--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, taskcentered <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, taskcentered <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <jstein@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, taskcentered > > > <no_reply@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't mean to be facetious. How to judge > the "success" of > > > a > > > > > > > > spiritual master -- at least a mass-market one, such as > the > > > > > > > > Maharishi and L. Ron -- is a thorny issue worthy of > > > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well yeah, but it was never really adiscussion on > either > > > > > > > > side. > > > > > > > > I was merely reacting to Paul's quoting Gurudev about > > > > > > > > sidhis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's what a discussion is, Lawson. One party > > > > > > > > reacting to what another has said or written. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except that the reactions in question weren't about > > > > > > > the "success" of a "mass-market" spiritual master, > > > > > > > which was what you stipulated above. > > > > > > > > > > > > John wants to make it one, using Scientology as the > > > > > > counter example. > > > > > > > > > > Of course, and he's entirely welcome to start that > > > > > discussion. But he was trying, disingenuously and > > > > > patronizingly, to make it appear that his question > > > > > was just a continuation of the earlier exchange, > > > > > which was in fact on a different topic. > > > > > > > > I had no intention of being either disingenuous or patronizing. > > > > > > "That's what a discussion is, Lawson. One party > > > reacting to what another has said or written." > > > > > > That's patronizing. It's also disingenuous, for > > > the reason I stated. > > > > > > If I appeared so, I > > > > apologize. If you believe I should start another topic > > > > to discuss this, I'm happy to. > > > > > > You *have* started a new topic. And as I said, > > > it's fine to do so. Just don't pretend it's a > > > continuation of the earlier exchange, and > > > patronizingly put Lawson down for pointing out > > > that the previous exchange was not a discussion > > > of your new topic. > > > > > > To my > > > > way of thinking, my question evolved naturally out of the > > > > discussion at hand. > > > > > > Yes, new topics often evolve naturally from what > > > has come before. And if you hadn't been patronizing > > > and disingenuous about it, that evolution would have > > > taken place without comment. > > > > > > > Judy, > > > > Your point seems lost on me. > > Yes, it does *seem* to be. No surprise there. > > Lawson stated that he didn't mean to start a discussion. I > > pointed out that he had been involved in one. This doesn't seem > patronizing to me. > > Your response to his comment was entirely > gratuitous. > > > As to your other point about starting a new topic, I didn't pretend > anything. > > Yes, you pretended it was an extension of the > earlier exchange. > > I just brought > > up a thought that occurred to me. Much as many posters here do so. > > > > Judy, I think you are attributing nefarious motives to > > me when none are present. > > Bear in mind, I've had extensive previous > interactions with you, John. > > > I notice that neither you nor Lawson, for all the discussion that > has ensured, has answered > > my question. > > I did answer it. Lawson wanted a bit more definition > from you. But we've both responded. > > > Why focus on my personal failings, which is obviously a change of > subject -- the very > > thing you accuse me of doing -- > > See, that's more disingenuity, John. I've said > twice now that a change of topic is fine. > > > when it would be so simple to answer the question. > > Again: Already did. >
Disingenuous seems to me your accusing me of being patronizing. By any reading of the above, you are obviously patronizing and insulting. But that is no surprise. Yes, you and I have history. You and I disagree on our opinions regarding your master, the Maharishi. That doesn't make either of us evil. I imagine that you passionately believe in your cause. I don't imagine that you are evil. Likewise, I believe passionately in my cause. I wonder if you can imagine that I draw different conclusions than you do, but I'm no more evil than you are. J. --- John M. Knapp, LMSW TM-Free Blog: 99 & 44/100% TM Free! Google-bomb the TM Org! Make us #1 on Google when you link to http://tmfree.blogspot.com!
