[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Excellent, thank you - I agree with everything you have said, although I still have some reservations about the practice itself after having talked with Mark Landau and due to all the old stories I have heard about suicides, major unstressing, and having seen people become emotionally disconnected and unable to function well in society Okay, okay. Michael, some might say it works both ways. You stop the practice and.. Just sayin.. and you know how it works, "hey doc a friend of mine is in a 12 step program" and... "hey doc, a friend of mine seems to be a little emotionally disconnected" and.. It's always, "that friend of mine" just sayin, sayin - I have seen the latter myself, so I agree that TM can be ok for some, but it isn't without it's downside. > > And thanks for posting a cogent and well reasoned essay. > > > > > > From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:12 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > > Â > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: > > > > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long term TM makes ones brain turn into mush and removes the ability to think clearly. > > A belief is a thought that the world is a certain way. It would seem the term 'knowledge' might refer to an experience or thought that correlates with the way the world really is. In practice though knowledge based on thought is hypothetical, that is, we cannot know a thought represents reality without a test of some kind. And if a thought refers to things we cannot test, then knowledge is impossible. > > I personally do not think TM turns the brain into mush. But one has to look at the environment in which it is used. Beginning meditators usually, if their experience is good, are enthusiastic, and one can excuse them for that. But if they get more involved, they find themselves enmeshed in an organisation that does not really allow creative independent thinking - everything in that environment tends toward doing what 'Maharishi expected people to do', which means that your thinking has to be along the lines of that rut. The TMO does not sanction independent thinking unless it brings in more cash (like Lynch for example) > > I was just looking at documents on the Zen-trained Adyashanti's web site. > > This is the complete summary of his teaching in his own words: > > Be still. > Question every thought. > Contemplate the source of Reality. > > That second line is interesting, since it seems to me to be fundamental to getting oneself out of the rut of mere belief. Spiritual engagement is such a peculiar thing to get involved in. It takes all sorts of bizarre forms. You need independent thinking to wade through the morass of conflicting and unbelievable beliefs one encounters in every kind of spiritual movement. You need to be curious. You really have to wonder how you have gotten yourself in such a situation, and how to get out of it what you came into it for. If you came into it to feel good, probably you will fail. If you came into it to become part of a community, probably you will fail in that greater task that is called enlightenment. > > The environment of the TMO and its suburbs I feel is not conducive to enlightenment unless a person is very focused on being enlightened; it will rot your brain; not the TM, that is a tool that can be used wisely or not, but constantly having to conform to a particular mindset will erode purpose. My experience was I began to forget my purpose. When I left, that purpose began to re-emerge. It was a subtle kind of suppression. > > I do not mind being around dedicated TMO-ites now, because I have my purpose and my life; they cannot infiltrate, and strangely TM had a big part to play in this, but it took a long time to unfold, not because any particular kind of meditation is inefficient, but because for most, including me, it just takes a long time to break through one's delusions. If you are aligned with a movement that fosters delusions, you are sunk. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Excellent, thank you - I agree with everything you have said, although I still have some reservations about the practice itself after having talked with Mark Landau and due to all the old stories I have heard about suicides, major unstressing, and having seen people become emotionally disconnected and unable to function well in society - I have seen the latter myself, so I agree that TM can be ok for some, but it isn't without it's downside. And thanks for posting a cogent and well reasoned essay. From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:12 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long term TM makes > ones brain turn into mush and removes the ability to think clearly. A belief is a thought that the world is a certain way. It would seem the term 'knowledge' might refer to an experience or thought that correlates with the way the world really is. In practice though knowledge based on thought is hypothetical, that is, we cannot know a thought represents reality without a test of some kind. And if a thought refers to things we cannot test, then knowledge is impossible. I personally do not think TM turns the brain into mush. But one has to look at the environment in which it is used. Beginning meditators usually, if their experience is good, are enthusiastic, and one can excuse them for that. But if they get more involved, they find themselves enmeshed in an organisation that does not really allow creative independent thinking - everything in that environment tends toward doing what 'Maharishi expected people to do', which means that your thinking has to be along the lines of that rut. The TMO does not sanction independent thinking unless it brings in more cash (like Lynch for example) I was just looking at documents on the Zen-trained Adyashanti's web site. This is the complete summary of his teaching in his own words: Be still. Question every thought. Contemplate the source of Reality. That second line is interesting, since it seems to me to be fundamental to getting oneself out of the rut of mere belief. Spiritual engagement is such a peculiar thing to get involved in. It takes all sorts of bizarre forms. You need independent thinking to wade through the morass of conflicting and unbelievable beliefs one encounters in every kind of spiritual movement. You need to be curious. You really have to wonder how you have gotten yourself in such a situation, and how to get out of it what you came into it for. If you came into it to feel good, probably you will fail. If you came into it to become part of a community, probably you will fail in that greater task that is called enlightenment. The environment of the TMO and its suburbs I feel is not conducive to enlightenment unless a person is very focused on being enlightened; it will rot your brain; not the TM, that is a tool that can be used wisely or not, but constantly having to conform to a particular mindset will erode purpose. My experience was I began to forget my purpose. When I left, that purpose began to re-emerge. It was a subtle kind of suppression. I do not mind being around dedicated TMO-ites now, because I have my purpose and my life; they cannot infiltrate, and strangely TM had a big part to play in this, but it took a long time to unfold, not because any particular kind of meditation is inefficient, but because for most, including me, it just takes a long time to break through one's delusions. If you are aligned with a movement that fosters delusions, you are sunk.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars to Judy
Share - wasn't just Fox news - the name was outed as part of a vid clip that was aired by CNN, Fox, MSNBC according a google search of mine just now. The word "perp" stands for "perpetrator," so that second sentence doesn't make any sense. The release of her name has nothing to do with who sent her death threats. Apparently, it was teenage girls who sent the death threats - everyone in town and in the high school, and all of their respective families and friends, at the very, very least know who the girl is. > > From: Share Long >To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" >Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 2:38 PM >Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars to Judy > > > >Another good point, in case you're reading posts. I just saw that Fox News >revealed the victim's name after promising not to reveal the names of the >perps. The victim has already received 2 death threats! > >BTW, I liked your joke about the Two Years Before the Mast hunk (-: > > > > > > >____ > From: authfriend >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 11:08 AM >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars to Judy > > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: >> >> Judy, I appreciate your take on this, that they were >> emphasizing how bad the consequences were going to be >> for the boys. Something I hadn't thought of. >> >> BTW, when I said in another post something about the >> whole report not being seen, I was referring to the >> clip which excluded the last part of the exchange >> between Crowley and Harlow, which you provided as >> transcript. Thanks again for that. > >Oh, I see. I was confused because you said you thought >CNN had omitted it from the report. > >While I'm at it, another point that occurred to me is >that CNN had been covering the whole mess, including the >trial, all along. On Sunday morning, the only thing that >would have been new to CNN viewers was the verdict, so >the breaking-news segment would naturally have focused >on that and its consequences for the perps. > > > > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars to Judy
Another good point, in case you're reading posts. I just saw that Fox News revealed the victim's name after promising not to reveal the names of the perps. The victim has already received 2 death threats! BTW, I liked your joke about the Two Years Before the Mast hunk (-: From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 11:08 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars to Judy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Judy, I appreciate your take on this, that they were > emphasizing how bad the consequences were going to be > for the boys. Something I hadn't thought of. > > BTW, when I said in another post something about the > whole report not being seen, I was referring to the > clip which excluded the last part of the exchange > between Crowley and Harlow, which you provided as > transcript. Thanks again for that. Oh, I see. I was confused because you said you thought CNN had omitted it from the report. While I'm at it, another point that occurred to me is that CNN had been covering the whole mess, including the trial, all along. On Sunday morning, the only thing that would have been new to CNN viewers was the verdict, so the breaking-news segment would naturally have focused on that and its consequences for the perps.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > I was just looking at documents on the Zen-trained Adyashanti's web site. > > This is the complete summary of his teaching in his own words: > > Be still. > Question every thought. > Contemplate the source of Reality. > > That second line is interesting, since it seems to me to be fundamental to > getting oneself out of the rut of mere belief. I just found this on my FB news feed, I think it fits in here as well: Can you SEE-UNDERSTAND YOU are full of nonsense? If you can that is the end of it! ~ Cesar Teruel
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Xeno wrote about Adyashanti: This is the complete summary of his teaching in his own words: Be still. Question every thought. Contemplate the source of Reality. Me: Of course he had to say a whole lot more than this to sell his books and give workshops (-: Xeno, it seems like a whole lot of wondering about something, enlightenment, that you've elsewhere said does not exist. Probably I misunderstood. From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:12 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long term TM makes > ones brain turn into mush and removes the ability to think clearly. A belief is a thought that the world is a certain way. It would seem the term 'knowledge' might refer to an experience or thought that correlates with the way the world really is. In practice though knowledge based on thought is hypothetical, that is, we cannot know a thought represents reality without a test of some kind. And if a thought refers to things we cannot test, then knowledge is impossible. I personally do not think TM turns the brain into mush. But one has to look at the environment in which it is used. Beginning meditators usually, if their experience is good, are enthusiastic, and one can excuse them for that. But if they get more involved, they find themselves enmeshed in an organisation that does not really allow creative independent thinking - everything in that environment tends toward doing what 'Maharishi expected people to do', which means that your thinking has to be along the lines of that rut. The TMO does not sanction independent thinking unless it brings in more cash (like Lynch for example) I was just looking at documents on the Zen-trained Adyashanti's web site. This is the complete summary of his teaching in his own words: Be still. Question every thought. Contemplate the source of Reality. That second line is interesting, since it seems to me to be fundamental to getting oneself out of the rut of mere belief. Spiritual engagement is such a peculiar thing to get involved in. It takes all sorts of bizarre forms. You need independent thinking to wade through the morass of conflicting and unbelievable beliefs one encounters in every kind of spiritual movement. You need to be curious. You really have to wonder how you have gotten yourself in such a situation, and how to get out of it what you came into it for. If you came into it to feel good, probably you will fail. If you came into it to become part of a community, probably you will fail in that greater task that is called enlightenment. The environment of the TMO and its suburbs I feel is not conducive to enlightenment unless a person is very focused on being enlightened; it will rot your brain; not the TM, that is a tool that can be used wisely or not, but constantly having to conform to a particular mindset will erode purpose. My experience was I began to forget my purpose. When I left, that purpose began to re-emerge. It was a subtle kind of suppression. I do not mind being around dedicated TMO-ites now, because I have my purpose and my life; they cannot infiltrate, and strangely TM had a big part to play in this, but it took a long time to unfold, not because any particular kind of meditation is inefficient, but because for most, including me, it just takes a long time to break through one's delusions. If you are aligned with a movement that fosters delusions, you are sunk.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long term TM makes > ones brain turn into mush and removes the ability to think clearly. A belief is a thought that the world is a certain way. It would seem the term 'knowledge' might refer to an experience or thought that correlates with the way the world really is. In practice though knowledge based on thought is hypothetical, that is, we cannot know a thought represents reality without a test of some kind. And if a thought refers to things we cannot test, then knowledge is impossible. I personally do not think TM turns the brain into mush. But one has to look at the environment in which it is used. Beginning meditators usually, if their experience is good, are enthusiastic, and one can excuse them for that. But if they get more involved, they find themselves enmeshed in an organisation that does not really allow creative independent thinking - everything in that environment tends toward doing what 'Maharishi expected people to do', which means that your thinking has to be along the lines of that rut. The TMO does not sanction independent thinking unless it brings in more cash (like Lynch for example) I was just looking at documents on the Zen-trained Adyashanti's web site. This is the complete summary of his teaching in his own words: Be still. Question every thought. Contemplate the source of Reality. That second line is interesting, since it seems to me to be fundamental to getting oneself out of the rut of mere belief. Spiritual engagement is such a peculiar thing to get involved in. It takes all sorts of bizarre forms. You need independent thinking to wade through the morass of conflicting and unbelievable beliefs one encounters in every kind of spiritual movement. You need to be curious. You really have to wonder how you have gotten yourself in such a situation, and how to get out of it what you came into it for. If you came into it to feel good, probably you will fail. If you came into it to become part of a community, probably you will fail in that greater task that is called enlightenment. The environment of the TMO and its suburbs I feel is not conducive to enlightenment unless a person is very focused on being enlightened; it will rot your brain; not the TM, that is a tool that can be used wisely or not, but constantly having to conform to a particular mindset will erode purpose. My experience was I began to forget my purpose. When I left, that purpose began to re-emerge. It was a subtle kind of suppression. I do not mind being around dedicated TMO-ites now, because I have my purpose and my life; they cannot infiltrate, and strangely TM had a big part to play in this, but it took a long time to unfold, not because any particular kind of meditation is inefficient, but because for most, including me, it just takes a long time to break through one's delusions. If you are aligned with a movement that fosters delusions, you are sunk.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Buck: > I got to go to the Dome right now. Have a nice > day, you stinking counter-revolutionary... > "...the word 'cult' represents just as much prejudice and antagonism as racial slurs or derogatory words for women and homosexuals." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult > > Following up on this, because I suspect that one or > > more of the cultists will try to pretend that they > > aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to > > make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist > > is about the "trigger" that sets them off. > > > > It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just > > how they interpret criticism of the organization > > or group they pathologically over-identify with. > > > > If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief > > or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if > > it were an "attack" on you personally, then what > > you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to > > that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self- > > knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end. > > Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new > > round of "shoot the messenger" because someone > > criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior > > of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior > > mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist. > > > > Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they > > hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist, > > knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can > > recognize that human beings can hold different opinions > > about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't. > > They feel compelled to describe those who believe > > differently than they do as having some failing or > > as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent, > > an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in. > > > > A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior > > of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's > > a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in > > those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the > > face, then I think most people would recognize that > > they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have > > lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave > > off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the > > larger world is the concerted attempt by some people > > to characterize any criticism of the State of Israel > > and its politics and policies as anti-semitism. > > > > There is simply NO QUESTION that a lot of TMers are > > cultists in this regard. When MJ rails about the TMO, > > they react as if he's railing against them personally, > > and they *over-react* as strongly as if they were > > black and he'd called them a nigger. That's INSANE > > in my view. > > > > Ideas are just ideas. Beliefs are just beliefs. Your > > ideas and your beliefs are not you. Get over it. > > > > > > > > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe. > > > > > > Love this. Tom always had a way with words. > > > > > > TM (unlike Catholicism, Judaism, and Hinduism in India) > > > never had any political influence, so they went instead > > > for "celebrity influence," courting famous people and > > > trying to use *their* names and images to sell its > > > products. > > > > > > As for cults, my definition tends more towards, "A cult > > > is any organization in which its members perceive any > > > criticism of the organization as criticism of them per- > > > sonally, or even as an 'attack' against them personally, > > > and then react angrily to that criticism." This would > > > hold true IMO for spiritual organizations, corporations, > > > political parties, whatever. It's the *behavior* that > > > defines cultism, not the nature of the org. > > > > > > It's the overidentification with the group and the over- > > > reaction to criticism that does it for me, and that > > > defines a group as a cult and its members as cultists. > > > That and certain classically cult behavioral patterns > > > like playing "shoot the messenger" and attacking the > > > critic while ignoring the criticisms. > > > > > > By that standard, there are a few people on FFL who > > > are definitely cultists. There are also some TM > > > practitioners on this forum who are not, but we rarely > > > hear from them. Mainly it's the cultists who feel the > > > need to follow up any criticism with samskaric > > > attachment/aversion behavior and attack the critics. > > > > > > Whatever floats their boats, I guess. I just don't > > > understand how they believe that they're presenting > > > a positive view of the organization they're "protecting" > > > or the technique it sells. If simple criticism can push > > > their buttons this badly after 30-40 years of practicing > > > it, then the technique really doesn't do much of anything > > > useful at all, does it? > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
doctordumbass: > it occurs to me, that someone setting themselves > up so forcefully in opposition to others' ideas and > beliefs, while holding such firm ideas and beliefs of > their own, has quite an issue with attachment, with > getting stuck in a rut, with being a fundamentalist, > themselves. > Well, whatever Barry's beliefs are now, I'm putting him into the hoax category. The Anti-Cult Movement that supports 'brainwashing' theories in North America appears to be dead, but Barry is trying to keep it alive in France. Go figure. The Anti-Cult hoax is dead due to a combination of public awareness of high-profile, illegal deprogramming efforts by some anti-cult groups, and a rejection by professional mental health organizations. Barry's 'trigger' finger pointing at the TMers as being cultists is not working - he should try a thumb-screw on us, if he wants real cult coercion. LoL! "...individuals and groups spread the belief that these experiments continue. They believe that people are being remotely controlled by microwave energy beams. Others are being mentally programmed to perform specific functions when triggered by a sound, image, color, etc. Still others are being tortured by rays transmitted from overhead spy planes." 10 current hoaxes: http://religioustolerance.org/psy_hoax.htm The Anti-Cult Movement in North America appears to be dying, due to a combination of public awareness of high-profile, illegal deprogramming efforts by some anti-cult groups, and a rejection by professional mental health organizations.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars to Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Judy, I appreciate your take on this, that they were > emphasizing how bad the consequences were going to be > for the boys. Something I hadn't thought of. > > BTW, when I said in another post something about the > whole report not being seen, I was referring to the > clip which excluded the last part of the exchange > between Crowley and Harlow, which you provided as > transcript. Thanks again for that. Oh, I see. I was confused because you said you thought CNN had omitted it from the report. While I'm at it, another point that occurred to me is that CNN had been covering the whole mess, including the trial, all along. On Sunday morning, the only thing that would have been new to CNN viewers was the verdict, so the breaking-news segment would naturally have focused on that and its consequences for the perps.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars to Judy
