Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
Oh my retarded TM TB, retarded psychologist shukra69. I'm not only grandiose I'm a megalomaniac. On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 6:11 AM, shukra69 wrote: > ** > > > Rick Archer did not do you any favor and possibly a great deal of harm by > encouraging your delusions. > "What is grandiosity? > > Grandiosity occurs when a person has an inflated self-esteem, believe they > have special powers, spiritual connections, or religious relationships.38 > http://www.bipolardisordersymptoms.info/bipolar-symptoms/grandiosity.htm > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM, seventhray1 wrote: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's what bugged me, and I am sorry to bring it up again. Ravi > discusses > > > his New Years Night at the "Mist", where he describes having a 19 year > old > > > girl hit him up for drinks, and how the boner in his pants keeps > getting > > > harder and harder. Let me say, nothing in that story bothered me. I was > > > rooting for the guy. > > > > > > > LOL.."I was rooting for the guy",love it, but Steve not being a pervert > > like Curtis who used his power in a cult to prey on innocent women it > only > > made root for my beloved more. I would only have with sex with her, a > > goddess or just stay single. Anyway I don't know if I mentioned it or if > > you are conveniently forgetting it. I didn't realize she was under 21 but > > the bartender pointed it out and soon the security kicked her out. > Anyway I > > ended up ending drinking the shot of Tequila I bought and 2 more because > I > > now missed my beloved. This incident only confirmed my love for my > beloved. > > > > Anyway Curtis had posted the week prior that I couldn't humiliate him but > > clearly he was crying, try to manipulate everyone by the end. Proved he > is > > a bitch of mine, I can tweak him anytime I want..LOL.. > > > > But Curtis with a sharper eye and higher morals raised a few flags, and > > > suddenly it's Curtis's who is being accused of debauchery, and becomes > the > > > victim of out and out slander, the likes of which I don't think we've > been > > > privy to here in some time. > > > > > > You raised no objection. When asked by a member if you felt this was > > > appropiate behavior on Ravi's part, you refused to answer the question > on > > > the grounds that the question was not phrased properly. > > > > > > Maybe it's just me, but I felt you should have taken a stand, or at > least > > > be willing to answer the question one of the first two times it was > asked. > > > By the time you did answer it, it had lost any impact. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > Nice to see where you stand on this issue Richard. Can't say I am surprised. > Perhaps you feel a bit displaced as most trollish poster here. > > > These informants, such as Barry, Curtis, and Judith, > > think they can just waltz into someone's bedroom, in the > > middle of the night, and demand to be sexually gratified > > under the pretence of being spiritual teachers? > > > You are accusing us a sex crime on a public posting board Richard. And given > our mix of friendly discussions this is uncalled for and out of line. Your > wacky troll routine has crossed a line here. > > > Not to put your pretzel in a twist, but, referring to him willyrichardtexwhatever, as wacky is just as guilty of slander, as any of that which you accuse Ravi and he of. Just saying. It is good some have finally woken up to the data mined world of the internet. It is a harsh reality when one learns late. Like a teenage girl who sent the boyfriend a photo had no idea of search results in a public forum. There is no privacy on the internet, never has been and only post what you intend to spread. Play the game of chess, don't destroy, dudes. Get smarter to the Krishna running away with the butter, you can not stop Krishna, he is absolute! I find it best not to drink jack daniels in the morning oj during Sunday brunch. ; ) > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardatrwilliamsdotus" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ravi discusses his New Years Night at the "Mist", > > > > where he describes having a 19 year old girl hit him > > > > up for drinks, and how the boner in his pants keeps > > > > getting harder and harder. Let me say, nothing in > > > > that story bothered me. I was rooting for the guy. > > > > > > Ravi: > > > To date I have identified Curtis and Barry, and nothing > > > they have said here suggests they disagree or that they > > > aren't perverts or that they haven't used their power, > > > authority in cults to prey on innocent women. > > > > > So, you're saying that these two, who once ran the TMO > > cult, used to use their power and authority to prey on > > innocent women? > > > > What in the world were they thinking? > > > > Why would Barry and Curtis spend close to twenty-five > > years in cults in order to seduce young women when they > > could do it like you do rignt in a bar or a tavern? > > > > These informants, such as Barry, Curtis, and Judith, > > think they can just waltz into someone's bedroom, in the > > middle of the night, and demand to be sexually gratified > > under the pretence of being spiritual teachers? > > > > If true, then this is just outrageous! > > > > > I have stated this before but I acknowledged that I was > > > tweaking Curtis, intentionally lying, but the fact that > > > his responses were so mild clearly suggests there is > > > some truth in it and Curtis doesn't want to talk about > > > it more. > > > > > Apparently nobody wants to talk about it anymore. Maybe > > that's because it is still going on up in Fairfield. From > > what I've heard, the TMO authorities up there are living > > a riotus life of abject indulgence, with 'spas' and > > tantric yoga clinics all over the place; eating organic > > health food while the rest of the town eats cake. > > > > Go figure. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
