Not a word you wrote is relevant to anything I wrote.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, in his zeal to denounce TM, MJ has become
> > a bigot. He attacks Crowley simply because she is a TMer.
>
> You mean sorta like the way that some people here are
> defending her just because she is a TMer? :-)
>
> Never get between a TMer and one of the celebrities
> that they use to sell an overpriced relaxation technique.
>
> I've stayed out of this because I don't even know who
> the fuck Candy Crowley IS, and have no need to. She
> (I assume it's a she) doesn't represent *anything* to
> me. Why do you think (as you so obviously do in the
> sentences below) that she represents TM? Could it
> possibly be because she's one of the endless numbers
> of celebrity shills the TMO has used to sell its
> products for so many years?
>
> I would think that the thing that should be questioned
> is NOT what this person's views on rape are, but WHY
> anyone should consider learning TM because she (or
> anyone else) has become associated with it. That's
> just DUMB. The Beatles *never* stopped doing drugs
> (Paul finally claimed that he quit only about a year
> ago), but people are still trying to use the surviving
> ones to sell TM.
>
> WHAT exactly differentiates TM from $cientology, which
> *also* uses celebrity spokesidiots to sell its products?
>
> All of this said, if a person is silly enough to *become*
> the celebrity shill for some product that claims to
> produce perfect thinking and perfect action, then if
> their thinking and actions *aren't* anyone's idea of
> perfect (like Girish's recently revealed endeavors),
> t'would seem to me that one has a right to challenge
> the product they're shilling for. You can't have it
> both ways.
>
> Seems to me that while MJ is admittedly more than a
> little carried away by his overfocus on a dying
> meditation movement, you are increasingly becoming
> the classic example of a Cultist, attacking *him*
> rather than dealing with some of his arguments. You
> might consider a fishing trip of your own.
>
> > Is that any better than attacking someone for being
> > a Catholic, or Mormon, or a Jew? Let's suppose that
> > someone is angry at the Catholic Church ("Those
> > priests are all child molesters!") and then finds
> > a news presenter who happens to be Catholic and
> > attacks them for something innocuous they said,
> > when his real purpose is to display anti-Catholic
> > bigotry. Poor MJ seems to be in a state of
> > permanent rage and righteous indignation, and
> > bigotry is the result. I wish he would go fishing
> > or something to calm down.
>