Judy, I appreciate your take on this, that they were emphasizing how bad the consequences were going to be for the boys. Something I hadn't thought of. BTW, when I said in another post something about the whole report not being seen, I was referring to the clip which excluded the last part of the exchange between Crowley and Harlow, which you provided as transcript. Thanks again for that. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:44 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long > term TM makes ones brain turn into mush and removes the > ability to think clearly. Right, Michael, you're obviously the clear-thinking one here. Too bad you haven't been able to address a single one of the points that have been made. Too bad you can only make your case by wildly exaggerating what was said in that clip. > How many times do you hear reporters give a show of hand > wringing over the fate of convicted rapists? Is that what they were doing? Or were they deliberately emphasizing how bad the consequences were going to be for these boys *as a warning* to other boys who might be tempted to engage in similar misbehavior? As in: This was a crime, and these guys are going to suffer for it the rest of their lives. You don't want to end up like them. > A reporters job > is to report the facts, not commiserate with the criminals Neither of them was "commiserating with the criminals." That's insane. (snip) > Your attitude seems to be - "Oh Candy is a TM'er and so > anything she does is beyond reproach" - you people > really are screwed up. No, buster, that you would think any of us had that attitude is what's really screwed up. > Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap: > > "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape > Case verdict is pissing everyone off. For the record, there were seven segments on CNN on Sunday about the verdict, not just the breaking-news item, which is what all the fuss is about. You can check out transcripts of all the segments here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2013.03.17.html Interestingly, in the breaking-news item, following the appearance of the legal expert, Crowley and Harlow continued their discussion. Here's the transcript of that portion of the breaking-news item (which was not included in the clip): - CROWLEY: Paul, thanks. I want to bring Poppy back in -- because, Poppy, there's -- you know, the 16-year-old victim, her life, never the same, again. And I understand you have been talking to some of the families involved. HARLOW: Her life never the same again. Absolutely, Candy. The last thing she wanted to do was sit on that stand and testify. She didn't want to bring these charges. She said it was up to her parents. But I want to tell our viewers about a statement that her mother just made, just made in the court after the sentencing. Her mother just said that she has pity on the two young boys that did this. She said human compassion is not taught by teachers or coaches. It's a God-given gift, saying that you displayed a lack of compassion, a lack of moral code, saying that you were your own accuser throughout this for posting about this all over social media. And she said she takes pity on them. As far as her daughter, she said she will persevere, she will get through this. But the words of an angry mother who now has a sentence, that I believe she would consider or a verdict, just -- Candy. CROWLEY: CNN's Poppy Harlow, thank you. Also to our legal contributor Paul Callan. Of course, we will be following this story throughout the day. - And they did. But the jezebel.com post says: > Newscaster Candy Crowley, general correspondent Poppy > Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their very > best to focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions > on the two rapists. There's next to no coverage of the > girl who was brutally raped; instead, they talk almost > exclusively of the rapistsâ€" the two teenagers who had > such bright futures, and now their lives are completely > ruined from this one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame > how they suffer?" This is simply not true, as you can see from the transcript above. I read the transcripts of a couple of the later segments on Sunday on the verdict, and it isn't true of them either. As I said, I'm not a fan of Crowley. But she has been treated unfairly in this discussion for the purpose of advancing an anti-TM agenda. And I think that stinks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
"Ideas are just ideas. Beliefs are just beliefs. Your ideas and your beliefs are not you. Get over it." And yet, you treat beliefs and ideas as real. You rail against them and tell others where their thinking goes wrong, and what their beliefs are. So, you (and Curtis), of all those on FFL, are dead convinced in the solidity and ownership of beliefs and ideas. Ya know, it occurs to me, that someone setting themselves up so forcefully in opposition to others' ideas and beliefs, while holding such firm ideas and beliefs of their own, has quite an issue with attachment, with getting stuck in a rut, with being a fundamentalist, themselves. A fundamentalist of any stripe thrives on the cartoon-ish contrasts, the straw men he builds of others' beliefs and practices. Its all about caricature, and stark contrasts, black and white. You have become a real Bible Thumper on here Barry - you have become that which you rail against so fervently, day after day, week after week, year after year. You now have the unique distinction of besting even the most fervent supporter of TM, in your dedication, persistence and illogical support of *your* beliefs and ideas, a life in opposition to The Great Straw Man, The CULTIST. You are a glorious fundamentalist. Hallelujah Barry! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > Following up on this, because I suspect that one or > more of the cultists will try to pretend that they > aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to > make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist > is about the "trigger" that sets them off. > > It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just > how they interpret criticism of the organization > or group they pathologically over-identify with. > > If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief > or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if > it were an "attack" on you personally, then what > you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to > that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self- > knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end. > Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new > round of "shoot the messenger" because someone > criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior > of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior > mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist. > > Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they > hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist, > knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can > recognize that human beings can hold different opinions > about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't. > They feel compelled to describe those who believe > differently than they do as having some failing or > as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent, > an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in. > > A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior > of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's > a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in > those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the > face, then I think most people would recognize that > they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have > lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave > off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the > larger world is the concerted attempt by some people > to characterize any criticism of the State of Israel > and its politics and policies as anti-semitism. > > There is simply NO QUESTION that a lot of TMers are > cultists in this regard. When MJ rails about the TMO, > they react as if he's railing against them personally, > and they *over-react* as strongly as if they were > black and he'd called them a nigger. That's INSANE > in my view. > > Ideas are just ideas. Beliefs are just beliefs. Your > ideas and your beliefs are not you. Get over it. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe. > > > > Love this. Tom always had a way with words. > > > > TM (unlike Catholicism, Judaism, and Hinduism in India) > > never had any political influence, so they went instead > > for "celebrity influence," courting famous people and > > trying to use *their* names and images to sell its > > products. > > > > As for cults, my definition tends more towards, "A cult > > is any organization in which its members perceive any > > criticism of the organization as criticism of them per- > > sonally, or even as an 'attack' against them personally, > > and then react angrily to that criticism." This would > > hold true IMO for spiritual organizations, corporations, > > political parties, whatever. It's the *behavior* that > > defines cultism, not the nature of the org. > > > > It's the overidentification with the group and the over- > > reaction to criticism that does it for me, and that > > defines a group as a cult an
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
turquoiseb: > It is worth pointing out that some TM cultists on > this forum never even learned TM. They just join in > the "piling on" against TM critics because they're > too dumb to do anything else, because they're used > to doing it and don't know how to do anything else, > and because they feed on the strokes they get from > other cultists when they do it. > According to Lifton, cults are a form of 'totalism' and coercive 'thought reform'. You apparently seek to reform the TMers thoughts, probably because you fear old age and/or homelessness. So, you've just adapted your old cult practices into alterd ones; into making TMers scape-goats for your own fear; TMers which you have made to represent your own fight or flight for survival, now that you're living on the edge of poverty and homelessness in the big city. Go figure. > What MJ is doing is nothing more than what *you* > did (and which we mainly tolerated) when you railed > against Amma, the cult *you* were involved with. > > You need another trip back to India, Ravi. You > actually seemed human when you were posting from > there. Now you're just a troll. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > > > Thank you Barry, I appreciate it, MJ is surely nodding his head as he reads > > this - unfortunately his hands err fingers tied at 50 posts. I called them > > critics - but no, I should have called them cultists - as you rightly point > > out. These cultists - Judy, Share, feste, Steve better watch out. MJ will > > come out with a fury that will be devastating. 30 anti-TM posts in the > > first day, with the same consistent cluelessness, retardedness that will > > have them breaking in to a cold sweat, which will be followed by 20 more > > random clueless, retarded responses to these cultists in the second day. > > You & I, I am sure will then step up to keep his message alive. Thanks > > Barry. > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:17 PM, turquoiseb > > wrote: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > Following up on this, because I suspect that one or > > > more of the cultists will try to pretend that they > > > aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to > > > make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist > > > is about the "trigger" that sets them off. > > > > > > It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just > > > how they interpret criticism of the organization > > > or group they pathologically over-identify with. > > > > > > If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief > > > or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if > > > it were an "attack" on you personally, then what > > > you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to > > > that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self- > > > knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end. > > > Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new > > > round of "shoot the messenger" because someone > > > criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior > > > of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior > > > mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist. > > > > > > Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they > > > hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist, > > > knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can > > > recognize that human beings can hold different opinions > > > about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't. > > > They feel compelled to describe those who believe > > > differently than they do as having some failing or > > > as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent, > > > an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in. > > > > > > A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior > > > of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's > > > a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in > > > those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the > > > face, then I think most people would recognize that > > > they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have > > > lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave > > > off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the > > > larger world is the concerted attempt by some people > > > to characterize any criticism of the State of Israel > > > and its politics and policies as anti-semitism. > > > > > > There is simply NO QUESTION that a lot of TMers are > > > cultists in this regard. When MJ rails about the TMO, > > > they react as if he's railing against them personally, > > > and they *over-react* as strongly as if they were > > > black and he'd called them a nigger. That's INSANE > > > in my view. > > > > > > Ideas are just ideas. Beliefs are just beliefs. Your > > > ideas and your beliefs are not you. Get over it. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe. > > > > > > > > Love this. Tom always had
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
turquoiseb: > Following up on this, because I suspect that one or > more of the cultists will try to pretend that they > aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to > make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist > is about the "trigger" that sets them off. > Yeah, except being a 'cultist' isn't defined by a 'trigger' - a cult is defined by the amount of 'coercion' or 'mind control' involved. Psychiatrist Robert J. Lifton prepared a study on 'thought reform' following the Korean War (Lifton 1961). He interviewed 25 Western political prisoners who had been arrested and detained by the Chinese authorities and put through up to a three-and-a-half-year period of ideological remolding (szu-hsiang kai-tsao) which employed techniques of torture, ill treatment and prolonged incarceration. Lifton also interviewed 15 former students of Chinese 'revolutionary' universities. Similarly, Edgar Schein (1961), for his study on coercive persuasion, interviewed 15 of the more 'notable' American POWs from the Korean War. Neither Lifton nor Schein found scientifically useful the sensationalistic model of robotic brainwashed mind-controlled zombies, like you have described. In fact, both Lifton and Schein have written that 'brainwashing' theory is not a scientific theory at all. LoL! > It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just > how they interpret criticism of the organization > or group they pathologically over-identify with. > > If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief > or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if > it were an "attack" on you personally, then what > you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to > that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self- > knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end. > Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new > round of "shoot the messenger" because someone > criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior > of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior > mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist. > > Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they > hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist, > knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can > recognize that human beings can hold different opinions > about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't. > They feel compelled to describe those who believe > differently than they do as having some failing or > as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent, > an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in. > > A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior > of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's > a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in > those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the > face, then I think most people would recognize that > they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have > lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave > off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the > larger world is the concerted attempt by some people > to characterize any criticism of the State of Israel > and its politics and policies as anti-semitism. > > There is simply NO QUESTION that a lot of TMers are > cultists in this regard. When MJ rails about the TMO, > they react as if he's railing against them personally, > and they *over-react* as strongly as if they were > black and he'd called them a nigger. That's INSANE > in my view. > > Ideas are just ideas. Beliefs are just beliefs. Your > ideas and your beliefs are not you. Get over it. > > > > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe. > > > > Love this. Tom always had a way with words. > > > > TM (unlike Catholicism, Judaism, and Hinduism in India) > > never had any political influence, so they went instead > > for "celebrity influence," courting famous people and > > trying to use *their* names and images to sell its > > products. > > > > As for cults, my definition tends more towards, "A cult > > is any organization in which its members perceive any > > criticism of the organization as criticism of them per- > > sonally, or even as an 'attack' against them personally, > > and then react angrily to that criticism." This would > > hold true IMO for spiritual organizations, corporations, > > political parties, whatever. It's the *behavior* that > > defines cultism, not the nature of the org. > > > > It's the overidentification with the group and the over- > > reaction to criticism that does it for me, and that > > defines a group as a cult and its members as cultists. > > That and certain classically cult behavioral patterns > > like playing "shoot the messenger" and attacking the > > critic while ignoring the criticisms. > > > > By that standard, there are a few people on FFL who > > are definitely cultists. There are also some TM > > practitioners on this forum who are not, but we rarely > > hear from them. Mainly it's the cultists who feel the > > need to
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > Following up on this, because I suspect that one or > more of the cultists will try to pretend that they > aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to > make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist > is about the "trigger" that sets them off. > > It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just > how they interpret criticism of the organization > or group they pathologically over-identify with. > > If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief > or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if > it were an "attack" on you personally, then what > you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to > that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self- > knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end. > Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new > round of "shoot the messenger" because someone > criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior > of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior > mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist. > > Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they > hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist, > knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can > recognize that human beings can hold different opinions > about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't. > They feel compelled to describe those who believe > differently than they do as having some failing or > as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent, > an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in. > > A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior > of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's > a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in > those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the > face, then I think most people would recognize that > they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have > lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave > off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the > larger world is the concerted attempt by some people > to characterize any criticism of the State of Israel > and its politics and policies as anti-semitism. > > There is simply NO QUESTION that a lot of TMers are > cultists in this regard. When MJ rails about the TMO, > they react as if he's railing against them personally, > and they *over-react* as strongly as if they were > black and he'd called them a nigger. That's INSANE > in my view. > > Ideas are just ideas. Beliefs are just beliefs. Your > ideas and your beliefs are not you. Get over it. Rhetorical questions: What does it matter if someone is a "cultist", as you call it? Are you out to "save" people from being "cultists"? What do you feel is your reason for being so involved in convincing someone they are a "cultist"? And in case Share would like to ask, What was it in your childhood, what traumas or unresolved issues, are making you so interested in this subject? Do you feel you were ever a "cultist" when you were such a dedicated teacher of TM or involved with Monsieur Rama? If so, how do you chalk up your lack of empathy for others who may be in the same boat you were back then? Would you have defended yourself or your ideas about TM or Rama in the face of a "Barry"? Would you ever consider yourself to be someone who believes in ideas and who stands behind these ideas, voicing them or writing them? What does this imply about you? If beliefs and ideas are not what makes up a person then what relationship do they have to who they are and so what elements DOES make a person? How many more times do you think it will be necessary to post these same ideas before you will feel satisfied that you have done this enough times? Do you sleep better at night, does your food taste better, the beer crisper, does your productivity go up during the day just knowing you have written this same post (same subject, different day) once again? Thanks for your time and consideration. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe. > > > > Love this. Tom always had a way with words. > > > > TM (unlike Catholicism, Judaism, and Hinduism in India) > > never had any political influence, so they went instead > > for "celebrity influence," courting famous people and > > trying to use *their* names and images to sell its > > products. > > > > As for cults, my definition tends more towards, "A cult > > is any organization in which its members perceive any > > criticism of the organization as criticism of them per- > > sonally, or even as an 'attack' against them personally, > > and then react angrily to that criticism." This would > > hold true IMO for spiritual organizations, corporations, > > political parties, whatever. It's the *behavior* that > > defines cultism, not the nature of the org. > > > > It's the overident