marekreavis: > ...it's not my contention that anything was "proved" > in Judith's book, only that her story, seemed plausible > to me. > So, did you ever get a chance to cross examine MMY and get his side of the story? Now that he's passed away he can't defend his own good name. But, you'd think his own desciples would come to his defense. Go figure. > There's not enough (if any) evidence that we have to > actually determine what, if anything, occurred between > Maharishi and Judith, or anyone else. > Apparently the only evidence is a report by Judith, but I wonder where Jemima Pittman, Nandi Keshore, and Nancy were that night. From what I've read, MMY used to post skin-boy outside his door at all times. For many reasons, I just can't imagine a guy like MMY doing it to a gal on his deer skin rug under a photo of SBS up on the roof of his house that didn't even have a bathroom in it or running water. > It doesn't seem far fetched to me that a guy like him, > who obviously enjoyed power and privilege, wouldn't > also be attracted to others sexually. > So, why do you think the informants Barry and Curtis are in such denial? They seem really scared of Ravi telling the truth about the TMO and their nefarious sexcapades in bars. I mean if their guru did it, why wouldn't they? Why would they let MMY have all the fun? It doesn't make any sense. According to Ned Wynn, having sexual relations on TTC was just about the main activity! > That doesn't mean that he actually engaged in sexual > activities with anyone, but as unique as he appeared > to be in lots of ways, I don't know why we would assume > that he was exempt from natural human desire and behavior > when he exhibited other normal human characteristics. > > His proclivities, one way or the other, are not before > us in any sort of forensic setting where we might hope > to come to a more accurate determination. And even if > they were, we could still come to the wrong conclusion. > > So, go figure, eh? > Well, I figure you must have paid Judith $37.50 for a lousy paperback book with a few louse photos in it. Then you passed it around to all your friends up there in Fairfield. Or, did you get your dog-eared copy from Rick? I got screwed by a old geezer into buying the trashy book, but after reading it I threw it in the trash where it belongs! > > > I don't think that he was a pervert or > > > inordinately lecherous. > > > > > It's a very weak defense, Marek - apparently > > I'm the only real defender of Maharishi > > Mahesh Yogi on this entire list. > > > > Go figure. > > > > It has NOT been established that MMY had > > sexual relations with anyone. You would > > think that at least one informant would be > > able to provide evidence if this were true. > > > > Without some evidence, or an believable > > eyewitness report, I'm just not buying it. > > > > So, let's review: > > > > Are we to believe that Judith walked over > > to Marshy's house, in the dead of night, > > climbed in through the bedroom window, > > and had sexual relations with MMY on his > > deer skin rug under a painting of Guru Dev. > > > > With Nanda Kishore asleep in the living > > room and Ms Pittman posted at the front > > door? > > > > This is just outrageous! > > > > > > According to Nancy, you could hear a pin > > drop on a warm night up there on the hill > > in Rishikesh India. > > > > Are you thinking that Judith could get > > within ten feet of the Maharishi without > > anyone in the whole ashram knowing about > > it? > > > > Secretly traisping over to MMY's house, > > with a flashlight and probably with duck > > tape on their ankle bells, to what, give MMY > > a sexy back rub? > > > > It just doesn't make any sense, Marek.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
Richard, it's not my contention that anything was "proved" in Judith's book, only that her story, seemed plausible to me. There's not enough (if any) evidence that we have to actually determine what, if anything, occurred between Maharishi and Judith, or anyone else. You may or may not be the only real defender of Maharishi on this list, I don't know. I am not defending him and I'm not condemning him. I loved the man as my guru and have lots of fondness for my time in the movement. It doesn't seem far fetched to me that a guy like him, who obviously enjoyed power and privilege, wouldn't also be attracted to others sexually. That doesn't mean that he actually engaged in sexual activities with anyone, but as unique as he appeared to be in lots of ways, I don't know why we would assume that he was exempt from natural human desire and behavior when he exhibited other normal human characteristics. His proclivities, one way or the other, are not before us in any sort of forensic setting where we might hope to come to a more accurate determination. And even if they were, we could still come to the wrong conclusion. So, go figure, eh? *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardatrwilliamsdotus" wrote: > > > marekreavis: > > I don't think that he was a pervert or > > inordinately lecherous. > > > It's a very weak defense, Marek - apparently > I'm the only real defender of Maharishi > Mahesh Yogi on this entire list. > > Go figure. > > It has NOT been established that MMY had > sexual relations with anyone. You would > think that