zarzari, you really are the consummate coward. You get all tough and macho when you're determined to take me down, but your anger is so out of control you make mistake after stupid mistake, and then you snip the mistakes and corrections when you respond as if that somehow wiped them off the record.
The one when you made a point you got from me in the first place, thinking you were challenging my logic, is just delicious. If you were as tough and self- confident as you pretend, you'd be able to laugh at yourself for that one. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > There's also the Crazy Wisdom tradition, as you most > > > > likely know; and the Advahuts zarzari talks about. > > > > > > I find it funny you quote me (indirectly I know), where I > > > just had criticized you for your alignment with Ravi (and > > > Robin!). > > > > You find it funny why, exactly? > > I just laugh at you, that's all. LOL Yeah, I didn't think you had a point there. Thanks for confirming it. > <snip> > > > And there's yet another possibility: that MMY was > > lying, either when he said Robin was in Unity or > > when he said he wasn't. He'd have had a motive for > > either, but perhaps a better one for saying Robin > > wasn't in Unity considering the havoc Robin had > > created at MIU. It was a quick way to dispose of > > the pesky lawsuit and get Robin out of the TMO's > > hair for good. It wouldn't be the first time MMY > > chucked a TMO star when they began to cause > > trouble, from what I've heard here and elsewhere. > > Now your mind-reading capabilities even extend to Maharishi. It's called "speculation," zarzari. We've all done it with Maharishi, since even those who were close to him could never be sure exactly what was in his mind. For example, from a recent post of yours about Earl Kaplan quoting MMY: > And why did Maharishi reveal this? Because he trusted > him 100%! He believed that he was so totally > surrendered, that he could let him in to this secret. > Even him sharing such a secret with him, could possibly > show to him the degree of trust he has to him, and this > could even strengthen his commitment. Quite obviously > he was wrong. That's all mind-reading, and you don't even label it as speculation. And this in a post in which you were criticizing *me* for speculating! > <snip> > > > > But from all, what I observe from you here, it is clear, > > > that you have never been in the movement. > > > > As I've stated here explicitly many times, including > > to you. Did you have a point to make? > > Yes. Your whole behavior vis a vis Robin here *shows* that > you have never been in the movement, as anyone could tell > who has ever been. What else would one expect it to show if I had never been in the movement, other than that I had never been in the movement? Is it a *flaw* somehow that my behavior reflects the reality? > This is what the above sentence actually says, if you read > it, you super-nitwit. Well, actually it doesn't. You didn't mention anything about Robin in that sentence. I'd ask you to explain exactly what it is about my behavior vis-a-vis Robin that shows I have never been in the movement, but I doubt you'll be able to come up with anything. I think it was just a potshot. You needed to end with a putdown, and that's all you could come up with. > So your little distraction here - no cigar. (Btw. an > excellent demonstration of your deconstruction method.) Yeah, too bad you got deconstructed, huh? Maybe try building something a little less flimsy next time. Post after you meditate, perhaps; that should take the edge off your anger and allow you to be more coherent.
