentiments > > about Maharishi than all of the folks I mention above > > have made in all of their cumulative posts to FFL. > > Which he undoubtedly never would have made if someone > hadn't mentioned the movie. Damage-control. I sure > hope that isn't your idea of "honest." You can see it that way if you want. He may have originally seen the movie and his alleged partici- pation in it the way I do, as irrelevant. I suspect he was as shocked as I was to see it being used here to not only demonize him, but keep him from being able to sell these friggin' sandals. That really IS Ted's intent, as far as I can tell; he wants to *punish* Mark for having said the things he said. If there is anyone being dishonest, I think it's him, not Mark. When Rick says positive things about Maharishi, as he often does, do you consider that "damage control," or what he really believes? Same with Curtis. He also committed the Cardinal Sin of speaking to reporters. So when he says the occasional positive thing about the benefit he feels he received from his time in the TMO, or his continuing practice of TM, is he being "dishonest" in your opinion? I get it. You think that on one level the whole idea of these friggin' sandals being considered holy relics because they contain microtraces of MMY's holy footsweat is silly. I do, too, as should have been obvious by me riffing on Judith or some of the other women he had sex with selling off their "blue dresses," Monica Lewinsky-style. But on the other hand, as such diverse people as Curtis and Judy have said, I fully recognize that for many people these sandals *would* have a real value, and that they might feel lucky to have them. For a million bucks? Probably not. For that much you could buy yourself a Burger King crown and some robes and wear them in public. It's not like anyone is going to be able to wear these sandals down to the mall and have anyone notice them emanating a brilliant golden glow and fall at the feet of the person wearing them in fervent worship. But some might enjoy keeping them in their house or on their meditation table, for whatever value they might have *for them*. I see nothing wrong with this, if they've got the money. I *do* see something wrong with trying to get between these potential buyers and the merchandise by implying heavily that the seller is a Bad Person for doing nothing more than what we do every day on this forum -- honestly speak- ing his mind.