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > Following up on this, because I suspect that one or > > more of the cultists will try to pretend that they > > aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to > > make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist > > is about the "trigger" that sets them off. > > > > It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just > > how they interpret criticism of the organization > > or group they pathologically over-identify with. > > > > If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief > > or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if > > it were an "attack" on you personally, then what > > you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to > > that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self- > > knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end. > > Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new > > round of "shoot the messenger" because someone > > criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior > > of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior > > mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist. > > > > Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they > > hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist, > > knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can > > recognize that human beings can hold different opinions > > about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't. > > They feel compelled to describe those who believe > > differently than they do as having some failing or > > as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent, > > an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in. > > > > A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior > > of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's > > a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in > > those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the > > face, then I think most people would recognize that > > they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have > > lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave > > off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the > > larger world is the concerted attempt by some people > > to characterize any criticism of the State of Israel > > and its politics and policies as anti-semitism. > > > > There is simply NO QUESTION that a lot of TMers are > > cultists in this regard. When MJ rails about the TMO, > > they react as if he's railing against them personally, > > and they *over-react* as strongly as if they were > > black and he'd called them a nigger. That's INSANE > > in my view. > > > > Ideas are just ideas. Beliefs are just beliefs. Your > > ideas and your beliefs are not you. Get over it. > > > > > > Om Dear Turq, that's ridiculous iam a revolutionary millenarian and by your > writings are clearly are not. That is defining and we are different people > that way. One of us could be right and the other even wrong. It could even > be worth fighting over. That is not to say I would not appreciate having a > cup of coffee with you sometime in between meditation or even before > meditation if you get up early enough. Speaking of which, I got to go to the > Dome right now. Have a nice day, you stinking counter-revolutionary, > -Buck Right out of the 19th century Buck. Maybe right out of the first or second century too. Millenarian ideas have had an interesting history, namely that they have repeatedly failed to come to pass. Our thoughts about the world and what is going to happen are hypotheses at best and mad imaginings at worst. As a species we have an incredibly bad memory for having been repeatedly wrong. Our minds are mythology machines, weaving tales of greatness and woe, about what we think we are in these fragile bodies, about what others are, and it is dreamland city. All turq is saying is that process is identification, and that cult-like behaviour ought end if that identification with 'what we think is true' comes to an end. Meditation is supposed to be a means to accomplish this, although it does not seem to work that well for the purpose.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > Following up on this, because I suspect that one or > more of the cultists will try to pretend that they > aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to > make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist > is about the "trigger" that sets them off. > > It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just > how they interpret criticism of the organization > or group they pathologically over-identify with. > > If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief > or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if > it were an "attack" on you personally, then what > you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to > that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self- > knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end. > Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new > round of "shoot the messenger" because someone > criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior > of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior > mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist. > > Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they > hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist, > knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can > recognize that human beings can hold different opinions > about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't. > They feel compelled to describe those who believe > differently than they do as having some failing or > as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent, > an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in. > > A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior > of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's > a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in > those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the > face, then I think most people would recognize that > they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have > lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave > off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the > larger world is the concerted attempt by some people > to characterize any criticism of the State of Israel > and its politics and policies as anti-semitism. > > There is simply NO QUESTION that a lot of TMers are > cultists in this regard. When MJ rails about the TMO, > they react as if he's railing against them personally, > and they *over-react* as strongly as if they were > black and he'd called them a nigger. That's INSANE > in my view. > > Ideas are just ideas. Beliefs are just beliefs. Your > ideas and your beliefs are not you. Get over it. > > Om Dear Turq, that's ridiculous iam a revolutionary millenarian and by your writings are clearly are not. That is defining and we are different people that way. One of us could be right and the other even wrong. It could even be worth fighting over. That is not to say I would not appreciate having a cup of coffee with you sometime in between meditation or even before meditation if you get up early enough. Speaking of which, I got to go to the Dome right now. Have a nice day, you stinking counter-revolutionary, -Buck > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe. > > > > Love this. Tom always had a way with words. > > > > TM (unlike Catholicism, Judaism, and Hinduism in India) > > never had any political influence, so they went instead > > for "celebrity influence," courting famous people and > > trying to use *their* names and images to sell its > > products. > > > > As for cults, my definition tends more towards, "A cult > > is any organization in which its members perceive any > > criticism of the organization as criticism of them per- > > sonally, or even as an 'attack' against them personally, > > and then react angrily to that criticism." This would > > hold true IMO for spiritual organizations, corporations, > > political parties, whatever. It's the *behavior* that > > defines cultism, not the nature of the org. > > > > It's the overidentification with the group and the over- > > reaction to criticism that does it for me, and that > > defines a group as a cult and its members as cultists. > > That and certain classically cult behavioral patterns > > like playing "shoot the messenger" and attacking the > > critic while ignoring the criticisms. > > > > By that standard, there are a few people on FFL who > > are definitely cultists. There are also some TM > > practitioners on this forum who are not, but we rarely > > hear from them. Mainly it's the cultists who feel the > > need to follow up any criticism with samskaric > > attachment/aversion behavior and attack the critics. > > > > Whatever floats their boats, I guess. I just don't > > understand how they believe that they're presenting > > a positive view of the organization they're "protecting" > > or the technique it sells. If simple critic
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
You got one thing right though Barry - that I'm a troll. Yep totally, trolling for bullshit, pathological bullshit like yours. On Mar 21, 2013, at 12:17 AM, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > Why do you do this Barry - make me unhappy as I'm about go to bed. I hate you > OK. > > Wait you say I railed against Amma and then say I am a cultist? It doesn't > make any sense Barry - I have lot of negative things to say against > Maharishi, I suppose you forgot all that? > > Anyway that I railed against Amma is a fantasy, a fiction. I had certain very > specific things to say against her and her cult, I did during > August-September last year and I am done, it will just be rinse and repeat of > very specific things as time and occasion demands it. I am not not like you > - miserable, pathetic self railing against TM for last 30 -40 years is it? > Stalk forums looking to dump my shit on others like you. I'm never going to > be like you and MJ - some pathological need to speak against someone - > blaming them for everything under the Sun - like the Steubenville rape and > Penis snatching delusional beliefs in Africa..LOL > > You and MJ seriously need help for your pathological, delusional rantings. > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:31 PM, turquoiseb wrote: >> >> It is worth pointing out that some TM cultists on >> this forum never even learned TM. They just join in >> the "piling on" against TM critics because they're >> too dumb to do anything else, because they're used >> to doing it and don't know how to do anything else, >> and because they feed on the strokes they get from >> other cultists when they do it. >> >> What MJ is doing is nothing more than what *you* >> did (and which we mainly tolerated) when you railed >> against Amma, the cult *you* were involved with. >> >> You need another trip back to India, Ravi. You >> actually seemed human when you were posting from >> there. Now you're just a troll. >> >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula >> wrote: >> > >> > Thank you Barry, I appreciate it, MJ is surely nodding his head as he reads >> > this - unfortunately his hands err fingers tied at 50 posts. I called them >> > critics - but no, I should have called them cultists - as you rightly point >> > out. These cultists - Judy, Share, feste, Steve better watch out. MJ will >> > come out with a fury that will be devastating. 30 anti-TM posts in the >> > first day, with the same consistent cluelessness, retardedness that will >> > have them breaking in to a cold sweat, which will be followed by 20 more >> > random clueless, retarded responses to these cultists in the second day. >> > You & I, I am sure will then step up to keep his message alive. Thanks >> > Barry. >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:17 PM, turquoiseb >> > wrote: >> > >> > > ** >> >> > > >> > > >> > > Following up on this, because I suspect that one or >> > > more of the cultists will try to pretend that they >> > > aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to >> > > make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist >> > > is about the "trigger" that sets them off. >> > > >> > > It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just >> > > how they interpret criticism of the organization >> > > or group they pathologically over-identify with. >> > > >> > > If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief >> > > or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if >> > > it were an "attack" on you personally, then what >> > > you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to >> > > that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self- >> > > knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end. >> > > Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new >> > > round of "shoot the messenger" because someone >> > > criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior >> > > of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior >> > > mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist. >> > > >> > > Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they >> > > hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist, >> > > knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can >> > > recognize that human beings can hold different opinions >> > > about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't. >> > > They feel compelled to describe those who believe >> > > differently than they do as having some failing or >> > > as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent, >> > > an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in. >> > > >> > > A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior >> > > of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's >> > > a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in >> > > those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the >> > > face, then I think most people would recognize that >> > > they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have >> > > lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave >> > > off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the >> > > larger
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Why do you do this Barry - make me unhappy as I'm about go to bed. I hate you OK. Wait you say I railed against Amma and then say I am a cultist? It doesn't make any sense Barry - I have lot of negative things to say against Maharishi, I suppose you forgot all that? Anyway that I railed against Amma is a fantasy, a fiction. I had certain very specific things to say against her and her cult, I did during August-September last year and I am done, it will just be rinse and repeat of very specific things as time and occasion demands it. I am not not like you - miserable, pathetic self railing against TM for last 30 -40 years is it? Stalk forums looking to dump my shit on others like you. I'm never going to be like you and MJ - some pathological need to speak against someone - blaming them for everything under the Sun - like the Steubenville rape and Penis snatching delusional beliefs in Africa..LOL You and MJ seriously need help for your pathological, delusional rantings. On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:31 PM, turquoiseb wrote: > ** > > > It is worth pointing out that some TM cultists on > this forum never even learned TM. They just join in > the "piling on" against TM critics because they're > too dumb to do anything else, because they're used > to doing it and don't know how to do anything else, > and because they feed on the strokes they get from > other cultists when they do it. > > What MJ is doing is nothing more than what *you* > did (and which we mainly tolerated) when you railed > against Amma, the cult *you* were involved with. > > You need another trip back to India, Ravi. You > actually seemed human when you were posting from > there. Now you're just a troll. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > wrote: > > > > Thank you Barry, I appreciate it, MJ is surely nodding his head as he > reads > > this - unfortunately his hands err fingers tied at 50 posts. I called > them > > critics - but no, I should have called them cultists - as you rightly > point > > out. These cultists - Judy, Share, feste, Steve better watch out. MJ will > > come out with a fury that will be devastating. 30 anti-TM posts in the > > first day, with the same consistent cluelessness, retardedness that will > > have them breaking in to a cold sweat, which will be followed by 20 more > > random clueless, retarded responses to these cultists in the second day. > > You & I, I am sure will then step up to keep his message alive. Thanks > > Barry. > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:17 PM, turquoiseb >wrote: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > > Following up on this, because I suspect that one or > > > more of the cultists will try to pretend that they > > > aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to > > > make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist > > > is about the "trigger" that sets them off. > > > > > > It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just > > > how they interpret criticism of the organization > > > or group they pathologically over-identify with. > > > > > > If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief > > > or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if > > > it were an "attack" on you personally, then what > > > you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to > > > that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self- > > > knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end. > > > Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new > > > round of "shoot the messenger" because someone > > > criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior > > > of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior > > > mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist. > > > > > > Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they > > > hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist, > > > knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can > > > recognize that human beings can hold different opinions > > > about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't. > > > They feel compelled to describe those who believe > > > differently than they do as having some failing or > > > as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent, > > > an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in. > > > > > > A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior > > > of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's > > > a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in > > > those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the > > > face, then I think most people would recognize that > > > they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have > > > lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave > > > off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the > > > larger world is the concerted attempt by some people > > > to characterize any criticism of the State of Israel > > > and its politics and policies as anti-semitism. > > > > > > There is simply NO QUESTION that a lot of TMers are > > > cultists in this regard. When MJ rails about the TMO, > > > they react as if he's railing aga
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
It is worth pointing out that some TM cultists on this forum never even learned TM. They just join in the "piling on" against TM critics because they're too dumb to do anything else, because they're used to doing it and don't know how to do anything else, and because they feed on the strokes they get from other cultists when they do it. What MJ is doing is nothing more than what *you* did (and which we mainly tolerated) when you railed against Amma, the cult *you* were involved with. You need another trip back to India, Ravi. You actually seemed human when you were posting from there. Now you're just a troll. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > Thank you Barry, I appreciate it, MJ is surely nodding his head as he reads > this - unfortunately his hands err fingers tied at 50 posts. I called them > critics - but no, I should have called them cultists - as you rightly point > out. These cultists - Judy, Share, feste, Steve better watch out. MJ will > come out with a fury that will be devastating. 30 anti-TM posts in the > first day, with the same consistent cluelessness, retardedness that will > have them breaking in to a cold sweat, which will be followed by 20 more > random clueless, retarded responses to these cultists in the second day. > You & I, I am sure will then step up to keep his message alive. Thanks > Barry. > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:17 PM, turquoiseb wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Following up on this, because I suspect that one or > > more of the cultists will try to pretend that they > > aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to > > make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist > > is about the "trigger" that sets them off. > > > > It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just > > how they interpret criticism of the organization > > or group they pathologically over-identify with. > > > > If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief > > or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if > > it were an "attack" on you personally, then what > > you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to > > that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self- > > knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end. > > Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new > > round of "shoot the messenger" because someone > > criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior > > of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior > > mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist. > > > > Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they > > hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist, > > knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can > > recognize that human beings can hold different opinions > > about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't. > > They feel compelled to describe those who believe > > differently than they do as having some failing or > > as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent, > > an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in. > > > > A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior > > of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's > > a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in > > those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the > > face, then I think most people would recognize that > > they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have > > lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave > > off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the > > larger world is the concerted attempt by some people > > to characterize any criticism of the State of Israel > > and its politics and policies as anti-semitism. > > > > There is simply NO QUESTION that a lot of TMers are > > cultists in this regard. When MJ rails about the TMO, > > they react as if he's railing against them personally, > > and they *over-react* as strongly as if they were > > black and he'd called them a nigger. That's INSANE > > in my view. > > > > Ideas are just ideas. Beliefs are just beliefs. Your > > ideas and your beliefs are not you. Get over it. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe. > > > > > > Love this. Tom always had a way with words. > > > > > > TM (unlike Catholicism, Judaism, and Hinduism in India) > > > never had any political influence, so they went instead > > > for "celebrity influence," courting famous people and > > > trying to use *their* names and images to sell its > > > products. > > > > > > As for cults, my definition tends more towards, "A cult > > > is any organization in which its members perceive any > > > criticism of the organization as criticism of them per- > > > sonally, or even as an 'attack' against them personally, > > > and then react angrily to that criticism." This would > > > hold true IMO for spiritual organizations, corporations, > > > political parties, whatever. It
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Thank you Barry, I appreciate it, MJ is surely nodding his head as he reads this - unfortunately his hands err fingers tied at 50 posts. I called them critics - but no, I should have called them cultists - as you rightly point out. These cultists - Judy, Share, feste, Steve better watch out. MJ will come out with a fury that will be devastating. 30 anti-TM posts in the first day, with the same consistent cluelessness, retardedness that will have them breaking in to a cold sweat, which will be followed by 20 more random clueless, retarded responses to these cultists in the second day. You & I, I am sure will then step up to keep his message alive. Thanks Barry. On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:17 PM, turquoiseb wrote: > ** > > > Following up on this, because I suspect that one or > more of the cultists will try to pretend that they > aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to > make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist > is about the "trigger" that sets them off. > > It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just > how they interpret criticism of the organization > or group they pathologically over-identify with. > > If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief > or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if > it were an "attack" on you personally, then what > you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to > that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self- > knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end. > Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new > round of "shoot the messenger" because someone > criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior > of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior > mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist. > > Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they > hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist, > knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can > recognize that human beings can hold different opinions > about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't. > They feel compelled to describe those who believe > differently than they do as having some failing or > as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent, > an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in. > > A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior > of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's > a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in > those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the > face, then I think most people would recognize that > they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have > lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave > off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the > larger world is the concerted attempt by some people > to characterize any criticism of the State of Israel > and its politics and policies as anti-semitism. > > There is simply NO QUESTION that a lot of TMers are > cultists in this regard. When MJ rails about the TMO, > they react as if he's railing against them personally, > and they *over-react* as strongly as if they were > black and he'd called them a nigger. That's INSANE > in my view. > > Ideas are just ideas. Beliefs are just beliefs. Your > ideas and your beliefs are not you. Get over it. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > wrote: > > > > > > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe. > > > > Love this. Tom always had a way with words. > > > > TM (unlike Catholicism, Judaism, and Hinduism in India) > > never had any political influence, so they went instead > > for "celebrity influence," courting famous people and > > trying to use *their* names and images to sell its > > products. > > > > As for cults, my definition tends more towards, "A cult > > is any organization in which its members perceive any > > criticism of the organization as criticism of them per- > > sonally, or even as an 'attack' against them personally, > > and then react angrily to that criticism." This would > > hold true IMO for spiritual organizations, corporations, > > political parties, whatever. It's the *behavior* that > > defines cultism, not the nature of the org. > > > > It's the overidentification with the group and the over- > > reaction to criticism that does it for me, and that > > defines a group as a cult and its members as cultists. > > That and certain classically cult behavioral patterns > > like playing "shoot the messenger" and attacking the > > critic while ignoring the criticisms. > > > > By that standard, there are a few people on FFL who > > are definitely cultists. There are also some TM > > practitioners on this forum who are not, but we rarely > > hear from them. Mainly it's the cultists who feel the > > need to follow up any criticism with samskaric > > attachment/aversion behavior and attack the critics. > > > > Whatever floats their boats, I guess. I just don't > > understand how they believe that they're presenting > > a positive v