at least one informant would be > able to provide evidence if this were true. > > Without some evidence, or an believable > eyewitness report, I'm just not buying it. > > So, let's review: > > Are we to believe that Judith walked over > to Marshy's house, in the dead of night, > climbed in through the bedroom window, > and had sexual relations with MMY on his > deer skin rug under a painting of Guru Dev. > > With Nanda Kishore asleep in the living > room and Ms Pittman posted at the front > door? > > This is just outrageous! > > > According to Nancy, you could hear a pin > drop on a warm night up there on the hill > in Rishikesh India. > > Are you thinking that Judith could get > within ten feet of the Maharishi without > anyone in the whole ashram knowing about > it? > > Secretly traisping over to MMY's house, > with a flashlight and probably with duck > tape on their ankle bells, to what, give MMY > a sexy back rub? > > It just doesn't make any sense, Marek. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
> Nice to see where you stand on this issue Richard. > Can't say I am surprised. Perhaps you feel a bit > displaced as most trollish poster here. > The forum has turned in to a 'fun zone', so I thought I'd just make a joke out of it. Sorry, you don't have a sense of humor today. But, I've been tolerating this kind of abuse here for years - you just have to learn how to deal with it in a unmoderated forum like this. But, hell, you took it all wrong - you guys are'my heros. I mean, if you can't seduce a young gal in a bar or a bedroom after practicing TM - what's the point? Go figure. That MMY, if the accounts are true, was one awesome seducer! Maybe I should have become one of his enablers too - and had some fun back then! > > These informants, such as Barry, Curtis, and Judith, > > think they can just waltz into someone's bedroom, in the > > middle of the night, and demand to be sexually gratified > > under the pretence of being spiritual teachers? > > > You are accusing us a sex crime on a public posting board > Richard. And given our mix of friendly discussions this > is uncalled for and out of line. Your wacky troll routine > has crossed a line here. > It's now called 'tweeking', according to Ravi. And, it looks like he's got a few admirers. Where I come from, silence usually indicates agreement. But, just for the record Curtis, I DID NOT have sexual relations with that raunchy prairie dog! > > > > Ravi discusses his New Years Night at the "Mist", > > > > where he describes having a 19 year old girl hit him > > > > up for drinks, and how the boner in his pants keeps > > > > getting harder and harder. Let me say, nothing in > > > > that story bothered me. I was rooting for the guy. > > > > > > Ravi: > > > To date I have identified Curtis and Barry, and nothing > > > they have said here suggests they disagree or that they > > > aren't perverts or that they haven't used their power, > > > authority in cults to prey on innocent women. > > > > > So, you're saying that these two, who once ran the TMO > > cult, used to use their power and authority to prey on > > innocent women? > > > > What in the world were they thinking? > > > > Why would Barry and Curtis spend close to twenty-five > > years in cults in order to seduce young women when they > > could do it like you do rignt in a bar or a tavern? > > > > These informants, such as Barry, Curtis, and Judith, > > think they can just waltz into someone's bedroom, in the > > middle of the night, and demand to be sexually gratified > > under the pretence of being spiritual teachers? > > > > If true, then this is just outrageous! > > > > > I have stated this before but I acknowledged that I was > > > tweaking Curtis, intentionally lying, but the fact that > > > his responses were so mild clearly suggests there is > > > some truth in it and Curtis doesn't want to talk about > > > it more. > > > > > Apparently nobody wants to talk about it anymore. Maybe > > that's because it is still going on up in Fairfield. From > > what I've heard, the TMO authorities up there are living > > a riotus life of abject indulgence, with 'spas' and > > tantric yoga clinics all over the place; eating organic > > health food while the rest of the town eats cake. > > > > Go figure. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
Nice to see where you stand on this issue Richard. Can't say I am surprised. Perhaps you feel a bit displaced as most trollish poster here. > These informants, such as Barry, Curtis, and Judith, > think they can just waltz into someone's bedroom, in the > middle of the night, and demand to be sexually gratified > under the pretence of being spiritual teachers? You are accusing us a sex crime on a public posting board Richard. And given our mix of friendly discussions this is uncalled for and out of line. Your wacky troll routine has crossed a line here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardatrwilliamsdotus" wrote: > > > > > > Ravi discusses his New Years Night at the "Mist", > > > where he describes having a 19 year old girl hit him > > > up for drinks, and how the boner in his pants keeps > > > getting harder and harder. Let me say, nothing in > > > that story bothered me. I was rooting for the guy. > > > > Ravi: > > To date I have identified Curtis and Barry, and nothing > > they have said here suggests they disagree or that they > > aren't perverts or that they haven't used their power, > > authority in cults to prey on innocent women. > > > So, you're saying that these two, who once ran the TMO > cult, used to use their power and authority to prey on > innocent women? > > What in the world were they