--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > I find the manner in which a number of people post here > > (referring to the form, not the content) quite irritating, > > but I rarely complain about it. Everyone's entitled to > > their own "style." > > > > But Buck's "Burma-Shave" approach, in which he responds to > > his own posts over and over, quoting everything he's said > > each time and then adding a new line or two--often one post > > right after another with no time in between--is really > > beyond irritating. > > > > It's insulting because it's manipulative: he wants to > > force us to read every word he writes, and we might not > > do that if he put it all in a single post. > > How do you know what he *wants*? Maybe he does, but do you > really know his intention? Maybe he just has a sort of > creative stroke, so he posts one sentence after the other.
Then he ought to start a post and save it in Notepad or whatever and add to it, not posting it until he finishes his train of thought. He's done this kind of thing before with Sanskrit phrases one at a time when there was no question of his having a "creative stroke," since he was copying the phrases in order from a longer text. It looks like he's using the same technique here on his own posts. If he has something different in mind, he's more than welcome to explain it. > > But it wastes > > our time and wastes space. I read the posts on the Web > > site, but I should think those who get them by email > > would find this flooding of their inboxes particularly > > annoying. > > Maybe you are not as neutral on the topic, as you want it > to look like. Compare this to your defense of Lawson at the > time: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/241921 Lawson never did what I'm complaining about with Buck. Nice try, no cigar. And BTW, it isn't a matter of "neutrality." I agree with a lot of what Buck says. I'd just like to be able to read it in one go. > Lawson was notorious for shooting out TM defending one-liners, > not always witty, sometimes seemingly witty (if you like, no > so for everybody), here is the thread: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/135627 I have nothing against one-liners per se, as long as they contribute something, which Lawson's usually did. Sometimes they were witty, sometimes they were succinct statements of a specific point that would have taken me paragraphs to express. > Now the group has a posting limit, to handle cases like this. Different cases. > Why not leave at that? Because, as I said, it's annoying to have to click on post after post after post and scroll down to read one sentence in each post of what was really one longer post. > > Buck, if you're afraid we're going to lose interest and > > not read to the end of a longer post, *make the post > > more compelling*. > > > > If it weren't for the fact that you do occasionally say > > something I find of interest, I'd start skipping all your > > posts. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > > > > > > > > > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whoa. Why? But 'why'? Three things at least, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. I live here and this is in my neighborhood, it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > effects me. 2. I'd like to see them succeed for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > large and small reasons. And 3. How they behave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > affects a lot of my friends here. It is about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that simple. -Buck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing is as simple as not doing something. Don't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see "saints". Very simple, your problem solved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except that *it* is become a communal problem because > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Rajas link their anti-saint policy with > > > > > > > > > > > > > meditating in the dome. Theirs is simply a bad > > > > > > > > > > > > > corrosive policy for communal success with the dome > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That their policy has bled the dome of numbers should > > > > > > > > > > > > be a concern of everyone here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even the Fairfield Chamber of Commerce too really ought > > > > > > > > > > > to step in to mediate the situation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Linking that old anti-saint policy with getting in to the > > > > > > > > > > group meditation has always been a long-term problem with > > > > > > > > > > getting sufficient numbers meditating in the domes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is more than past time to change it. It is time come to > > > > > > > > > de-link the sitting with saints from meditating in the domes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like, they even teach the little children in the Maharishi > > > > > > > > School to keep the company of wise people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As has been said before, many times, Maharishi himself is the > > > > > > > person who established this "link" between seeing other saints or > > > > > > > teachers and being banned from TM courses and Domes and advanced > > > > > > > programs. The Rajas did not think up this policy - it came > > > > > > > straight from MMY and he enforced it his entire life - and they > > > > > > > have decided to stick with the Master's policy. To change this, > > > > > > > they will have to be honest about that and then make a decision > > > > > > > that it is okay to modify what Maharishi himself set up. Not > > > > > > > sure that will happen anytime soon. Not with Bevan around. Of > > > > > > > course with Oprah interested and also seeing other saints and > > > > > > > being very ecumenical indeed, that may push things a bit. THe > > > > > > > Rajas could announce that in this day and age of rising > > > > > > > enlightenment globally, it is okay to be more open and less > > > > > > > restrictive. If they wanted to they could figure out how to > > > > > > > change this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Like Jeesus, even Guru Dev told people to sit with saints, mahatmas > > > > > > and the wise. > > > > > > > > > > Any of us who know the TM initiation puja have done the puja to Guru > > > > > Dev a whole lot more than to Maharishi. Even Maharishi would do it > > > > > to the Guru Dev picture and say "Jai Guru Dev"! > > > > > > > > It is time. It is time to put Guru Dev ahead of Maharihsi and go with > > > > Guru Dev on this communal problem with that anti-saint problem. It is > > > > time to de-link sitting with saints from meditating in the domes. > > > > > > I've done a lot of Pujas to Guru Dev in my life. I'm going with Guru Dev > > > on this one over Maharishi. The hardcore taliban Maharishi Rajas are > > > clearly in his pocket and going against Guru Dev about the sitting with > > > saints. They are a problem here. > > >
