I wonder if anyone even reads those rebuttals. But I suppose they are gratifying to you.
This is the image that always comes to mind. http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2008/un_moments/un_moments_khrus\ hchev.jpg <http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2008/un_moments/un_moments_khru\ shchev.jpg> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > > My goodness you've had a busy week, Judy. Time to holster that gun, > dontcha think? You've gone into overtime shooting down lies and > bloopers, and whoppers, and ooopsies like we haven't seen in a long > time. I'd say you're 49 for 49 for uncovering Barry's lies, my lies, > Share's lies, Susan's lies, Xeno's lies. Oh, and some good mind reading > as pertains to the schism book. > > I hope Robin appreciates the extra work. > > Who's this last bullet gonna be for? > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie. > > > > Third, Maharishi and Robin. > > > > > > > > > > 348918 > > > > Ooooopsie, Stevie, I suspect Ann was referring to the > > assertion that you carefully snipped, most likely because > > by the time you wrote this you realized your error. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" awoelflebater@ wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" > > wrote: > > (snip) > > > > glad for the clarification Jim and for letting us know how > > > > "above board" and "honorable" you are for bringing a family > > > > member's suicide into the discussion here. > > > > > > Get the timeline and the events here straight Steve. Go back > > > and have a look. Read what Barry has had to say about Jim and > > > Jim's brother now and many posts ago and then draw some > > > reasonable conclusions. Figure out which bandwagon you want > > > to leap on before you do so. > > > > DrD did not bring Barry's brother's suicide into the > > discussion here. Barry did (post #348743). > > > > > > > > 348875 > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ > wrote: > > > > > > Quite interesting. I know others will say why even bother with > > > something over thirty years old, but some of this (beginning on page > > > 289) directly contradicts many of Robin's avowed claims. Sad really. > > > > Gee, Stevie, I guess I need to repeat what I told you > > awhile back: It would be in your best interests not > > even to *try* to understand the controversies that go > > on here, let alone comment on them, because you almost > > invariably get them wrong. > > > > It's partly because you can't be bothered to read the > > posts with attention, but even if you did, I'm very > > dubious you would have anything but confusion to > > contribute. > > > > > Judy always trots out the article of faith that Maharishi secretly > > > supported Robin. Sort of blows that up, doesn't it? > > > > Judy has only *speculated* to that effect. See how you > > got that wrong? > > > > And no, the book chapter doesn't "blow that up" in any > > case. You might want to look up the word "secretly" in > > Mr. Dictionary. > > > > > > > > > > 348930 > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" LEnglish5@ wrote: > > > > > > As understand it, MMY said that Robin Carlson's experiences of > > > Unity (book says "Cosmic Consciousness") were valid and asked > > > him to describe them. > > > > Actually Robin described his experiences to Maharishi, who > > then said they were valid. And they were most definitely > > both talking about Unity, not just CC. > > > > > Robin took this as a personal declaration of his own full > > > enlightenment and, like others have done, refused to "go and > > > be viable in society," but instead got full of himself. > > > > Actually he went and became quite "viable in society," thank > > you very much. When the course he was on was over, he went > > back to Canada to teach and supported himself doing so for > > some years. And until things began to go wrong seven or so > > years later, his students (mostly TM initiators) were > > extremely enthusiastic about what he taught them. > > > > > MMY not wanting to comment in public on Robin's enlightenment > > > is no more significant than him not wanting to comment on MY > > > enlightenment: it's not his place to micromanage arbitrary > > > people's states of consciousness. > > > > Well, that's true, at least publicly. He did comment on it > > during the course Robin was on, even asked him to wait for > > a few days to describe it until the video cameras were up > > and running so they could get his comments on tape. (Who > > knows where that tape is now...) > > > > But the larger point is that Robin never got any signals > > that Maharishi disapproved of what he was doing until his > > campaign at MIU--and Maharishi had been keeping close tabs > > on him after he set up shop in Canada. His whole teaching > > gig was based on the assumption (Robin's and his students') > > that he was in Unity. > > > > It's mysterious, to say the least, why Maharishi wouldn't > > have sent word that Robin should stop claiming he was in > > Unity if Maharishi didn't think he *was* in Unity, > > especially given that Robin was working with all these TM > > initiators. Why wasn't Maharishi concerned about the > > "purity of the teaching" his own initiators were getting > > if it was coming from someone he thought was deluded or > > lying? > > > > > > (Lawson, I can't help myself. How many times have you read > > the name "Carlsen" and yet still keep spelling it "Carlson"?) > > >