thinking? > > Why would Barry and Curtis spend close to twenty-five > years in cults in order to seduce young women when they > could do it like you do rignt in a bar or a tavern? > > These informants, such as Barry, Curtis, and Judith, > think they can just waltz into someone's bedroom, in the > middle of the night, and demand to be sexually gratified > under the pretence of being spiritual teachers? > > If true, then this is just outrageous! > > > I have stated this before but I acknowledged that I was > > tweaking Curtis, intentionally lying, but the fact that > > his responses were so mild clearly suggests there is > > some truth in it and Curtis doesn't want to talk about > > it more. > > > Apparently nobody wants to talk about it anymore. Maybe > that's because it is still going on up in Fairfield. From > what I've heard, the TMO authorities up there are living > a riotus life of abject indulgence, with 'spas' and > tantric yoga clinics all over the place; eating organic > health food while the rest of the town eats cake. > > Go figure. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
> > Ravi discusses his New Years Night at the "Mist", > > where he describes having a 19 year old girl hit him > > up for drinks, and how the boner in his pants keeps > > getting harder and harder. Let me say, nothing in > > that story bothered me. I was rooting for the guy. > > Ravi: > To date I have identified Curtis and Barry, and nothing > they have said here suggests they disagree or that they > aren't perverts or that they haven't used their power, > authority in cults to prey on innocent women. > So, you're saying that these two, who once ran the TMO cult, used to use their power and authority to prey on innocent women? What in the world were they thinking? Why would Barry and Curtis spend close to twenty-five years in cults in order to seduce young women when they could do it like you do rignt in a bar or a tavern? These informants, such as Barry, Curtis, and Judith, think they can just waltz into someone's bedroom, in the middle of the night, and demand to be sexually gratified under the pretence of being spiritual teachers? If true, then this is just outrageous! > I have stated this before but I acknowledged that I was > tweaking Curtis, intentionally lying, but the fact that > his responses were so mild clearly suggests there is > some truth in it and Curtis doesn't want to talk about > it more. > Apparently nobody wants to talk about it anymore. Maybe that's because it is still going on up in Fairfield. From what I've heard, the TMO authorities up there are living a riotus life of abject indulgence, with 'spas' and tantric yoga clinics all over the place; eating organic health food while the rest of the town eats cake. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chivukula" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM, seventhray1 steve.sundur@...: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's what bugged me, and I am sorry to bring it up again. Ravi > discusses > > > his New Years Night at the "Mist", where he describes having a 19 > year old > > > girl hit him up for drinks, and how the boner in his pants keeps > getting > > > harder and harder. Let me say, nothing in that story bothered me. > I was > > > rooting for the guy. > > > > > > > LOL.."I was rooting for the guy",love it, but Steve not being a > pervert > > like Curtis who used his power in a cult to prey on innocent women it > only > > made root for my beloved more. I would only have with sex with her, a > > goddess or just stay single. Anyway I don't know if I mentioned it or > if > > you are conveniently forgetting it. I didn't realize she was under 21 > but > > the bartender pointed it out and soon the security kicked her out. > Anyway I > > ended up ending drinking the shot of Tequila I bought and 2 more > because I > > now missed my beloved. This incident only confirmed my love for my > beloved. > > > > Anyway Curtis had posted the week prior that I couldn't humiliate him > but > > clearly he was crying, try to manipulate everyone by the end. Proved > he is > > a bitch of mine, I can tweak him anytime I want..LOL.. > > > To clarify all perverts are my bitches, this Kali's Pimp's bitches. To > date I have identified Curtis and Barry, and nothing they have said here > suggests they disagree or that they aren't perverts or that they haven't > used their power, authority in cults to prey on innocent women. Anyway > nature is helping here, they have moved on from their perverted > fantasies on younger woman to perverted fantasies on younger dark > skinned men. They both watched my video 3 times..LOL..So if anyway > younger women is reading this please feel safe, Kali's Pimp 'son it, my > bitches are no more a threat to you. > I have stated this before but I acknowledged that I was tweaking Curtis, > intentionally lying, but the fact that his responses were so mild > clearly suggests there is some truth in it and Curtis doesn't want to > talk about it more. > Ravi, get a grip. Whether or not Curtis responds to your lies about him or the manner in which he does or does not respond, does not prove there is a shred of truth to anything you have to say about him. Stop it. Your vile attacks on Curtis are abusive and unwarranted. You owe him an apology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