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Following up on this, because I suspect that one or more of the cultists will try to pretend that they aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist is about the "trigger" that sets them off. It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just how they interpret criticism of the organization or group they pathologically over-identify with. If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if it were an "attack" on you personally, then what you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self- knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end. Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new round of "shoot the messenger" because someone criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist. Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist, knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can recognize that human beings can hold different opinions about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't. They feel compelled to describe those who believe differently than they do as having some failing or as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent, an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in. A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the face, then I think most people would recognize that they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the larger world is the concerted attempt by some people to characterize any criticism of the State of Israel and its politics and policies as anti-semitism. There is simply NO QUESTION that a lot of TMers are cultists in this regard. When MJ rails about the TMO, they react as if he's railing against them personally, and they *over-react* as strongly as if they were black and he'd called them a nigger. That's INSANE in my view. Ideas are just ideas. Beliefs are just beliefs. Your ideas and your beliefs are not you. Get over it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe. > > Love this. Tom always had a way with words. > > TM (unlike Catholicism, Judaism, and Hinduism in India) > never had any political influence, so they went instead > for "celebrity influence," courting famous people and > trying to use *their* names and images to sell its > products. > > As for cults, my definition tends more towards, "A cult > is any organization in which its members perceive any > criticism of the organization as criticism of them per- > sonally, or even as an 'attack' against them personally, > and then react angrily to that criticism." This would > hold true IMO for spiritual organizations, corporations, > political parties, whatever. It's the *behavior* that > defines cultism, not the nature of the org. > > It's the overidentification with the group and the over- > reaction to criticism that does it for me, and that > defines a group as a cult and its members as cultists. > That and certain classically cult behavioral patterns > like playing "shoot the messenger" and attacking the > critic while ignoring the criticisms. > > By that standard, there are a few people on FFL who > are definitely cultists. There are also some TM > practitioners on this forum who are not, but we rarely > hear from them. Mainly it's the cultists who feel the > need to follow up any criticism with samskaric > attachment/aversion behavior and attack the critics. > > Whatever floats their boats, I guess. I just don't > understand how they believe that they're presenting > a positive view of the organization they're "protecting" > or the technique it sells. If simple criticism can push > their buttons this badly after 30-40 years of practicing > it, then the technique really doesn't do much of anything > useful at all, does it? >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Thank you dear Obba - yes I am sure MJ, now that he has posted out, will be incredibly happy at my aggressive defense of him. These critics of MJ - Judy, Feste, Steve, Share cannot lay a hand upon him. Their critique can never acquire the potency equal to the retardedness of his posts. That boy MJ is untouchable - he done made his mama proud !!! On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:45 PM, obbajeeba wrote: > ** > > > > The grin on my face is overwhelming my tooth support right now. > hahahahahaha > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > wrote: > > > > Yeah MJ's made South Carolina and whole of the Appalachian proud and > shown > > everyone back there that it's just not some rich folks and a bunch of > > faggots from California that can use computers and that a native son of > the > > South can walk toe to toe with them on those internet thingies with his > > head held high. The support from King Baby Barry, His Holiness Curtis and > > the Salivating Puppy are among the highlights of MJ's contributions. > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Ravi Chivukula ...>wrote: > > > > > > Yes thank you for that video dear Obba - with so much hatred dividing > us > > > on national, racial, gender lines it is really heartening to see MJ > and his > > > counterparts in Africa not rest on music, education alone and to also > use > > > delusional beliefs in trying to unite us. But of course dear Obba, some > > > haters may challenge this strategy as untested and bizarre, but I > > > personally disagree strongly and am touched - really touched by MJ's > > > contributions here. > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:53 PM, obbajeeba >wrote: > > > > > >> ** > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mar 20, 2013, at 11:53 AM, "seventhray27" > wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Oh well hello there Salivating puppy, His Holiness and King > Baby, > > >> MJ processing is well and good. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > But he is accusing TM of masterminding Steubenville rape and > Penis > > >> snatching incidents in Africa, LOL..does that sound rational to you > guys? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I wonder if there could ever be a "cunt snatcher". But maybe > that > > >> wouldn't make any sense. > > >> > > > > >> > > Yes - thank you for that, there are - though rare per the > article. So > > >> this was an accidental omission and no disrespect was meant to the > > >> delusional MJ and his equally delusional brothers and sisters in > Africa. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hahahahahahaha! Ravi, you just gave me a Ravioli Slur spit, that > missed > > >> my keyboard by two inches, the size of which is left once the penis > > >> snatchers take a load away. Bhahahahaha MJ is singing > > >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcwblvqir-s waiting for the > commercial is > > >> worth it. :) > > >> > > > >> Oh, I left out the cheese. Cheese Ravioli and marinara sauce and > Parmesan > > >> cheese sprinkled on top. The pun came from what I am eating for > dinner and > > >> it is completely a coincidence Ravi's name begins sounding like > Ravioli! > > >> True story, bro. :) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
The grin on my face is overwhelming my tooth support right now. hahahahahaha --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > Yeah MJ's made South Carolina and whole of the Appalachian proud and shown > everyone back there that it's just not some rich folks and a bunch of > faggots from California that can use computers and that a native son of the > South can walk toe to toe with them on those internet thingies with his > head held high. The support from King Baby Barry, His Holiness Curtis and > the Salivating Puppy are among the highlights of MJ's contributions. > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > > Yes thank you for that video dear Obba - with so much hatred dividing us > > on national, racial, gender lines it is really heartening to see MJ and his > > counterparts in Africa not rest on music, education alone and to also use > > delusional beliefs in trying to unite us. But of course dear Obba, some > > haters may challenge this strategy as untested and bizarre, but I > > personally disagree strongly and am touched - really touched by MJ's > > contributions here. > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:53 PM, obbajeeba wrote: > > > >> ** > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > On Mar 20, 2013, at 11:53 AM, "seventhray27" wrote: > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Oh well hello there Salivating puppy, His Holiness and King Baby, > >> MJ processing is well and good. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > But he is accusing TM of masterminding Steubenville rape and Penis > >> snatching incidents in Africa, LOL..does that sound rational to you guys? > >> > > > > >> > > > I wonder if there could ever be a "cunt snatcher". But maybe that > >> wouldn't make any sense. > >> > > > >> > > Yes - thank you for that, there are - though rare per the article. So > >> this was an accidental omission and no disrespect was meant to the > >> delusional MJ and his equally delusional brothers and sisters in Africa. > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Hahahahahahaha! Ravi, you just gave me a Ravioli Slur spit, that missed > >> my keyboard by two inches, the size of which is left once the penis > >> snatchers take a load away. Bhahahahaha MJ is singing > >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcwblvqir-s waiting for the commercial is > >> worth it. :) > >> > > >> Oh, I left out the cheese. Cheese Ravioli and marinara sauce and Parmesan > >> cheese sprinkled on top. The pun came from what I am eating for dinner and > >> it is completely a coincidence Ravi's name begins sounding like Ravioli! > >> True story, bro. :) > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Yeah MJ's made South Carolina and whole of the Appalachian proud and shown everyone back there that it's just not some rich folks and a bunch of faggots from California that can use computers and that a native son of the South can walk toe to toe with them on those internet thingies with his head held high. The support from King Baby Barry, His Holiness Curtis and the Salivating Puppy are among the highlights of MJ's contributions. On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > Yes thank you for that video dear Obba - with so much hatred dividing us > on national, racial, gender lines it is really heartening to see MJ and his > counterparts in Africa not rest on music, education alone and to also use > delusional beliefs in trying to unite us. But of course dear Obba, some > haters may challenge this strategy as untested and bizarre, but I > personally disagree strongly and am touched - really touched by MJ's > contributions here. > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:53 PM, obbajeeba wrote: > >> ** >> >> >> >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula >> wrote: >> > > >> > > On Mar 20, 2013, at 11:53 AM, "seventhray27" wrote: >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > Oh well hello there Salivating puppy, His Holiness and King Baby, >> MJ processing is well and good. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > But he is accusing TM of masterminding Steubenville rape and Penis >> snatching incidents in Africa, LOL..does that sound rational to you guys? >> > > > >> > > > I wonder if there could ever be a "cunt snatcher". But maybe that >> wouldn't make any sense. >> > > >> > > Yes - thank you for that, there are - though rare per the article. So >> this was an accidental omission and no disrespect was meant to the >> delusional MJ and his equally delusional brothers and sisters in Africa. >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > Hahahahahahaha! Ravi, you just gave me a Ravioli Slur spit, that missed >> my keyboard by two inches, the size of which is left once the penis >> snatchers take a load away. Bhahahahaha MJ is singing >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcwblvqir-s waiting for the commercial is >> worth it. :) >> > >> Oh, I left out the cheese. Cheese Ravioli and marinara sauce and Parmesan >> cheese sprinkled on top. The pun came from what I am eating for dinner and >> it is completely a coincidence Ravi's name begins sounding like Ravioli! >> True story, bro. :) >> >> >> > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: > Oh, I left out the cheese. Cheese Ravioli and marinara sauce and Parmesan cheese sprinkled on top. The pun came from what I am eating for dinner and it is completely a coincidence Ravi's name begins sounding like Ravioli! True story, bro. :) > Too bad the only place to get "toasted' ravioli is here in the midwest. Maybe only St. Louis. Been eating it since I was a kid. Only no cheese this ravioli. Veal and beef mostly, but marinara, yes, and parmesan, yes. Very tasty!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Yes thank you for that video dear Obba - with so much hatred dividing us on national, racial, gender lines it is really heartening to see MJ and his counterparts in Africa not rest on music, education alone and to also use delusional beliefs in trying to unite us. But of course dear Obba, some haters may challenge this strategy as untested and bizarre, but I personally disagree strongly and am touched - really touched by MJ's contributions here. On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:53 PM, obbajeeba wrote: > ** > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2013, at 11:53 AM, "seventhray27" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Oh well hello there Salivating puppy, His Holiness and King Baby, > MJ processing is well and good. > > > > > > > > > > > > But he is accusing TM of masterminding Steubenville rape and Penis > snatching incidents in Africa, LOL..does that sound rational to you guys? > > > > > > > > I wonder if there could ever be a "cunt snatcher". But maybe that > wouldn't make any sense. > > > > > > Yes - thank you for that, there are - though rare per the article. So > this was an accidental omission and no disrespect was meant to the > delusional MJ and his equally delusional brothers and sisters in Africa. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hahahahahahaha! Ravi, you just gave me a Ravioli Slur spit, that missed > my keyboard by two inches, the size of which is left once the penis > snatchers take a load away. Bhahahahaha MJ is singing > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcwblvqir-s waiting for the commercial is > worth it. :) > > > Oh, I left out the cheese. Cheese Ravioli and marinara sauce and Parmesan > cheese sprinkled on top. The pun came from what I am eating for dinner and > it is completely a coincidence Ravi's name begins sounding like Ravioli! > True story, bro. :) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > > > On Mar 20, 2013, at 11:53 AM, "seventhray27" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Oh well hello there Salivating puppy, His Holiness and King Baby, MJ > > > > processing is well and good. > > > > > > > > > But he is accusing TM of masterminding Steubenville rape and Penis > > > snatching incidents in Africa, LOL..does that sound rational to you guys? > > > > > > I wonder if there could ever be a "cunt snatcher". But maybe that > > > wouldn't make any sense. > > > > Yes - thank you for that, there are - though rare per the article. So this > > was an accidental omission and no disrespect was meant to the delusional MJ > > and his equally delusional brothers and sisters in Africa. > > > > > > > > > > > Hahahahahahaha! Ravi, you just gave me a Ravioli Slur spit, that missed my > keyboard by two inches, the size of which is left once the penis snatchers > take a load away. Bhahahahaha MJ is singing > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcwblvqir-s waiting for the commercial is > worth it. :) > Oh, I left out the cheese. Cheese Ravioli and marinara sauce and Parmesan cheese sprinkled on top. The pun came from what I am eating for dinner and it is completely a coincidence Ravi's name begins sounding like Ravioli! True story, bro. :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > On Mar 20, 2013, at 11:53 AM, "seventhray27" wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > > wrote: > > > > > > Oh well hello there Salivating puppy, His Holiness and King Baby, MJ > > > processing is well and good. > > > > > > But he is accusing TM of masterminding Steubenville rape and Penis > > snatching incidents in Africa, LOL..does that sound rational to you guys? > > > > I wonder if there could ever be a "cunt snatcher". But maybe that wouldn't > > make any sense. > > Yes - thank you for that, there are - though rare per the article. So this > was an accidental omission and no disrespect was meant to the delusional MJ > and his equally delusional brothers and sisters in Africa. > > > > > > Hahahahahahaha! Ravi, you just gave me a Ravioli Slur spit, that missed my keyboard by two inches, the size of which is left once the penis snatchers take a load away. Bhahahahaha MJ is singing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcwblvqir-s waiting for the commercial is worth it. :)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
On Mar 20, 2013, at 11:53 AM, "seventhray27" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > wrote: > > > > Oh well hello there Salivating puppy, His Holiness and King Baby, MJ > > processing is well and good. > > > But he is accusing TM of masterminding Steubenville rape and Penis snatching > incidents in Africa, LOL..does that sound rational to you guys? > > I wonder if there could ever be a "cunt snatcher". But maybe that wouldn't > make any sense. Yes - thank you for that, there are - though rare per the article. So this was an accidental omission and no disrespect was meant to the delusional MJ and his equally delusional brothers and sisters in Africa. > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Oh just shut up, Barry. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe. > > Love this. Tom always had a way with words. > > TM (unlike Catholicism, Judaism, and Hinduism in India) > never had any political influence, so they went instead > for "celebrity influence," courting famous people and > trying to use *their* names and images to sell its > products. > > As for cults, my definition tends more towards, "A cult > is any organization in which its members perceive any > criticism of the organization as criticism of them per- > sonally, or even as an 'attack' against them personally, > and then react angrily to that criticism." This would > hold true IMO for spiritual organizations, corporations, > political parties, whatever. It's the *behavior* that > defines cultism, not the nature of the org. > > It's the overidentification with the group and the over- > reaction to criticism that does it for me, and that > defines a group as a cult and its members as cultists. > That and certain classically cult behavioral patterns > like playing "shoot the messenger" and attacking the > critic while ignoring the criticisms. > > By that standard, there are a few people on FFL who > are definitely cultists. There are also some TM > practitioners on this forum who are not, but we rarely > hear from them. Mainly it's the cultists who feel the > need to follow up any criticism with samskaric > attachment/aversion behavior and attack the critics. > > Whatever floats their boats, I guess. I just don't > understand how they believe that they're presenting > a positive view of the organization they're "protecting" > or the technique it sells. If simple criticism can push > their buttons this badly after 30-40 years of practicing > it, then the technique really doesn't do much of anything > useful at all, does it? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: (snip) > As for cults, my definition tends more towards, "A cult > is any organization in which its members perceive any > criticism of the organization as criticism of them per- > sonally, or even as an 'attack' against them personally, > and then react angrily to that criticism." This would > hold true IMO for spiritual organizations, corporations, > political parties, whatever. It's the *behavior* that > defines cultism, not the nature of the org. > > It's the overidentification with the group and the over- > reaction to criticism that does it for me, and that > defines a group as a cult and its members as cultists. > That and certain classically cult behavioral patterns > like playing "shoot the messenger" and attacking the > critic while ignoring the criticisms. > > By that standard, there are a few people on FFL who > are definitely cultists. There are also some TM > practitioners on this forum who are not, but we rarely > hear from them. Mainly it's the cultists who feel the > need to follow up any criticism with samskaric > attachment/aversion behavior and attack the critics. Some people, Barry (not you, of course), simply dislike misrepresentations, no matter what they're about. The proof is that most of the people you would characterize as "cultists" here don't argue with accurate criticisms or attack those who made them. Some of these "cultists" even have their *own* criticisms of the TMO/MMY. And typically these "cultists" do indeed address the criticisms. See my posts to Michael concerning Candy Crowley, just for one recent example. > Whatever floats their boats, I guess. I just don't > understand how they believe that they're presenting > a positive view of the organization they're "protecting" > or the technique it sells. If simple criticism can push > their buttons this badly after 30-40 years of practicing > it, then the technique really doesn't do much of anything > useful at all, does it? This, of course, is a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type question, based on false premises: that when we correct a misrepresentation it's because we're trying to "sell" TM or the TMO, and/or that we do it because we've had our buttons pushed. It's also a great example of Barry's tendency to project (hypocrisy is another term for it). As we've seen recently, Barry's buttons are frequently very severely pushed when he is criticized; and when that happens he readily shoots the messenger, as well as ignoring the criticisms even when--or *especially* when--they're bang-on accurate. Yes, here I'm "shooting the messenger" myself (after addressing his criticisms). As I've said before, a messenger who deliberately brings a false message *should* be shot. That's why Barry gets shot so often.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe. Love this. Tom always had a way with words. TM (unlike Catholicism, Judaism, and Hinduism in India) never had any political influence, so they went instead for "celebrity influence," courting famous people and trying to use *their* names and images to sell its products. As for cults, my definition tends more towards, "A cult is any organization in which its members perceive any criticism of the organization as criticism of them per- sonally, or even as an 'attack' against them personally, and then react angrily to that criticism." This would hold true IMO for spiritual organizations, corporations, political parties, whatever. It's the *behavior* that defines cultism, not the nature of the org. It's the overidentification with the group and the over- reaction to criticism that does it for me, and that defines a group as a cult and its members as cultists. That and certain classically cult behavioral patterns like playing "shoot the messenger" and attacking the critic while ignoring the criticisms. By that standard, there are a few people on FFL who are definitely cultists. There are also some TM practitioners on this forum who are not, but we rarely hear from them. Mainly it's the cultists who feel the need to follow up any criticism with samskaric attachment/aversion behavior and attack the critics. Whatever floats their boats, I guess. I just don't understand how they believe that they're presenting a positive view of the organization they're "protecting" or the technique it sells. If simple criticism can push their buttons this badly after 30-40 years of practicing it, then the technique really doesn't do much of anything useful at all, does it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > Oh well hello there Salivating puppy, His Holiness and King Baby, MJ processing is well and good. But he is accusing TM of masterminding Steubenville rape and Penis snatching incidents in Africa, LOL..does that sound rational to you guys? I wonder if there could ever be a "cunt snatcher". But maybe that wouldn't make any sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > Oh well hello there Salivating puppy, His Holiness and King Baby, MJ > processing is well and good. But he is accusing TM of masterminding > Steubenville rape and Penis snatching incidents in Africa, LOL..does that > sound rational to you guys? Where is Curtis when MJ needs him ? After all, Curtis has the most lively imagination of the irrationalists here and should help out his friend !
