@ "feste37": Sorry, but this is what people have been complaining about. Those in the TMO believe everything they are told. To completely re-roof a building the size of the chapel, especially at the time it was supposed to have been re-roofed, would not have cost $100,000. Foundation repairs might have cost $100,000, but most of the time foundation repairs cost much less than that. And, so much upkeep? On a lime stone building? We all know the chapel was sacrificed for a new building the DAC wanted there much more than they wanted the chapel. Also, about the Catholic Church tear down, even though I am a Protestant; I attended the Catholic Church in Fairfield one Sunday back in the 1980s. The congregation had completely outgrown their facility. It also never had the charm and beauty of the campus chapel. In "Capital Speak", calling people names because they tell the truth is "Undignified".
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > > wrote: > (snip) > > One of the biggest problems of discussing Maharishi's teaching > > with Judy is that she lacks the full context of it because she > > was not trained in it. She did not sit through the 696 hours > > of instruction including a month devoted to Vedic Studies that > > puts Maharishi's teaching into the context of his religious > > traditions. But she doesn't know what she doesn't know, so > > she launches into attacks with a skewed perspective that is > > very difficult to sort out when combined with her pugnaciousness. > > This is yet another misrepresentation of our discussion by Curtis. > My only claim has to do with what the rank-and-file is taught. > That does *not* require sitting through the 696 hours of > instruction, nor is it a "skewed perspective." I've never disputed > that what is taught to the rank-and-file is not "the full context" > of Maharishi's teaching. > > (snip) > (to Ann:) > > I get that you are big fan of Judy, not a fan of Barry, and seem to > > go back and forth with me. But please stick to what is actually > > being claimed. > > IOW, to what *Curtis* is claiming, including his misrepresentations > of what *I* have claimed. >