marekreavis: > I don't think that he was a pervert or > inordinately lecherous. > It's a very weak defense, Marek - apparently I'm the only real defender of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on this entire list. Go figure. It has NOT been established that MMY had sexual relations with anyone. You would think that at least one informant would be able to provide evidence if this were true. Without some evidence, or an believable eyewitness report, I'm just not buying it. So, let's review: Are we to believe that Judith walked over to Marshy's house, in the dead of night, climbed in through the bedroom window, and had sexual relations with MMY on his deer skin rug under a painting of Guru Dev. With Nanda Kishore asleep in the living room and Ms Pittman posted at the front door? This is just outrageous! According to Nancy, you could hear a pin drop on a warm night up there on the hill in Rishikesh India. Are you thinking that Judith could get within ten feet of the Maharishi without anyone in the whole ashram knowing about it? Secretly traisping over to MMY's house, with a flashlight and probably with duck tape on their ankle bells, to what, give MMY a sexy back rub? It just doesn't make any sense, Marek.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
Rick Archer did not do you any favor and possibly a great deal of harm by encouraging your delusions. "What is grandiosity? Grandiosity occurs when a person has an inflated self-esteem, believe they have special powers, spiritual connections, or religious relationships.38 http://www.bipolardisordersymptoms.info/bipolar-symptoms/grandiosity.htm --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM, seventhray1 wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > > > Here's what bugged me, and I am sorry to bring it up again. Ravi discusses > > his New Years Night at the "Mist", where he describes having a 19 year old > > girl hit him up for drinks, and how the boner in his pants keeps getting > > harder and harder. Let me say, nothing in that story bothered me. I was > > rooting for the guy. > > > > LOL.."I was rooting for the guy",love it, but Steve not being a pervert > like Curtis who used his power in a cult to prey on innocent women it only > made root for my beloved more. I would only have with sex with her, a > goddess or just stay single. Anyway I don't know if I mentioned it or if > you are conveniently forgetting it. I didn't realize she was under 21 but > the bartender pointed it out and soon the security kicked her out. Anyway I > ended up ending drinking the shot of Tequila I bought and 2 more because I > now missed my beloved. This incident only confirmed my love for my beloved. > > Anyway Curtis had posted the week prior that I couldn't humiliate him but > clearly he was crying, try to manipulate everyone by the end. Proved he is > a bitch of mine, I can tweak him anytime I want..LOL.. > > But Curtis with a sharper eye and higher morals raised a few flags, and > > suddenly it's Curtis's who is being accused of debauchery, and becomes the > > victim of out and out slander, the likes of which I don't think we've been > > privy to here in some time. > > > > You raised no objection. When asked by a member if you felt this was > > appropiate behavior on Ravi's part, you refused to answer the question on > > the grounds that the question was not phrased properly. > > > > Maybe it's just me, but I felt you should have taken a stand, or at least > > be willing to answer the question one of the first two times it was asked. > > By the time you did answer it, it had lost any impact. > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM, seventhray1 steve.sundur@...wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > > > Here's what bugged me, and I am sorry to bring it up again. Ravi discusses > > his New Years Night at the "Mist", where he describes having a 19 year old > > girl hit him up for drinks, and how the boner in his pants keeps getting > > harder and harder. Let me say, nothing in that story bothered me. I was > > rooting for the guy. > > > > LOL.."I was rooting for the guy",love it, but Steve not being a pervert > like Curtis who used his power in a cult to prey on innocent women it only > made root for my beloved more. I would only have with sex with her, a > goddess or just stay single. Anyway I don't know if I mentioned it or if > you are conveniently forgetting it. I didn't realize she was under 21 but > the bartender pointed it out and soon the security kicked her out. Anyway I > ended up ending drinking the shot of Tequila I bought and 2 more because I > now missed my beloved. This incident only confirmed my love for my beloved. > > Anyway Curtis had posted the week prior that I couldn't humiliate him but > clearly he was crying, try to manipulate everyone by the end. Proved he is > a bitch of mine, I can tweak him anytime I want..LOL.. > To clarify all perverts are my bitches, this Kali's Pimp's bitches. To date I have identified Curtis and Barry, and nothing they have said here suggests they disagree or that they aren't perverts or that they haven't used their power, authority in cults to prey on innocent women. Anyway nature is helping here, they have moved on from their perverted fantasies on younger woman to perverted fantasies on younger dark skinned men. They both watched my video 3 times..LOL..So if anyway younger women is reading this please feel safe, Kali's Pimp 'son it, my bitches are no more a threat to you. I have stated this before but I acknowledged that I was tweaking Curtis, intentionally lying, but the fact that his responses were so mild clearly suggests there is some truth in it and Curtis doesn't want to talk about it more.