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Oh well hello there Salivating puppy, His Holiness and King Baby, MJ processing
is well and good. But he is accusing TM of masterminding Steubenville rape and
Penis snatching incidents in Africa, LOL..does that sound rational to you guys?
On Mar 20, 2013, at 10:11 AM, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"
> wrote:
>
> I really enjoyed this post Salyavin. Especially your compassionate
> description of the process of leaving a group like TM and understanding what
> MJ is processing. Humor is the balm that makes it all go easier.
>
> Nice one.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote:
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" wrote
> >
> > > > Unfortunately, in his zeal to denounce TM, MJ has become a bigot. He
> > > > attacks Crowley simply because she is a TMer. 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.
> >
> > Maybe you should go on an introductory talk. One of the claims
> > of TM, as reported in 600,000 studies in 475,000 universities,
> > is that it improves moral reasoning by bringing one more in tune
> > with "natural law" (whatever that is) This isn't something the
> > other religions you mention have even thought of as a selling point.
> >
> > I didn't watch the video or read the report though so there's no
> > point trying to drag me into the argument
> >
> > Does seem obvious though that TM has no more intrinsic emotional
> > developmental value than just praying to the skydaddy.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps he is working THROUGH something or maybe MJ is just STUCK in the
> > > mud, spinning his tires or maybe he has moved ahead a few feet. I am not
> > > yet sure based on his posts but we are certainly all sounding boards
> > > here. I can keep allowing his voice to reverberate off of me but I have
> > > no more to add to what he has to say. It is like he keeps worrying that
> > > big boil of his but I think it is still there. It would be nice to think
> > > it would burst and go away but at this moment I am not convinced it will.
> >
> > Of course it will, he's angry because he's realised he got duped
> > by a cult* and is directing his feeling of being had by a con man
> > into anger at the scam he willingly went along with. It's a process, sooner
> > or later it evens out. Everyone makes peace with the past and learns to see
> > their own part in it, and finally the funny side of having once thought
> > that nature (whatever that is) might give you some "support" just because
> > you sit with your eyes closed twice a day. At the moment MJ seems to be
> > happy railing against his previous beliefs and pointing out their
> > absurdity. We've all either been there or will
> > go there or will die before we even realise we got had.
> >
> > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe.
> >
>
>
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
LOL..sounds good dear Steve, I'm especially glad that conversations with Devi are allowed. On Mar 20, 2013, at 5:07 AM, "seventhray27" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > wrote: > > > Yes you are amazing Steve - one of a kind. A dramatic breakthrough because > > of you - it's too overwhelming, > > I may have to be silent for the whole week > > to understand all the implications of this painful lesson. > > Ravi, > > I want to get serious here. An important tenant of the TM Program, is to not > strain during meditation. And an advanced tenant of the program is to not > strain in activity either. So, when I hear you talk about being silent for a > whole week, I feel I must intervene. This would not be a good idea for you. > But, if you decide to take such an action, let's note these exceptions. > > Singing Bhajans, or recent Bollywood Soundtracks in the car: Allowed > > Talking to fellow employees or programmers during smoke break: Allowed > > Talking on the phone for purposes of setting up a date: Allowed > > Any conversation with Devi, either in your head, or out loud: Allowed > > Talking to your Granny, or any other family member in India: Allowed > > So, within these guidelines, I feel I can support your proposal to remain > silent for a week. Let me know if I can offer any additional advice in this > regard. > > Your friend always, > > Steve > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: (snip) > he's angry because he's realised he got duped by a > cult* and is directing his feeling of being had by > a con man into anger at the scam he willingly went > along with. Michael's problem, as I see it, is that in his anger he tends to go *way* overboard, and his mind is completely closed to any moderating influence. He can't tell the difference between the blissninny TM TBs and the more objective TMers here. He rarely addresses reasoned arguments; he just issues flat contradictions and restates his own positions. I don't think you can properly process something from which you've become alienated unless you can form a realistic picture of it. If your image of it is grossly unrealistic, you're railing against a straw man, something that doesn't exist except in your own mind. Nobody is trying to convert him *back* to TM. (Well, maybe Buck and Nabby.) But he will be much more successful in freeing himself from his experience with TM if he doesn't make a monster of it that's vastly worse than the reality. He isn't the only TM critic here to do that, but he's the most extreme. > It's a process, sooner or later it evens out. Everyone makes peace with the > past and learns to see their own part in it, and finally the funny side of > having once thought that nature (whatever that is) might give you some > "support" just because you sit with your eyes closed twice a day. At the > moment MJ seems to be happy railing against his previous beliefs and pointing > out their absurdity. We've all either been there or will > go there or will die before we even realise we got had. > > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote:
I really enjoyed this post Salyavin. Especially your compassionate description
of the process of leaving a group like TM and understanding what MJ is
processing. Humor is the balm that makes it all go easier.
Nice one.
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" wrote
>
> > > Unfortunately, in his zeal to denounce TM, MJ has become a bigot. He
> > > attacks Crowley simply because she is a TMer. 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.
>
> Maybe you should go on an introductory talk. One of the claims
> of TM, as reported in 600,000 studies in 475,000 universities,
> is that it improves moral reasoning by bringing one more in tune
> with "natural law" (whatever that is) This isn't something the
> other religions you mention have even thought of as a selling point.
>
> I didn't watch the video or read the report though so there's no
> point trying to drag me into the argument
>
> Does seem obvious though that TM has no more intrinsic emotional
> developmental value than just praying to the skydaddy.
>
>
>
> > Perhaps he is working THROUGH something or maybe MJ is just STUCK in the
> > mud, spinning his tires or maybe he has moved ahead a few feet. I am not
> > yet sure based on his posts but we are certainly all sounding boards here.
> > I can keep allowing his voice to reverberate off of me but I have no more
> > to add to what he has to say. It is like he keeps worrying that big boil of
> > his but I think it is still there. It would be nice to think it would burst
> > and go away but at this moment I am not convinced it will.
>
> Of course it will, he's angry because he's realised he got duped
> by a cult* and is directing his feeling of being had by a con man
> into anger at the scam he willingly went along with. It's a process, sooner
> or later it evens out. Everyone makes peace with the past and learns to see
> their own part in it, and finally the funny side of having once thought that
> nature (whatever that is) might give you some "support" just because you sit
> with your eyes closed twice a day. At the moment MJ seems to be happy railing
> against his previous beliefs and pointing out their absurdity. We've all
> either been there or will
> go there or will die before we even realise we got had.
>
> *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe.
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Not a word you wrote is relevant to anything I wrote.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > Yes you are amazing Steve - one of a kind. A dramatic breakthrough because > of you - it's too overwhelming, I may have to be silent for the whole week > to understand all the implications of this painful lesson. Ravi, I want to get serious here. An important tenant of the TM Program, is to not strain during meditation. And an advanced tenant of the program is to not strain in activity either. So, when I hear you talk about being silent for a whole week, I feel I must intervene. This would not be a good idea for you. But, if you decide to take such an action, let's note these exceptions. Singing Bhajans, or recent Bollywood Soundtracks in the car: Allowed Talking to fellow employees or programmers during smoke break: Allowed Talking on the phone for purposes of setting up a date: Allowed Any conversation with Devi, either in your head, or out loud: Allowed Talking to your Granny, or any other family member in India: Allowed So, within these guidelines, I feel I can support your proposal to remain silent for a week. Let me know if I can offer any additional advice in this regard. Your friend always, Steve
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" wrote
> > Unfortunately, in his zeal to denounce TM, MJ has become a bigot. He
> > attacks Crowley simply because she is a TMer. 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.
Maybe you should go on an introductory talk. One of the claims
of TM, as reported in 600,000 studies in 475,000 universities,
is that it improves moral reasoning by bringing one more in tune
with "natural law" (whatever that is) This isn't something the
other religions you mention have even thought of as a selling point.
I didn't watch the video or read the report though so there's no
point trying to drag me into the argument
Does seem obvious though that TM has no more intrinsic emotional
developmental value than just praying to the skydaddy.
> Perhaps he is working THROUGH something or maybe MJ is just STUCK in the mud,
> spinning his tires or maybe he has moved ahead a few feet. I am not yet sure
> based on his posts but we are certainly all sounding boards here. I can keep
> allowing his voice to reverberate off of me but I have no more to add to what
> he has to say. It is like he keeps worrying that big boil of his but I think
> it is still there. It would be nice to think it would burst and go away but
> at this moment I am not convinced it will.
Of course it will, he's angry because he's realised he got duped
by a cult* and is directing his feeling of being had by a con man
into anger at the scam he willingly went along with. It's a process, sooner or
later it evens out. Everyone makes peace with the past and learns to see their
own part in it, and finally the funny side of having once thought that nature
(whatever that is) might give you some "support" just because you sit with your
eyes closed twice a day. At the moment MJ seems to be happy railing against his
previous beliefs and pointing out their absurdity. We've all either been there
or will
go there or will die before we even realise we got had.
*Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
I have just the solution. This > posting stuff is obviously taking its toll. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take a break for a few days. Maybe until, say, Friday evening. > Whaddya think? You'll thank me, you'll bless me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And hey, really, I enjoyed hearing about your wonderful > childhood. The one thing you left out was anything about your schooling. > You did attend school, right. Well, of course you did. Sorry about that. > But did you take any courses that dealt with analytical thinking. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What? You didn't. Well no worries. Many here say it's not my > strong suit either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But one starting point may be to try to remove any obvious > biases from your thinking. When you come to every situation with a fixed > mindset, it sort of closes the door on any opportunity to learn something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And yes, in case you were wondering, I do "love ya like > brother" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson > mjackson74@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long > term TM makes ones brain turn into mush and removes the ability to think > clearly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How many times do you hear reporters give a show of hand > wringing over the fate of convicted rapists? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A reporters job > > > > > > > > is to report the facts, not commiserate with the criminals - > in no way shape or form was Crowley's remarks objective and the other > reporters were even worse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah Poppy Harlow started it - could Crowley not have used > her TM enhanced Creative Intelligence to say "Hey what are you doing > Poppy!?! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The standard of conduct I was referring to in my other post > has nothing to do with 1950's - Jesus you people are beyond hope - its no > wonder Turq cusses > > > > > > > > you out from time to time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your attitude seems to be - "Oh Candy is a TM'er and so > anything she does is beyond reproach" - you people really are screwed up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape Case > verdict is > > > > > > > > pissing everyone off. Newscaster Candy Crowley, general > correspondent > > > > > > > > Poppy Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their > very best to > > > > > > > > focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions on the > two rapists. > > > > > > > > There's next to no coverage of the girl who was brutally > raped; instead, > > > > > > > > they talk almost exclusively of the > rapistsÃÆ'¢â‚¬" the two teenagers who had > > > > > > > > such bright futures, and now their lives are completely > ruined from this > > > > > > > > one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame how they suffer?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jezebel.com/5991018/heres-what-cnn-shouldve-said-about-the-steubenville-rape-case > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Share Long sharelong60@ > > > > > > > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:40 AM > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > >
> > > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long
> > > term TM makes ones brain turn into mush and removes the
> > > ability to think clearly.
> >
> > Right, Michael, you're obviously the clear-thinking one here.
> > Too bad you haven't been able to address a single one of the
> > points that have been made. Too bad you can only make your
> > case by wildly exaggerating what was said in that clip.
> >
> > > How many times do you hear reporters give a show of hand
> > > wringing over the fate of convicted rapists?
> >
> > Is that what they were doing? Or were they deliberately
> > emphasizing how bad the consequences were going to be
> > for these boys *as a warning* to other boys who might
> > be tempted to engage in similar misbehavior? As in: This
> > was a crime, and these guys are going to suffer for it
> > the rest of their lives. You don't want to end up like
> > them.
> >
> > > A reporters job
> > > is to report the facts, not commiserate with the criminals
> >
> > Neither of them was "commiserating with the criminals."
> > That's insane.
> >
> > (snip)
> > > Your attitude seems to be - "Oh Candy is a TM'er and so
> > > anything she does is beyond reproach" - you people
> > > really are screwed up.
> >
> > No, buster, that you would think any of us had that
> > attitude is what's really screwed up.
> >
> > > Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap:
> > >
> > > "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape
> > > Case verdict is pissing everyone off.
> >
> > For the record, there were seven segments on CNN on Sunday
> > about the verdict, not just the breaking-news item, which
> > is what all the fuss is about. You can check out transcripts
> > of all the segments here:
> >
> > http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2013.03.17.html
> >
> > Interestingly, in the breaking-news item, following the
> > appearance of the legal expert, Crowley and Harlow
> > continued their discussion. Here's the transcript of
> > that portion of the breaking-news item (which was not
> > included in the clip):
> >
> > -
> > CROWLEY: Paul, thanks. I want to bring Poppy back in -- because, Poppy,
> > there's -- you know, the 16-year-old victim, her life, never the same,
> > again. And I understand you have been talking to some of the families
> > involved.
> >
> > HARLOW: Her life never the same again. Absolutely, Candy. The last thing
> > she wanted to do was sit on that stand and testify. She didn't want to
> > bring these charges. She said it was up to her parents.
> >
> > But I want to tell our viewers about a statement that her mother just made,
> > just made in the court after the sentencing. Her mother just said that she
> > has pity on the two young boys that did this. She said human compassion is
> > not taught by teachers or coaches. It's a God-given gift, saying that you
> > displayed a lack of compassion, a lack of moral code, saying that you were
> > your own accuser throughout this for posting about this all over social
> > media. And she said she takes pity on them.
> >
> > As far as her daughter, she said she will persevere, she will get through
> > this. But the words of an angry mother who now has a sentence, that I
> > believe she would consider or a verdict, just -- Candy.
> >
> > CROWLEY: CNN's Poppy Harlow, thank you. Also to our legal contributor Paul
> > Callan.
> >
> > Of course, we will be following this story throughout the day.
> > -
> >
> > And they did. But the jezebel.com post says:
> >
> > > Newscaster Candy Crowley, general correspondent Poppy
> > > Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their very
> > > best to focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions
> > > on the two rapists. There's next to no coverage of the
> > > girl who was brutally raped; instead, they talk almost
> > > exclusively of the rapistsâ" the two teenagers who had
> > > such bright futures, and now their lives are completely
> > > ruined from this one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame
> > > how they suffer?"
> >
> > This is simply not true, as you can see from the transcript
> > above. I read the transcripts of a couple of the later
> > segments on Sunday on the verdict, and it isn't true of them
> > either.
