Thank you, Barry, for once again demonstrating at length in this post your chronic dishonesty. Most of the folks who have been on FFL for awhile don't need any additional confirmation. Michael and salyavin haven't picked up on it yet, but they may eventually.
If anyone's interested, I'll be happy to identify all the lies in the post I'm responding to, but those who know me and know Barry won't have any trouble doing it for themselves. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > > You vilify politicians and people in high finance who do the > > > > > exact same things that Maha did and give him a free pass for > > > > > doing what you don't tolerate in others. I understand it, but > > > > > I shore don't agree with it. > > > > > > > > What good would vilifying him do, Michael? You appear > > > > to enjoy wallowing in your outrage, but you won't be > > > > satisfied until everyone else is wallowing in it too. > > > > > > Sorta the way *you* do when obsessing on Curtis or Vaj > > > or myself or others of your enemies? Just sayin'... :-) > > > > Allow me to obsess a little more and point out that you > > carefully, deliberately, and dishonestly failed to quote > > the part of my post that refutes your accusation: Like > > dishonest politicians and banksters, you are alive and > > kicking and being destructive. > > If what you wished to accomplish was to *demonstrate* > your obsession, and your tendency to project onto those > you dislike your *own* negative qualities, feel free. > I "allow" you. By all means, obsess away. :-) > > I never even *read* the parts of your post that I snipped, > much less deleted them "intentionally." That's something > *you* repeatedly accuse people of, because you're...uh... > insane, and you have a tendency to accuse others of the > very tactics that *you* employ. :-) > > As for parallels, I think mine was apt. Michael obsesses > on Maharishi and the TMO because it's an *ongoing issue*. > None of the practices and dishonesty he's upset about > have stopped; instead, they are normal, everyday policy. > But there is another sense in which your stalking is > like his (apologies in advance to Michael if I'm incorrect, > none needed with regard to the Judester because everyone > here knows I'm correct). > > That's the fact that it seems to *matter* to you both > very much that you are able to *convince* others to see > issues and obsessions the same way you do. You try to > *persuade* others to believe the way that you do, and > pile on to the issues you believe are issues. > > I honestly don't try to do that. I'm here just for my > own amusement. I state my opinions -- making clear that > opinions is *all* that they are -- and then allow others > to react or not react, as they see fit. I don't get drawn > into long ego-battles to establish my opinion as the > correct one or the dominant one, and I don't try to get > other people to defend an opposite position. If they > choose to do that, it's their choice; if they choose not > to, that's their choice too. Either way is fine with me. > > Compare and contrast with the Judester, whose *entire > online life* can be accurately characterized as a quest > to get other people to see things the warped way she > sees them, agree with it, and align themselves with her > in demonizing the people or orgs she believes are demons. > Michael, you have a touch of that yourself, although > not really in the same ballpark as The Corrector. She's > obsessed about *her* nemesis (moi) for over seventeen > years now, trying her best to get everyone on every forum > we've shared to think badly of me and diss me the way > they "should" according to her world view. > > What really gets her panties in a twist is that she has > *failed* in this. People still manage to interact with > me without wearing the hate-blinders she wants them to > wear; people still realize that often I point out truths > about Maharishi, King Tonytwit, TM, and the TMO, and > react to them as what they are -- mere opinions, not an > attempt to sell them anything. > > This drives her crazy. It drove her crazy when people > continued to like Curtis and Vaj and Sal Sunshine, too. > It *still* drives her crazy when people continue to like > or say positive things about Andrew Skolnick, or Mike > Doughney, or John Knapp, or John From Brazil -- all > people she's dedicated *enormous* amounts of time and > energy and hatred towards getting people to hate, too. > > What precipitated this set of attacks on MJ, from my > point of view, is that this was happening again. A few > people were reacting...uh...not negatively to Michael, > and to me, so she "had" to step in to Correct Things. > It's her dharma, you see -- she really does see herself > as Andrew lampooned her: Judy Stein: Defender of the > Faith. :-) > > Consider all of this, Michael. IMO, there is really no > point in trying to convince TM TBs to believe anything > other than the TM TB dogma they already believe. You > can only express opinions, and then sit back and watch > to See What Happens. Change takes time, and in matters > of belief, only comes from within. > > Don't bother spending a lot of energy trying to convince > them -- it simply cannot be done. Just state what you > believe and then allow *them* to make your points for > you by overreacting and going into "Kill the messenger" > mode. If what you desire is to make the point that TM > practitioners are cultists, their *own behavior* demon- > strates this far better than anything you could say. > > As for Judy, I will *continue* to express my opinions, > and a few feeble minds here will *continue* to join her > in overreacting to them, and at the same time some posters > here will *continue* to like me *anyway*, and there is > simply nothing she can do about this. If she's been an > absolute failure at this quest of hers for seventeen > years, she's not going to turn it into a winning streak > at this late stage of the game. :-) > > And in the end, that knowledge is the best possible > revenge for seventeen years of stalking. :-) >