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM, seventhray1 wrote: > ** > > > > Here's what bugged me, and I am sorry to bring it up again. Ravi discusses > his New Years Night at the "Mist", where he describes having a 19 year old > girl hit him up for drinks, and how the boner in his pants keeps getting > harder and harder. Let me say, nothing in that story bothered me. I was > rooting for the guy. > LOL.."I was rooting for the guy",love it, but Steve not being a pervert like Curtis who used his power in a cult to prey on innocent women it only made root for my beloved more. I would only have with sex with her, a goddess or just stay single. Anyway I don't know if I mentioned it or if you are conveniently forgetting it. I didn't realize she was under 21 but the bartender pointed it out and soon the security kicked her out. Anyway I ended up ending drinking the shot of Tequila I bought and 2 more because I now missed my beloved. This incident only confirmed my love for my beloved. Anyway Curtis had posted the week prior that I couldn't humiliate him but clearly he was crying, try to manipulate everyone by the end. Proved he is a bitch of mine, I can tweak him anytime I want..LOL.. But Curtis with a sharper eye and higher morals raised a few flags, and > suddenly it's Curtis's who is being accused of debauchery, and becomes the > victim of out and out slander, the likes of which I don't think we've been > privy to here in some time. > > You raised no objection. When asked by a member if you felt this was > appropiate behavior on Ravi's part, you refused to answer the question on > the grounds that the question was not phrased properly. > > Maybe it's just me, but I felt you should have taken a stand, or at least > be willing to answer the question one of the first two times it was asked. > By the time you did answer it, it had lost any impact. > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > I do a whole lot of standing up for folks who have been > unfairly maligned, more than most here. I've done so for > you a number of times, remember? Yes, you have. Thank you. > > But I continue to not understand why you feel it is important > > for other people to intervene in battles in which they don't > > care to participate. Most of us here, just, "let it go". > > You often don't just "let it go," you know. You just got > done supporting Curtis big-time, for example. (I'll have a > post or two tomorrow on that, because you foolishly took > his word for a number of things that simply weren't true.) > And you're doing your level best to exonerate him in the > very post I'm responding to. > You, > > pretty much alone, have chose to make this a high profile issue. > > I think it *should be* a high-profile issue in a community > like FFL where posters like Barry and Vaj hang out. And I'm > hardly "alone." Bob Price took serious aim at Curtis not > long ago for castigating Ravi for his attacks on raunchy > and Alex while never saying a word to Barry for his years > of constant attacks on a lot more folks. So did Robin. And > there were a bunch of others who agreed with Bob and Robin > (and me) who dared to speak up for the first time. You've > gotten on Barry's back several times yourself for the way > he disses people. > > > And as I mentioned, I think you have some exposure in this > > quarter. Maybe a lot of exposure. > > Yeah, I think you'd have a lot of trouble backing that up. > No, I don't pick up on every single last unfair attack, but > that isn't what I'm advocating in any case. > Here's what bugged me, and I am sorry to bring it up again. Ravi discusses his New Years Night at the "Mist", where he describes having a 19 year old girl hit him up for drinks, and how the boner in his pants keeps getting harder and harder. Let me say, nothing in that story bothered me. I was rooting for the guy. But Curtis with a sharper eye and higher morals raised a few flags, and suddenly it's Curtis's who is being accused of debauchery, and becomes the victim of out and out slander, the likes of which I don't think we've been privy to here in some time. You raised no objection. When asked by a member if you felt this was appropiate behavior on Ravi's part, you refused to answer the question on the grounds that the question was not phrased properly. Maybe it's just me, but I felt you should have taken a stand, or at least be willing to answer the question one of the first two times it was asked. By the time you did answer it, it had lost any impact.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > The real charge is that Curtis overlooks Barry's offensive > > behavior because he wants to retain Barry's friendship. Curtis > > himself has said as much. Curtis has also made it clear that he > > feels no obligation to stand up for those who have been unfairly > > maligned. Perhaps there's also a legal term for that, but it > > sure ain't "adoptive admission." > > Even if we assume that what you are saying is true, You don't have to "assume" it's true. It comes straight from Curtis's posts. > then all you are > doing is describing standard behavior around here, and please > don't exclude yourself. I do a whole lot of standing up for folks who have been unfairly maligned, more than most here. I've done so for you a number of times, remember? > But I continue to not understand why you feel it is important > for other people to intervene in battles in which they don't > care to participate. Most of us here, just, "let it go". You often don't just "let it go," you know. You just got done supporting Curtis big-time, for example. (I'll have a post or two tomorrow on that, because you foolishly took his word for a number of things that simply weren't true.) And you're doing your level best to exonerate him in the very post I'm responding to. You, > pretty much alone, have chose to make this a high profile issue. I think it *should be* a high-profile issue in a community like FFL where posters like Barry and Vaj hang out. And I'm hardly "alone." Bob Price took serious aim at Curtis not long ago for castigating Ravi for his attacks on raunchy and Alex while never saying a word to Barry for his years of constant attacks on a lot more folks. So did Robin. And there were a bunch of others who agreed with Bob and Robin (and me) who dared to speak up for the first time. You've gotten on Barry's back several times yourself for the way he disses people. > And as I mentioned, I think you have some exposure in this > quarter. Maybe a lot of exposure. Yeah, I think you'd have a lot of trouble backing that up. No, I don't pick up on every single last unfair attack, but that isn't what I'm advocating in any case.