> >
> > As I said, I'm not a fan of Crowley. But she has been treated
> > unfairly in this discussion for the purpose of advancing an
> > anti-TM agenda. And I think that stinks.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, in his zeal to denounce TM, MJ has become a bigot. He attacks
> Crowley simply because she is a TMer. 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 the
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > (snip) > > > It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full > > > brain development until they are 25. And I think the part of > > > the brain that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part > > > which evaluates the future consequences of our actions. I am > > > just putting that out there as one thing to consider. > > > > If that has "been said here," it runs contrary to most > > literature on child-rearing. According to those authors, > > children develop the empathy to feel the effects of their > > actions on others and the ability to control actions that > > might negatively affect others at age six. If these guys > > hadn't gotten it down by their age, there is something > > wrong with them. End of story. > > Opsie! Not quite the end: > > "The per [sic]-frontal cortex, the one we need to imagine consequences for > our actions is not fully developed until > 24-26. Kids in college literally do not have the hardware > to always be responsible in their behavior. They lose > site [sic] of the future and get lost in the present." > > --Curtisdeltablues, 3/8/12 > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/337423 > > Actually, of course, there's no conflict at all between > what Curtis said and what Barry says. Barry claims there > is by the simple expedient of interpreting "not fully > developed" to mean "completely undeveloped." > > But then, he considered it entirely within his rights to > distort a comment made, he assumed, by a TMer, in order > to slam the purported TMer. > > Unfortunately, it turns out that the original comment was > made by Barry's great pal, Curtis. I'm sure Curtis won't > mind Barry's distortion, though. I just read your post now. I was lazy and didn't quote the post or post number but you did all the work for me and way before I got to it myself. I may be a bit younger in years than you Ms Judy, but you're twice as fast. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson > > wrote: > > > > > > And what do you consider whining about the effects of a relatively > > > light sentence handed down on two punks who abused an unconscious > > > girl? > > > > It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full > > brain development until they are 25. And I think the part of > > the brain that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part > > which evaluates the future consequences of our actions. I am > > just putting that out there as one thing to consider. > > If that has "been said here," it runs contrary to most > literature on child-rearing. According to those authors, > children develop the empathy to feel the effects of their > actions on others and the ability to control actions that > might negatively affect others at age six. If these guys > hadn't gotten it down by their age, there is something > wrong with them. End of story. Curtis posted this a few days ago re: brain development and age. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Hey Judy thank you so much for posting the end of the exchange > between Crowley and Harlow. Again I would guess that it was > the news director or CNN execs who cut that segment out of the > report. In that case I'd say their worst crime was bad judgement. It wasn't cut out of the report. Not sure what you're talking about. > From: authfriend > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:44 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > >  > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long > > term TM makes ones brain turn into mush and removes the > > ability to think clearly. > > Right, Michael, you're obviously the clear-thinking one here. > Too bad you haven't been able to address a single one of the > points that have been made. Too bad you can only make your > case by wildly exaggerating what was said in that clip. > > > How many times do you hear reporters give a show of hand > > wringing over the fate of convicted rapists? > > Is that what they were doing? Or were they deliberately > emphasizing how bad the consequences were going to be > for these boys *as a warning* to other boys who might > be tempted to engage in similar misbehavior? As in: This > was a crime, and these guys are going to suffer for it > the rest of their lives. You don't want to end up like > them. > > > A reporters job > > is to report the facts, not commiserate with the criminals > > Neither of them was "commiserating with the criminals." > That's insane. > > (snip) > > Your attitude seems to be - "Oh Candy is a TM'er and so > > anything she does is beyond reproach" - you people > > really are screwed up. > > No, buster, that you would think any of us had that > attitude is what's really screwed up. > > > Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap: > > > > "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape > > Case verdict is pissing everyone off. > > For the record, there were seven segments on CNN on Sunday > about the verdict, not just the breaking-news item, which > is what all the fuss is about. You can check out transcripts > of all the segments here: > > http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2013.03.17.html > > Interestingly, in the breaking-news item, following the > appearance of the legal expert, Crowley and Harlow > continued their discussion. Here's the transcript of > that portion of the breaking-news item (which was not > included in the clip): > > - > CROWLEY: Paul, thanks. I want to bring Poppy back in -- because, Poppy, > there's -- you know, the 16-year-old victim, her life, never the same, again. > And I understand you have been talking to some of the families involved. > > HARLOW: Her life never the same again. Absolutely, Candy. The last thing she > wanted to do was sit on that stand and testify. She didn't want to bring > these charges. She said it was up to her parents. > > But I want to tell our viewers about a statement that her mother just made, > just made in the court after the sentencing. Her mother just said that she > has pity on the two young boys that did this. She said human compassion is > not taught by teachers or coaches. It's a God-given gift, saying that you > displayed a lack of compassion, a lack of moral code, saying that you were > your own accuser throughout this for posting about this all over social > media. And she said she takes pity on them. > > As far as her daughter, she said she will persevere, she will get through > this. But the words of an angry mother who now has a sentence, that I believe > she would consider or a verdict, just -- Candy. > > CROWLEY: CNN's Poppy Harlow, thank you. Also to our legal contributor Paul > Callan. > > Of course, we will be following this story throughout the day. > - > > And they did. But the jezebel.com post says: > > > Newscaster Candy Crowley, general correspondent Poppy > > Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their very > > best to focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions > > on the two rapists. There's next to no coverage of the > > girl who was brutally raped; instead, they talk almost > > exclusively of the rapistsââ¬" the two teenagers who had > > such bright futures, and now their lives are completely > > ruined from this one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame > > how they suffer?" > > This is simply not true, as you can see from the transcript > above. I read the transcripts of a couple of the later > segments on Sunday on the verdict, and it isn't true of them > either. > > As I said, I'm not a fan of Crowley. But she has been treated > unfairly in this discussion for the purpose of advancing an > anti-TM agenda. And I think that stinks. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> >
> > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long
> > term TM makes ones brain turn into mush and removes the
> > ability to think clearly.
>
> Right, Michael, you're obviously the clear-thinking one here.
> Too bad you haven't been able to address a single one of the
> points that have been made. Too bad you can only make your
> case by wildly exaggerating what was said in that clip.
>
> > How many times do you hear reporters give a show of hand
> > wringing over the fate of convicted rapists?
>
> Is that what they were doing? Or were they deliberately
> emphasizing how bad the consequences were going to be
> for these boys *as a warning* to other boys who might
> be tempted to engage in similar misbehavior? As in: This
> was a crime, and these guys are going to suffer for it
> the rest of their lives. You don't want to end up like
> them.
>
> > A reporters job
> > is to report the facts, not commiserate with the criminals
>
> Neither of them was "commiserating with the criminals."
> That's insane.
>
> (snip)
> > Your attitude seems to be - "Oh Candy is a TM'er and so
> > anything she does is beyond reproach" - you people
> > really are screwed up.
>
> No, buster, that you would think any of us had that
> attitude is what's really screwed up.
>
> > Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap:
> >
> > "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape
> > Case verdict is pissing everyone off.
>
> For the record, there were seven segments on CNN on Sunday
> about the verdict, not just the breaking-news item, which
> is what all the fuss is about. You can check out transcripts
> of all the segments here:
>
> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2013.03.17.html
>
> Interestingly, in the breaking-news item, following the
> appearance of the legal expert, Crowley and Harlow
> continued their discussion. Here's the transcript of
> that portion of the breaking-news item (which was not
> included in the clip):
>
> -
> CROWLEY: Paul, thanks. I want to bring Poppy back in -- because, Poppy,
> there's -- you know, the 16-year-old victim, her life, never the same, again.
> And I understand you have been talking to some of the families involved.
>
> HARLOW: Her life never the same again. Absolutely, Candy. The last thing she
> wanted to do was sit on that stand and testify. She didn't want to bring
> these charges. She said it was up to her parents.
>
> But I want to tell our viewers about a statement that her mother just made,
> just made in the court after the sentencing. Her mother just said that she
> has pity on the two young boys that did this. She said human compassion is
> not taught by teachers or coaches. It's a God-given gift, saying that you
> displayed a lack of compassion, a lack of moral code, saying that you were
> your own accuser throughout this for posting about this all over social
> media. And she said she takes pity on them.
>
> As far as her daughter, she said she will persevere, she will get through
> this. But the words of an angry mother who now has a sentence, that I believe
> she would consider or a verdict, just -- Candy.
>
> CROWLEY: CNN's Poppy Harlow, thank you. Also to our legal contributor Paul
> Callan.
>
> Of course, we will be following this story throughout the day.
> -
>
> And they did. But the jezebel.com post says:
>
> > Newscaster Candy Crowley, general correspondent Poppy
> > Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their very
> > best to focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions
> > on the two rapists. There's next to no coverage of the
> > girl who was brutally raped; instead, they talk almost
> > exclusively of the rapistsâ" the two teenagers who had
> > such bright futures, and now their lives are completely
> > ruined from this one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame
> > how they suffer?"
>
> This is simply not true, as you can see from the transcript
> above. I read the transcripts of a couple of the later
> segments on Sunday on the verdict, and it isn't true of them
> either.
>
> As I said, I'm not a fan of Crowley. But she has been treated
> unfairly in this discussion for the purpose of advancing an
> anti-TM agenda. And I think that stinks.
>
Unfortunately, in his zeal to denounce TM, MJ has become a bigot. He attacks
Crowley simply because she is a TMer. 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 fishi
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
g its toll. > > > > > > > > > > > > Take a break for a few days. Maybe until, say, Friday evening. > > > > > > Whaddya think? You'll thank me, you'll bless me. > > > > > > > > > > > > And hey, really, I enjoyed hearing about your wonderful childhood. > > > > > > The one thing you left out was anything about your schooling. You > > > > > > did attend school, right. Well, of course you did. Sorry about > > > > > > that. But did you take any courses that dealt with analytical > > > > > > thinking. > > > > > > > > > > > > What? You didn't. Well no worries. Many here say it's not my strong > > > > > > suit either. > > > > > > > > > > > > But one starting point may be to try to remove any obvious biases > > > > > > from your thinking. When you come to every situation with a fixed > > > > > > mindset, it sort of closes the door on any opportunity to learn > > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > And yes, in case you were wondering, I do "love ya like brother" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long term > > > > > > > TM makes ones brain turn into mush and removes the ability to > > > > > > > think clearly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How many times do you hear reporters give a show of hand wringing > > > > > > > over the fate of convicted rapists? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A reporters job > > > > > > > is to report the facts, not commiserate with the criminals - in > > > > > > > no way shape or form was Crowley's remarks objective and the > > > > > > > other reporters were even worse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah Poppy Harlow started it - could Crowley not have used her TM > > > > > > > enhanced Creative Intelligence to say "Hey what are you doing > > > > > > > Poppy!?! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The standard of conduct I was referring to in my other post has > > > > > > > nothing to do with 1950's - Jesus you people are beyond hope - > > > > > > > its no wonder Turq cusses > > > > > > > you out from time to time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your attitude seems to be - "Oh Candy is a TM'er and so anything > > > > > > > she does is beyond reproach" - you people really are screwed up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape Case > > > > > > > verdict is > > > > > > > pissing everyone off. Newscaster Candy Crowley, general > > > > > > > correspondent > > > > > > > Poppy Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their very > > > > > > > best to > > > > > > > focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions on the two > > > > > > > rapists. > > > > > > > There's next to no coverage of the girl who was brutally raped; > > > > > > > instead, > > > > > > > they talk almost exclusively of the > > > > > > > rapistsÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬" the two teenagers who had > > > > > > > such bright futures, and now their lives are completely ruined > > > > > > > from this > > > > > > > one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame how they suffer?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jezebel.com/5991018/heres-what-cnn-shouldve-said-about-the-steubenville-rape-case > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Hey Judy thank you so much for posting the end of the exchange between Crowley and Harlow. Again I would guess that it was the news director or CNN execs who cut that segment out of the report. In that case I'd say their worst crime was bad judgement. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:44 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long > term TM makes ones brain turn into mush and removes the > ability to think clearly. Right, Michael, you're obviously the clear-thinking one here. Too bad you haven't been able to address a single one of the points that have been made. Too bad you can only make your case by wildly exaggerating what was said in that clip. > How many times do you hear reporters give a show of hand > wringing over the fate of convicted rapists? Is that what they were doing? Or were they deliberately emphasizing how bad the consequences were going to be for these boys *as a warning* to other boys who might be tempted to engage in similar misbehavior? As in: This was a crime, and these guys are going to suffer for it the rest of their lives. You don't want to end up like them. > A reporters job > is to report the facts, not commiserate with the criminals Neither of them was "commiserating with the criminals." That's insane. (snip) > Your attitude seems to be - "Oh Candy is a TM'er and so > anything she does is beyond reproach" - you people > really are screwed up. No, buster, that you would think any of us had that attitude is what's really screwed up. > Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap: > > "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape > Case verdict is pissing everyone off. For the record, there were seven segments on CNN on Sunday about the verdict, not just the breaking-news item, which is what all the fuss is about. You can check out transcripts of all the segments here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2013.03.17.html Interestingly, in the breaking-news item, following the appearance of the legal expert, Crowley and Harlow continued their discussion. Here's the transcript of that portion of the breaking-news item (which was not included in the clip): - CROWLEY: Paul, thanks. I want to bring Poppy back in -- because, Poppy, there's -- you know, the 16-year-old victim, her life, never the same, again. And I understand you have been talking to some of the families involved. HARLOW: Her life never the same again. Absolutely, Candy. The last thing she wanted to do was sit on that stand and testify. She didn't want to bring these charges. She said it was up to her parents. But I want to tell our viewers about a statement that her mother just made, just made in the court after the sentencing. Her mother just said that she has pity on the two young boys that did this. She said human compassion is not taught by teachers or coaches. It's a God-given gift, saying that you displayed a lack of compassion, a lack of moral code, saying that you were your own accuser throughout this for posting about this all over social media. And she said she takes pity on them. As far as her daughter, she said she will persevere, she will get through this. But the words of an angry mother who now has a sentence, that I believe she would consider or a verdict, just -- Candy. CROWLEY: CNN's Poppy Harlow, thank you. Also to our legal contributor Paul Callan. Of course, we will be following this story throughout the day. - And they did. But the jezebel.com post says: > Newscaster Candy Crowley, general correspondent Poppy > Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their very > best to focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions > on the two rapists. There's next to no coverage of the > girl who was brutally raped; instead, they talk almost > exclusively of the rapistsâ€" the two teenagers who had > such bright futures, and now their lives are completely > ruined from this one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame > how they suffer?" This is simply not true, as you can see from the transcript above. I read the transcripts of a couple of the later segments on Sunday on the verdict, and it isn't true of them either. As I said, I'm not a fan of Crowley. But she has been treated unfairly in this discussion for the purpose of advancing an anti-TM agenda. And I think that stinks.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Yeah all this just reiterates that MJ may be a nice guy but he is totally idiotic, emotionally stunted, delusional even to use this incredibly distressing, painful rape incident - complex in its conception and implications to peddle his anti-TM paranoia. He's definitely crossed all limits here. On Mar 19, 2013, at 3:44 PM, "authfriend" wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long > > term TM makes ones brain turn into mush and removes the > > ability to think clearly. > > Right, Michael, you're obviously the clear-thinking one here. > Too bad you haven't been able to address a single one of the > points that have been made. Too bad you can only make your > case by wildly exaggerating what was said in that clip. > > > How many times do you hear reporters give a show of hand > > wringing over the fate of convicted rapists? > > Is that what they were doing? Or were they deliberately > emphasizing how bad the consequences were going to be > for these boys *as a warning* to other boys who might > be tempted to engage in similar misbehavior? As in: This > was a crime, and these guys are going to suffer for it > the rest of their lives. You don't want to end up like > them. > > > A reporters job > > is to report the facts, not commiserate with the criminals > > Neither of them was "commiserating with the criminals." > That's insane. > > (snip) > > Your attitude seems to be - "Oh Candy is a TM'er and so > > anything she does is beyond reproach" - you people > > really are screwed up. > > No, buster, that you would think any of us had that > attitude is what's really screwed up. > > > Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap: > > > > "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape > > Case verdict is pissing everyone off. > > For the record, there were seven segments on CNN on Sunday > about the verdict, not just the breaking-news item, which > is what all the fuss is about. You can check out transcripts > of all the segments here: > > http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2013.03.17.html > > Interestingly, in the breaking-news item, following the > appearance of the legal expert, Crowley and Harlow > continued their discussion. Here's the transcript of > that portion of the breaking-news item (which was not > included in the clip): > > - > CROWLEY: Paul, thanks. I want to bring Poppy back in -- because, Poppy, > there's -- you know, the 16-year-old victim, her life, never the same, again. > And I understand you have been talking to some of the families involved. > > HARLOW: Her life never the same again. Absolutely, Candy. The last thing she > wanted to do was sit on that stand and testify. She didn't want to bring > these charges. She said it was up to her parents. > > But I want to tell our viewers about a statement that her mother just made, > just made in the court after the sentencing. Her mother just said that she > has pity on the two young boys that did this. She said human compassion is > not taught by teachers or coaches. It's a God-given gift, saying that you > displayed a lack of compassion, a lack of moral code, saying that you were > your own accuser throughout this for posting about this all over social > media. And she said she takes pity on them. > > As far as her daughter, she said she will persevere, she will get through > this. But the words of an angry mother who now has a sentence, that I believe > she would consider or a verdict, just -- Candy. > > CROWLEY: CNN's Poppy Harlow, thank you. Also to our legal contributor Paul > Callan. > > Of course, we will be following this story throughout the day. > - > > And they did. But the jezebel.com post says: > > > Newscaster Candy Crowley, general correspondent Poppy > > Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their very > > best to focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions > > on the two rapists. There's next to no coverage of the > > girl who was brutally raped; instead, they talk almost > > exclusively of the rapistsâ€" the two teenagers who had > > such bright futures, and now their lives are completely > > ruined from this one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame > > how they suffer?" > > This is simply not true, as you can see from the transcript > above. I read the transcripts of a couple of the later > segments on Sunday on the verdict, and it isn't true of them > either. > > As I said, I'm not a fan of Crowley. But she has been treated > unfairly in this discussion for the purpose of advancing an > anti-TM agenda. And I think that stinks. > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
t; > > > > > What? You didn't. Well no worries. Many here say it's not my strong > > > > > suit either. > > > > > > > > > > But one starting point may be to try to remove any obvious biases > > > > > from your thinking. When you come to every situation with a fixed > > > > > mindset, it sort of closes the door on any opportunity to learn > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > And yes, in case you were wondering, I do "love ya like brother" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long term > > > > > > TM makes ones brain turn into mush and removes the ability to think > > > > > > clearly. > > > > > > > > > > > > How many times do you hear reporters give a show of hand wringing > > > > > > over the fate of convicted rapists? > > > > > > > > > > > > A reporters job > > > > > > is to report the facts, not commiserate with the criminals - in no > > > > > > way shape or form was Crowley's remarks objective and the other > > > > > > reporters were even worse. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah Poppy Harlow started it - could Crowley not have used her TM > > > > > > enhanced Creative Intelligence to say "Hey what are you doing > > > > > > Poppy!?! > > > > > > > > > > > > The standard of conduct I was referring to in my other post has > > > > > > nothing to do with 1950's - Jesus you people are beyond hope - its > > > > > > no wonder Turq cusses > > > > > > you out from time to time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your attitude seems to be - "Oh Candy is a TM'er and so anything > > > > > > she does is beyond reproach" - you people really are screwed up. > > > > > > > > > > > > Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap: > > > > > > > > > > > > "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape Case > > > > > > verdict is > > > > > > pissing everyone off. Newscaster Candy Crowley, general > > > > > > correspondent > > > > > > Poppy Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their very best > > > > > > to > > > > > > focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions on the two > > > > > > rapists. > > > > > > There's next to no coverage of the girl who was brutally raped; > > > > > > instead, > > > > > > they talk almost exclusively of the rapistsâ€" the two > > > > > > teenagers who had > > > > > > such bright futures, and now their lives are completely ruined from > > > > > > this > > > > > > one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame how they suffer?" > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jezebel.com/5991018/heres-what-cnn-shouldve-said-about-the-steubenville-rape-case > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Share Long sharelong60@ > > > > > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:40 AM > > > > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > Thank you for this balanced view, Steve. It helped me clarify > > > > > > my own thoughts and feelings about it. Isn't it usually the > > > > > > news director who chooses the angle of a news story? I thought > > > > > > Crowley's intro of the reporter was objective. It was the > > > > > > reporter Harlow who was initially sympathetic to the 2 boys. > > > > > > And the legal expert Callan who came after her was very > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long > term TM makes ones brain turn into mush and removes the > ability to think clearly. Right, Michael, you're obviously the clear-thinking one here. Too bad you haven't been able to address a single one of the points that have been made. Too bad you can only make your case by wildly exaggerating what was said in that clip. > How many times do you hear reporters give a show of hand > wringing over the fate of convicted rapists? Is that what they were doing? Or were they deliberately emphasizing how bad the consequences were going to be for these boys *as a warning* to other boys who might be tempted to engage in similar misbehavior? As in: This was a crime, and these guys are going to suffer for it the rest of their lives. You don't want to end up like them. > A reporters job > is to report the facts, not commiserate with the criminals Neither of them was "commiserating with the criminals." That's insane. (snip) > Your attitude seems to be - "Oh Candy is a TM'er and so > anything she does is beyond reproach" - you people > really are screwed up. No, buster, that you would think any of us had that attitude is what's really screwed up. > Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap: > > "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape > Case verdict is pissing everyone off. For the record, there were seven segments on CNN on Sunday about the verdict, not just the breaking-news item, which is what all the fuss is about. You can check out transcripts of all the segments here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2013.03.17.html Interestingly, in the breaking-news item, following the appearance of the legal expert, Crowley and Harlow continued their discussion. Here's the transcript of that portion of the breaking-news item (which was not included in the clip): - CROWLEY: Paul, thanks. I want to bring Poppy back in -- because, Poppy, there's -- you know, the 16-year-old victim, her life, never the same, again. And I understand you have been talking to some of the families involved. HARLOW: Her life never the same again. Absolutely, Candy. The last thing she wanted to do was sit on that stand and testify. She didn't want to bring these charges. She said it was up to her parents. But I want to tell our viewers about a statement that her mother just made, just made in the court after the sentencing. Her mother just said that she has pity on the two young boys that did this. She said human compassion is not taught by teachers or coaches. It's a God-given gift, saying that you displayed a lack of compassion, a lack of moral code, saying that you were your own accuser throughout this for posting about this all over social media. And she said she takes pity on them. As far as her daughter, she said she will persevere, she will get through this. But the words of an angry mother who now has a sentence, that I believe she would consider or a verdict, just -- Candy. CROWLEY: CNN's Poppy Harlow, thank you. Also to our legal contributor Paul Callan. Of course, we will be following this story throughout the day. - And they did. But the jezebel.com post says: > Newscaster Candy Crowley, general correspondent Poppy > Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their very > best to focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions > on the two rapists. There's next to no coverage of the > girl who was brutally raped; instead, they talk almost > exclusively of the rapistsâ" the two teenagers who had > such bright futures, and now their lives are completely > ruined from this one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame > how they suffer?" This is simply not true, as you can see from the transcript above. I read the transcripts of a couple of the later segments on Sunday on the verdict, and it isn't true of them either. As I said, I'm not a fan of Crowley. But she has been treated unfairly in this discussion for the purpose of advancing an anti-TM agenda. And I think that stinks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
> > > > > > > > > > Yeah Poppy Harlow started it - could Crowley not have used her TM enhanced Creative Intelligence to say "Hey what are you doing Poppy!?! > > > > > > > > > > The standard of conduct I was referring to in my other post has nothing to do with 1950's - Jesus you people are beyond hope - its no wonder Turq cusses > > > > > you out from time to time. > > > > > > > > > > Your attitude seems to be - "Oh Candy is a TM'er and so anything she does is beyond reproach" - you people really are screwed up. > > > > > > > > > > Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap: > > > > > > > > > > "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape Case verdict is > > > > > pissing everyone off. Newscaster Candy Crowley, general correspondent > > > > > Poppy Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their very best to > > > > > focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions on the two rapists. > > > > > There's next to no coverage of the girl who was brutally raped; instead, > > > > > they talk almost exclusively of the rapistsâââ¬" the two teenagers who had > > > > > such bright futures, and now their lives are completely ruined from this > > > > > one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame how they suffer?" > > > > > > > > > > http://jezebel.com/5991018/heres-what-cnn-shouldve-said-about-the-steube\ nville-rape-case > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Share Long sharelong60@ > > > > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:40 AM > > > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ãâ > > > > > Thank you for this balanced view, Steve.Ãâ It helped me clarify my own thoughts and feelings about it.Ãâ Isn't it usually the news director who chooses the angle of a news story?Ãâ I thought Crowley's intro of the reporter was objective.Ãâ It was the reporter Harlow who was initially sympathetic to the 2 boys.Ãâ And the legal expert Callan who came after her was very sympathetic.Ãâ I'm just wondering if the news director chose him too and was attempting to present a balanced story.Ãâ Crowley herself is the single mom of two teenaged boys but nonetheless I thought her comments were mostly objective given what she was commenting on, meaning the less objective angles taken by the reporter and the expert.Ãâ In any case, I think for some on FFL it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.Ãâ Meaning if you do TM and you make mistakes then TM isn't what it claims to be.Ãâ But if you are successful and do TM and promote it, then it's because you're afraid of > > > > > angering Oprah (-: Ãâ Ãâ Ãâ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@ > > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:11 AM > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ãâ > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > And what do you consider whining about the effects of a relatively light sentence handed down on two punks who abused an unconscious girl? > > > > > It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full brain development until they are 25. Ãâ And I think the part of the brain that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part which evaluates the future consequences of our actions. I am just putting that out there as one thing to consider. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And are you losing sight that our criminal justice system is a more merciful system, with second and third chances. Ãâ Maybe you don't like that fact.Ãâ > > > > > > Juvenile? Insensitive? Adding to the already atrocious attitudes about women who are raped and sexually abused and the boys will be boys attitude > > > > > about their attacker
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
proach" - you people really are screwed up. > > > > > > > > Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap: > > > > > > > > "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape Case verdict is > > > > pissing everyone off. Newscaster Candy Crowley, general correspondent > > > > Poppy Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their very best to > > > > focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions on the two rapists. > > > > There's next to no coverage of the girl who was brutally raped; instead, > > > > they talk almost exclusively of the rapistsâ€" the two teenagers who > > > > had > > > > such bright futures, and now their lives are completely ruined from this > > > > one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame how they suffer?" > > > > > > > > http://jezebel.com/5991018/heres-what-cnn-shouldve-said-about-the-steubenville-rape-case > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Share Long sharelong60@ > > > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:40 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > Thank you for this balanced view, Steve. It helped me clarify my own > > > > thoughts and feelings about it. Isn't it usually the news director > > > > who chooses the angle of a news story? I thought Crowley's intro of > > > > the reporter was objective. It was the reporter Harlow who was > > > > initially sympathetic to the 2 boys. And the legal expert Callan who > > > > came after her was very sympathetic. I'm just wondering if the news > > > > director chose him too and was attempting to present a balanced > > > > story. Crowley herself is the single mom of two teenaged boys but > > > > nonetheless I thought her comments were mostly objective given what she > > > > was commenting on, meaning the less objective angles taken by the > > > > reporter and the expert. In any case, I think for some on FFL it's > > > > damned if you do and damned if you don't. Meaning if you do TM and > > > > you make mistakes then TM isn't what it claims to be. But if you are > > > > successful and do TM and promote it, then it's because you're afraid of > > > > angering Oprah (-:    > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@ > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:11 AM > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > And what do you consider whining about the effects of a relatively > > > > > light sentence handed down on two punks who abused an unconscious > > > > > girl? > > > > It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full brain > > > > development until they are 25.  And I think the part of the brain > > > > that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part which evaluates the > > > > future consequences of our actions. I am just putting that out there as > > > > one thing to consider. > > > > > > > > > > > > And are you losing sight that our criminal justice system is a more > > > > merciful system, with second and third chances.  Maybe you don't like > > > > that fact. > > > > > Juvenile? Insensitive? Adding to the already atrocious attitudes > > > > > about women who are raped and sexually abused and the boys will be > > > > > boys attitude > > > > about their attackers? > > > > What are you talking about?  Not sure what you feel would be an > > > > appropriate punishment in this case.  And evidently you feel it is > > > > out of line to feel sympathy for those boys.  I feel sympathy for > > > > them. As well as the young woman.  That goes without saying. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > > It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full brain > > > development until they are 25. And I think the part of the brain > > > that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part which evaluates the > > > future consequences of our actions. I am just putting that out there > > > as one thing to consider. > > > > Yes I see that has been mentioned here. There must be something > > wrong with my brain though, 'cos this idea seems to me to be > > off-the-wall bonkers beyond belief. Do you *really* believe this? > > Really? > > > > Einstein published his first paper at the age of 22. It was on > > "Conclusions from the Capillarity Phenomena" - But his > > brain had not yet reached the stage where it "evaluates the > > future consequences of our actions"? > Why would his brain have had to be fully developed to write > a scientific paper? Well it's not clear to me what a brain's being "fully developed" means. But it seems to me to be a reasonable starting point to suppose that being able to get published qualifies "prima facie". > > Then again perhaps it was 23 year old war hero Frank Edward Young > > (VC)'s brain that was at fault: > > > > "On 18 September 1918 south-east of Havrincourt, France, during > > an enemy counter-attack and throughout intense enemy fire, Second > > Lieutenant Young visited all posts, warned the garrisons and > > encouraged the men. In the early stages of the attack he rescued > > two of his men who had been captured and bombed and silenced an > > enemy machine-gun. Then he fought his way back to the main > > barricade and drove out a party of the enemy assembling there. > > Throughout four hours of heavy fighting this officer set a fine > > example and was last seen fighting hand-to-hand against a > > considerable number of the enemy" > Why do you think a 'not fully' developed brain is at fault? Well I don't (of course). This person's brain (if we are to talk this way) seems to have been capable of the highest functions. A counter-example to the brain theory we are considering here? Yet there is a response: Perhaps Frank Edward Young's bravery and heroism can be "explained away" in our brave new world of brain- talk. If only he had been twenty five he would have had sufficient cc's of grey matter to have "understood the consequences of his actions". He could have laid low instead of rushing about getting shot at* (it seems we are to suppose that neither Einstein nor Young had the presence of mind/brain to realise that if you stick your head above the parapet the "consequence of the action" is that you come under fire). In other words these qualities of courage and bravery are a brain defect. They can be "explained away". No doubt I am missing something of the theory I am criticising. But I'm just calling it as I see it. * As I think I would have done at any stage of my brain's development. Which suggests that even when puny, my brain had enough horsepower to make calculations of the form "If I do x, y is likely to happen".
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Ah, comes now the great insulter, plying the skill he hones on those long walks with Devi. But always, I come to the same question. I mean, with your great intellect, here you are, day after day, stuck on a cubicle farm, thinking about how lonely you are and how you might be able to score a date. Of course, I was rooting for you on this last go around. But I knew it was a lost cause, when after ten minutes you started in with the Ravi Guru routine and told her how she wasting her time on meditation. Did you notice how things changed at that point? I didn't think so, you were so busy talking. Talk, talk. Talk, talk, talk. Nithyananda this, Nithydananday that, Satnam Sing this, Satnam Sing that. Did you notice her eyes gloss over? Did you notice her foot tapping nervously, and her frozen smile, broken only by an forced laugh at your awkward attempt at humor? Oops, suddenly she got that text message and had to leave. Hang in there Rav. Until you get a life, you can keep working the insult angle. You need something to keep busy. (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > Feeling the heat dear Steve..LOL. You probably think MJ is dumber than you - not that I disagree mind you. Anyway it's good to finally see someone after 3 years, threatening to usurp your position - I am loving it. I'm still rooting for you though, but remember MJ's from South Carolina - he's got the history, culture, genes on his side, so you need to be on the top of your game, tighten it up a bit, take it up a notch, insert any other favorite cliche of yours here. > > And yes, in case you were wondering, I do "love ya like brother". > > On Mar 19, 2013, at 12:39 PM, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@... wrote: > > > Michael, my friend, I am afraid you are losing it. Or is it "lost it". > > > > > > I'm not sure. But listen, I have just the solution. This posting stuff is obviously taking its toll. > > > > Take a break for a few days. Maybe until, say, Friday evening. Whaddya think? You'll thank me, you'll bless me. > > > > And hey, really, I enjoyed hearing about your wonderful childhood. The one thing you left out was anything about your schooling. You did attend school, right. Well, of course you did. Sorry about that. But did you take any courses that dealt with analytical thinking. > > > > What? You didn't. Well no worries. Many here say it's not my strong suit either. > > > > But one starting point may be to try to remove any obvious biases from your thinking. When you come to every situation with a fixed mindset, it sort of closes the door on any opportunity to learn something. > > > > And yes, in case you were wondering, I do "love ya like brother" > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: > > > > > > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long term TM makes ones brain turn into mush and removes the ability to think clearly. > > > > > > How many times do you hear reporters give a show of hand wringing over the fate of convicted rapists? > > > > > > A reporters job > > > is to report the facts, not commiserate with the criminals - in no way shape or form was Crowley's remarks objective and the other reporters were even worse. > > > > > > Yeah Poppy Harlow started it - could Crowley not have used her TM enhanced Creative Intelligence to say "Hey what are you doing Poppy!?! > > > > > > The standard of conduct I was referring to in my other post has nothing to do with 1950's - Jesus you people are beyond hope - its no wonder Turq cusses > > > you out from time to time. > > > > > > Your attitude seems to be - "Oh Candy is a TM'er and so anything she does is beyond reproach" - you people really are screwed up. > > > > > > Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap: > > > > > > "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape Case verdict is > > > pissing everyone off. Newscaster Candy Crowley, general correspondent > > > Poppy Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their very best to > > > focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions on the two rapists. > > > There's next to no coverage of the girl who was brutally raped; instead, > > > they talk almost exclusively of the rapistsââ¬" the two teenagers who had > > > such bright futures, and now their lives are completely ruined from this > > > one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame how they suffer?" > > > > > > http://jezebel.