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > The real charge is that Curtis overlooks Barry's offensive > behavior because he wants to retain Barry's friendship. Curtis > himself has said as much. Curtis has also made it clear that he > feels no obligation to stand up for those who have been unfairly > maligned. Perhaps there's also a legal term for that, but it > sure ain't "adoptive admission." Even if we assume that what you are saying is true, then all you are doing is describing standard behavior around here, and please don' t exclude yourself. But I continue to not understand why you feel it is important for other people to intervene in battles in which they don't care to participate. Most of us here, just, "let it go". You, pretty much alone, have chose to make this a high profile issue. And as I mentioned, I think you have some exposure in this quarter. Maybe a lot of exposure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
Responses to two posts from Marek: Sorry, Marek, but you've really fouled up the context here, inadvertently or otherwise. First, "The charge of failing to condemn what other posters have written has been a frequent one here" applies almost exclusively to Curtis's failure to reprove (not "condemn") Barry. It's come up very rarely otherwise. Second, the charge has in recent months been a broad one, made by a number of people, not referring in most cases to any specific offensive post of Barry's but rather the fact that he makes them routinely, aiming at quite a range of posters and creating a general atmosphere of hostility and bad feeling-- one he appears to revel in. In other words, it's a bad habit of Barry's, a very negative character trait, and Curtis has been criticized for not reproving Barry for the habit itself (of which Curtis is unquestionably aware). And finally, with regard to *specific* posts of Barry's that Curtis has been charged with failing to reprove him for, many of them have involved posts Barry has written *to Curtis* that contained offensive remarks about others here. In at least some of these cases, Curtis has responded, but without mentioning the offensive parts. In other cases, the offensive parts have been quoted to Curtis by other posters, and he has still failed--not just failed but adamantly *refused*--to reprove Barry for them. So the notion you attempt to put over that it just "doesn't make practical sense" to charge Curtis with "adoptive admission" because, gosh, there are just too damn many posts, is nonsense. Oh, and one more thing: Nobody has, in fact, charged Curtis with "adoptive admission" as you define it below. Nobody is claiming that because Curtis fails to reprove Barry for his offensive posts, therefore Curtis must agree with them. Nobody believes that; it's a straw man. The real charge is that Curtis overlooks Barry's offensive behavior because he wants to retain Barry's friendship. Curtis himself has said as much. Curtis has also made it clear that he feels no obligation to stand up for those who have been unfairly maligned. Perhaps there's also a legal term for that, but it sure ain't "adoptive admission." Pretty shoddy job of analysis, counselor. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" wrote: > > An adoptive admission is where a person is assumed to agree with the > statement of another if it is said in her/his presence and she/he chooses to > remain silent and doesn't deny what is said. The person's silence is > considered to be agreement with the statement made by the other. The charge > of failing to condemn what other posters have written has been a frequent one > here. > > In a forum like FFL, however, where there are so many posters and lurkers and > where over a hundred a messages a day are posted, it doesn't make practical > sense to apply the charge of adoptive admission for anyone's failure to > respond to what someone else posts. > > People could consider responding to what other posters actually write, rather > than what they don't write. There would be less argument, but maybe that > would be a good thing. This is in response to Marek's post #300967 if anybody wants to see the full context: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" wrote: > It would be fair to say I exalted Curtis; I hold him in > high esteem. But not only did I not "pile on" (though the > characterization of "others" doing so following my post > may be arguably correct), but I certainly did not condemn > anyone. I remarked on the subject of my concern in the > broadest and least offensive fashion and did not specify > any particular person, specifically to avoid argument. I have the distinct sense Marek genuinely believes in this self-justification. Of course you "piled on," Marek. Your post was a response to Curtis's post denouncing Ravi as a liar and me as a hypocrite; that denunciation was what you piled onto. "Did not specify any particular person": This is the very lamest of excuses. "Some very untethered behavior by some of the more recent and prolific posters" clearly referred to Ravi; and "the willingness of some folks here to glorify and encourage" said behavior and to "gang up on Curtis" was clearly meant to include me. "In the broadest and least offensive fashion," perhaps, but nobody here doubted it was meant as a sharp rebuke to Ravi and myself, especially given the post of Curtis to which you were responding. As I said: "And then Marek and others began piling on, exalting Curtis and condemning Ravi, and me for supposedly supporting him." I'll stand by that characterization. > I don't take pleasure in argument and avoid it in personal > matters, even though I engage in it professionally. If you were cross-examining a hostile witness, or summing up your case for the defense, would you let the kind of sophistical rationalization from the prosecution that you've just indulged in go by without contemptuously t
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
> > People could consider responding to what > > other posters actually write... > > Bhairitu: > I'm sure the judge would shut it down... > Well, if this was a court the judge would ask for some evidence to be presented. > Some of the patients here probably need their > meds upped though. :-D > So, let's see your doctor's prescription first and then we'll decide what you need. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
Mr. Williams, I'm not sure if you expect a response, but if you're asking or challenging me about my opinion of Judith's book, I'd reply that her narrative seemed plausible to me and made me fonder of the human guy that Maharishi was. I'm confident that he was a monkey just like the rest of us, with unique qualities and favorable circumstances that brought him to the world's attention a few times. I don't think that he was a pervert or inordinately lecherous. I feel that he was mostly sincere in his self-appointed mission, and also sincere in amassing wealth and in passing on through his world government his ideas about how the world should be run if he were king (or more correctly, if he were kingmaker). I still consider him my guru. *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardatrwilliamsdotus" wrote: > > > > marekreavis: > > In a forum like FFL, however, where there are > > so many posters and lurkers and where over a > > hundred a messages a day are posted, it doesn't > > make practical sense to apply the charge of > > adoptive admission for anyone's failure to > > respond to what someone else posts... > > > Where I come from, silence usually indicates > agreement. > > In a conversation between a few guys over a beer > leaning over the back of a pickup, when someone > calls you a zoophilia pervert and infers that > he just had sexual relations with your mother, > if you don't speak up, folks just assume it's > true. > > Go figure. > > So when you didn't speak up, or even take up for > your own guru, I figured you agreed with the > others that MMY was a just selling mantras for > money in order to seduce young women. > > "The book by Judith would have been more > believable if there had been more details about > what the Maharishi actually had to say to her. > > It's a very slim paperback, just 219 pages with > about a dozen ripped-off photos, and really poor > ones at that. > > Apparently Judith actually took only three photos > of the Maharishi in the two years she was in the > TMO. > > What is more interesting to me was the part about > Ms Pittman and her position in the Maharishi's > so-called 'inner circle'. > > There is one photo of the Maharishi sitting at a > dinning room table with the inner circle that is > really humorous though. He looks like a 'midget' > compared to the others at the table. > > When I saw it my first thought was how in hell > would someone as attractive as Judith want to be > having sex with a small guy like that, if you > know what I mean." >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adoptive Admissions
marekreavis: > In a forum like FFL, however, where there are > so many posters and lurkers and where over a > hundred a messages a day are posted, it doesn't > make practical sense to apply the charge of > adoptive admission for anyone's failure to > respond to what someone else posts... > Where I come from, silence usually indicates agreement. In a conversation between a few guys over a beer leaning over the back of a pickup, when someone calls you a zoophilia pervert and infers that he just had sexual relations with your mother, if you don't speak up, folks just assume it's true. Go figure. So when you didn't speak up, or even take up for your own guru, I figured you agreed with the others that MMY was a just selling mantras for money in order to seduce young women. "The book by Judith would have been more believable if there had been more details about what the Maharishi actually had to say to her. It's a very slim paperback, just 219 pages with about a dozen ripped-off photos, and really poor ones at that. Apparently Judith actually took only three photos of the Maharishi in the two years she was in the TMO. What is more interesting to me was the part about Ms Pittman and her position in the Maharishi's so-called 'inner circle'. There is one photo of the Maharishi sitting at a dinning room table with the inner circle that is really humorous though. He looks like a 'midget' compared to the others at the table. When I saw it my first thought was how in hell would someone as attractive as Judith want to be having sex with a small guy like that, if you know what I mean."