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: (snip) > > It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full > > brain development until they are 25. And I think the part of > > the brain that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part > > which evaluates the future consequences of our actions. I am > > just putting that out there as one thing to consider. > > If that has "been said here," it runs contrary to most > literature on child-rearing. According to those authors, > children develop the empathy to feel the effects of their > actions on others and the ability to control actions that > might negatively affect others at age six. If these guys > hadn't gotten it down by their age, there is something > wrong with them. End of story. Opsie! Not quite the end: "The per [sic]-frontal cortex, the one we need to imagine consequences for our actions is not fully developed until 24-26. Kids in college literally do not have the hardware to always be responsible in their behavior. They lose site [sic] of the future and get lost in the present." --Curtisdeltablues, 3/8/12 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/337423 Actually, of course, there's no conflict at all between what Curtis said and what Barry says. Barry claims there is by the simple expedient of interpreting "not fully developed" to mean "completely undeveloped." But then, he considered it entirely within his rights to distort a comment made, he assumed, by a TMer, in order to slam the purported TMer. Unfortunately, it turns out that the original comment was made by Barry's great pal, Curtis. I'm sure Curtis won't mind Barry's distortion, though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full brain > > development until they are 25. And I think the part of the brain > > that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part which evaluates the > > future consequences of our actions. I am just putting that out there > > as one thing to consider. > > Yes I see that has been mentioned here. There must be something > wrong with my brain though, 'cos this idea seems to me to be > off-the-wall bonkers beyond belief. Do you *really* believe this? > Really? Really, I have no idea. Nor do I really care. I brought it up because it was recently mentioned, and it's probably true. And as I said, the part of the brain that isn't fully developed has to do with appreciating the full consequences of our actions. I don't believe I said anything about writing scientific papers. So, before you go all Michael Jackson on me, and try to make a connection that doesn't make any sense, why don't you read what I wrote. I think that would require only junior high comprehension. (-: > Einstein published his first paper at the age of 22. It was on > "Conclusions from the Capillarity Phenomena" - But his > brain had not yet reached the stage where it "evaluates the > future consequences of our actions"? > > Then again perhaps it was 23 year old war hero Frank Edward Young > (VC)'s brain that was at fault: > > "On 18 September 1918 south-east of Havrincourt, France, during > an enemy counter-attack and throughout intense enemy fire, Second > Lieutenant Young visited all posts, warned the garrisons and > encouraged the men. In the early stages of the attack he rescued > two of his men who had been captured and bombed and silenced an > enemy machine-gun. Then he fought his way back to the main > barricade and drove out a party of the enemy assembling there. > Throughout four hours of heavy fighting this officer set a fine > example and was last seen fighting hand-to-hand against a > considerable number of the enemy" >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Feeling the heat dear Steve..LOL. You probably think MJ is dumber than you - not that I disagree mind you. Anyway it's good to finally see someone after 3 years, threatening to usurp your position - I am loving it. I'm still rooting for you though, but remember MJ's from South Carolina - he's got the history, culture, genes on his side, so you need to be on the top of your game, tighten it up a bit, take it up a notch, insert any other favorite cliche of yours here. And yes, in case you were wondering, I do "love ya like brother". On Mar 19, 2013, at 12:39 PM, "seventhray27" wrote: > Michael, my friend, I am afraid you are losing it. Or is it "lost it". > > > I'm not sure. But listen, I have just the solution. This posting stuff is > obviously taking its toll. > > Take a break for a few days. Maybe until, say, Friday evening. Whaddya > think? You'll thank me, you'll bless me. > > And hey, really, I enjoyed hearing about your wonderful childhood. The one > thing you left out was anything about your schooling. You did attend school, > right. Well, of course you did. Sorry about that. But did you take any > courses that dealt with analytical thinking. > > What? You didn't. Well no worries. Many here say it's not my strong suit > either. > > But one starting point may be to try to remove any obvious biases from your > thinking. When you come to every situation with a fixed mindset, it sort of > closes the door on any opportunity to learn something. > > And yes, in case you were wondering, I do "love ya like brother" > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long term TM makes > > ones brain turn into mush and removes the ability to think clearly. > > > > How many times do you hear reporters give a show of hand wringing over the > > fate of convicted rapists? > > > > A reporters job > > is to report the facts, not commiserate with the criminals - in no way > > shape or form was Crowley's remarks objective and the other reporters were > > even worse. > > > > Yeah Poppy Harlow started it - could Crowley not have used her TM enhanced > > Creative Intelligence to say "Hey what are you doing Poppy!?! > > > > The standard of conduct I was referring to in my other post has nothing to > > do with 1950's - Jesus you people are beyond hope - its no wonder Turq > > cusses > > you out from time to time. > > > > Your attitude seems to be - "Oh Candy is a TM'er and so anything she does > > is beyond reproach" - you people really are screwed up. > > > > Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap: > > > > "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape Case verdict is > > pissing everyone off. Newscaster Candy Crowley, general correspondent > > Poppy Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their very best to > > focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions on the two rapists. > > There's next to no coverage of the girl who was brutally raped; instead, > > they talk almost exclusively of the rapistsâ€" the two teenagers who had > > such bright futures, and now their lives are completely ruined from this > > one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame how they suffer?" > > > > http://jezebel.com/5991018/heres-what-cnn-shouldve-said-about-the-steubenville-rape-case > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Share Long sharelong60@... > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:40 AM > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > > > > >  > > Thank you for this balanced view, Steve. It helped me clarify my own > > thoughts and feelings about it. Isn't it usually the news director who > > chooses the angle of a news story? I thought Crowley's intro of the > > reporter was objective. It was the reporter Harlow who was initially > > sympathetic to the 2 boys. And the legal expert Callan who came after her > > was very sympathetic. I'm just wondering if the news director chose him > > too and was attempting to present a balanced story. Crowley herself is > > the single mom of two teenaged boys but nonetheless I thought her comments > > were mostly objective given what she was commenting on, meaning the less > > objective angles tak
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full brain > > development until they are 25. And I think the part of the brain > > that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part which evaluates the > > future consequences of our actions. I am just putting that out there > > as one thing to consider. > > Yes I see that has been mentioned here. There must be something > wrong with my brain though, 'cos this idea seems to me to be > off-the-wall bonkers beyond belief. Do you *really* believe this? > Really? > > Einstein published his first paper at the age of 22. It was on > "Conclusions from the Capillarity Phenomena" - But his > brain had not yet reached the stage where it "evaluates the > future consequences of our actions"? Why would his brain have had to be fully developed to write a scientific paper? > Then again perhaps it was 23 year old war hero Frank Edward Young > (VC)'s brain that was at fault: > > "On 18 September 1918 south-east of Havrincourt, France, during > an enemy counter-attack and throughout intense enemy fire, Second > Lieutenant Young visited all posts, warned the garrisons and > encouraged the men. In the early stages of the attack he rescued > two of his men who had been captured and bombed and silenced an > enemy machine-gun. Then he fought his way back to the main > barricade and drove out a party of the enemy assembling there. > Throughout four hours of heavy fighting this officer set a fine > example and was last seen fighting hand-to-hand against a > considerable number of the enemy" Why do you think a 'not fully' developed brain is at fault?
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full brain > development until they are 25. And I think the part of the brain > that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part which evaluates the > future consequences of our actions. I am just putting that out there > as one thing to consider. Yes I see that has been mentioned here. There must be something wrong with my brain though, 'cos this idea seems to me to be off-the-wall bonkers beyond belief. Do you *really* believe this? Really? Einstein published his first paper at the age of 22. It was on "Conclusions from the Capillarity Phenomena" - But his brain had not yet reached the stage where it "evaluates the future consequences of our actions"? Then again perhaps it was 23 year old war hero Frank Edward Young (VC)'s brain that was at fault: "On 18 September 1918 south-east of Havrincourt, France, during an enemy counter-attack and throughout intense enemy fire, Second Lieutenant Young visited all posts, warned the garrisons and encouraged the men. In the early stages of the attack he rescued two of his men who had been captured and bombed and silenced an enemy machine-gun. Then he fought his way back to the main barricade and drove out a party of the enemy assembling there. Throughout four hours of heavy fighting this officer set a fine example and was last seen fighting hand-to-hand against a considerable number of the enemy"
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Michael, my friend, I am afraid you are losing it. Or is it "lost it". I'm not sure. But listen, I have just the solution. This posting stuff is obviously taking its toll. Take a break for a few days. Maybe until, say, Friday evening. Whaddya think? You'll thank me, you'll bless me. And hey, really, I enjoyed hearing about your wonderful childhood. The one thing you left out was anything about your schooling. You did attend school, right. Well, of course you did. Sorry about that. But did you take any courses that dealt with analytical thinking. What? You didn't. Well no worries. Many here say it's not my strong suit either. But one starting point may be to try to remove any obvious biases from your thinking. When you come to every situation with a fixed mindset, it sort of closes the door on any opportunity to learn something. And yes, in case you were wondering, I do "love ya like brother" --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long term TM makes ones brain turn into mush and removes the ability to think clearly. > > How many times do you hear reporters give a show of hand wringing over the fate of convicted rapists? > > A reporters job > is to report the facts, not commiserate with the criminals - in no way shape or form was Crowley's remarks objective and the other reporters were even worse. > > Yeah Poppy Harlow started it - could Crowley not have used her TM enhanced Creative Intelligence to say "Hey what are you doing Poppy!?! > > The standard of conduct I was referring to in my other post has nothing to do with 1950's - Jesus you people are beyond hope - its no wonder Turq cusses > you out from time to time. > > Your attitude seems to be - "Oh Candy is a TM'er and so anything she does is beyond reproach" - you people really are screwed up. > > Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap: > > "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape Case verdict is > pissing everyone off. Newscaster Candy Crowley, general correspondent > Poppy Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their very best to > focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions on the two rapists. > There's next to no coverage of the girl who was brutally raped; instead, > they talk almost exclusively of the rapistsâ" the two teenagers who had > such bright futures, and now their lives are completely ruined from this > one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame how they suffer?" > > http://jezebel.com/5991018/heres-what-cnn-shouldve-said-about-the-steube\ nville-rape-case > > > > > ____________________ > From: Share Long sharelong60@... > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:40 AM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > >  > Thank you for this balanced view, Steve. It helped me clarify my own thoughts and feelings about it. Isn't it usually the news director who chooses the angle of a news story? I thought Crowley's intro of the reporter was objective. It was the reporter Harlow who was initially sympathetic to the 2 boys. And the legal expert Callan who came after her was very sympathetic. I'm just wondering if the news director chose him too and was attempting to present a balanced story. Crowley herself is the single mom of two teenaged boys but nonetheless I thought her comments were mostly objective given what she was commenting on, meaning the less objective angles taken by the reporter and the expert. In any case, I think for some on FFL it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. Meaning if you do TM and you make mistakes then TM isn't what it claims to be. But if you are successful and do TM and promote it, then it's because you're afraid of > angering Oprah (-:    > > > > > > From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:11 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > >  > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: > > > > And what do you consider whining about the effects of a relatively light sentence handed down on two punks who abused an unconscious girl? > It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full brain development until they are 25.  And I think the part of the brain that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part which evaluates the future consequences of our actions. I am just putting that out there as one thing to consider. > > > And are you losing sight th
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars to Michael J
Michael I suggest you read what was actually written in the posts you're supposedly responding to. And then do some fact reporting yourself. Which includes BTW, not ignoring my questions about news directors and their part in such a news story, not to mention the part of CNN executives. You say that in "no way shape or form was (sic) Crowley's remarks objective." Which indicates to me that you have no idea of what objective is. You discount the fact that Harlow started the sympathy and instead discredit Crowley, in a sarcastic way. Since you used quotation marks, which traditionally indicates that you're directly quoting someone, where specifically did any one of us say that Crowley is a TMer and so anything she does is beyond reproach? I realize that lots of people are upset by this incident. My friend, who's a TM recertified governor BTW, sent a petition to her email list, chock full of TMers, demanding apologies. Feel free to ignore this and any other facts for which you have no reply. Because I've been doing TMSP for so long and thus am not a sheeple, when I hear a "world" is thinking a certain way and being pissed off, my tendency is to question that thinking and to remind myself that probably a lot of people in the Nazi world were pissed off by Jews and gypsies. From: Michael Jackson To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:08 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long term TM makes ones brain turn into mush and removes the ability to think clearly. How many times do you hear reporters give a show of hand wringing over the fate of convicted rapists? A reporters job is to report the facts, not commiserate with the criminals - in no way shape or form was Crowley's remarks objective and the other reporters were even worse. Yeah Poppy Harlow started it - could Crowley not have used her TM enhanced Creative Intelligence to say "Hey what are you doing Poppy!?! The standard of conduct I was referring to in my other post has nothing to do with 1950's - Jesus you people are beyond hope - its no wonder Turq cusses you out from time to time. Your attitude seems to be - "Oh Candy is a TM'er and so anything she does is beyond reproach" - you people really are screwed up. Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap: "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape Case verdict is pissing everyone off. Newscaster Candy Crowley, general correspondent Poppy Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their very best to focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions on the two rapists. There's next to no coverage of the girl who was brutally raped; instead, they talk almost exclusively of the rapists— the two teenagers who had such bright futures, and now their lives are completely ruined from this one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame how they suffer?" http://jezebel.com/5991018/heres-what-cnn-shouldve-said-about-the-steubenville-rape-case From: Share Long To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:40 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars Thank you for this balanced view, Steve. It helped me clarify my own thoughts and feelings about it. Isn't it usually the news director who chooses the angle of a news story? I thought Crowley's intro of the reporter was objective. It was the reporter Harlow who was initially sympathetic to the 2 boys. And the legal expert Callan who came after her was very sympathetic. I'm just wondering if the news director chose him too and was attempting to present a balanced story. Crowley herself is the single mom of two teenaged boys but nonetheless I thought her comments were mostly objective given what she was commenting on, meaning the less objective angles taken by the reporter and the expert. In any case, I think for some on FFL it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. Meaning if you do TM and you make mistakes then TM isn't what it claims to be. But if you are successful and do TM and promote it, then it's because you're afraid of angering Oprah (-: ____ From: seventhray27 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:11 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > And what do you consider whining about the effects of a relatively light > sentence handed down on two punks who abused an unconscious girl? It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full brain development until they are 25. And I think t
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson > wrote: > > > > And what do you consider whining about the effects of a relatively > > light sentence handed down on two punks who abused an unconscious > > girl? > > It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full > brain development until they are 25. And I think the part of > the brain that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part > which evaluates the future consequences of our actions. I am > just putting that out there as one thing to consider. If that has "been said here," it runs contrary to most literature on child-rearing. According to those authors, children develop the empathy to feel the effects of their actions on others and the ability to control actions that might negatively affect others at age six. If these guys hadn't gotten it down by their age, there is something wrong with them. End of story.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Every exchange like this just reinforces my belief that long term TM makes ones brain turn into mush and removes the ability to think clearly. How many times do you hear reporters give a show of hand wringing over the fate of convicted rapists? A reporters job is to report the facts, not commiserate with the criminals - in no way shape or form was Crowley's remarks objective and the other reporters were even worse. Yeah Poppy Harlow started it - could Crowley not have used her TM enhanced Creative Intelligence to say "Hey what are you doing Poppy!?! The standard of conduct I was referring to in my other post has nothing to do with 1950's - Jesus you people are beyond hope - its no wonder Turq cusses you out from time to time. Your attitude seems to be - "Oh Candy is a TM'er and so anything she does is beyond reproach" - you people really are screwed up. Take a look at what the non-TM world thinks of this crap: "CNN's unconscionable coverage of the Steubenville Rape Case verdict is pissing everyone off. Newscaster Candy Crowley, general correspondent Poppy Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan all did their very best to focus solely on the guilty verdict's repercussions on the two rapists. There's next to no coverage of the girl who was brutally raped; instead, they talk almost exclusively of the rapists— the two teenagers who had such bright futures, and now their lives are completely ruined from this one little indiscretion. Isn't it a shame how they suffer?" http://jezebel.com/5991018/heres-what-cnn-shouldve-said-about-the-steubenville-rape-case From: Share Long To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:40 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars Thank you for this balanced view, Steve. It helped me clarify my own thoughts and feelings about it. Isn't it usually the news director who chooses the angle of a news story? I thought Crowley's intro of the reporter was objective. It was the reporter Harlow who was initially sympathetic to the 2 boys. And the legal expert Callan who came after her was very sympathetic. I'm just wondering if the news director chose him too and was attempting to present a balanced story. Crowley herself is the single mom of two teenaged boys but nonetheless I thought her comments were mostly objective given what she was commenting on, meaning the less objective angles taken by the reporter and the expert. In any case, I think for some on FFL it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. Meaning if you do TM and you make mistakes then TM isn't what it claims to be. But if you are successful and do TM and promote it, then it's because you're afraid of angering Oprah (-: ____ From: seventhray27 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:11 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > And what do you consider whining about the effects of a relatively light > sentence handed down on two punks who abused an unconscious girl? It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full brain development until they are 25. And I think the part of the brain that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part which evaluates the future consequences of our actions. I am just putting that out there as one thing to consider. And are you losing sight that our criminal justice system is a more merciful system, with second and third chances. Maybe you don't like that fact. > Juvenile? Insensitive? Adding to the already atrocious attitudes about women > who are raped and sexually abused and the boys will be boys attitude about their attackers? What are you talking about? Not sure what you feel would be an appropriate punishment in this case. And evidently you feel it is out of line to feel sympathy for those boys. I feel sympathy for them. As well as the young woman. That goes without saying. > Or is it ok to express such attitudes when one is a TM Practitioner? Finally. Well it took a little while for you to get to your main point. I suspect, this case has little meaning for you, outside of the "tie in". > If TM celebrities are people to be looked up to since their TM practice makes > them phenomenal people, surely they should be held to even a modicum of > decent behavior, I am not even suggesting a higher standard of behavior than > poor non-TM'ers. Now here is a subject for discussion on FFL and I have > probably posted out. I am not sure what behavior you would consider exemplary in your opinion, but I suspect that you want to see 1950 stereotypes of model citizens. I don't think it works that way. As regards Giri
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > Commenting as I go along > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long > wrote: > > > > Thank you for this balanced view, Steve. It helped me > > clarify my own thoughts and feelings about it. Isn't it > > usually the news director who chooses the angle of a > > news story? I thought Crowley's intro of the reporter > > was objective. > > Well, that makes two of us. > > > It was the reporter Harlow who was initially sympathetic > > to the 2 boys. > > Of course. That would be the opinion of just about anybody > who didn't have an agenda they wanted to push. I find it positively bizarre that *anyone* could revile either Crowley or Harlow for how they reported this. Recognizing the negative consequences of a punishment for the perpetrators of a crime does NOT mean one does not think the punishment was well deserved or that the crime wasn't horrifying. I sure didn't detect even a trace of "boys will be boys" in that report. These kids did something incredibly stupid and cruel and insensitive, and they're going to regret it for the rest of their lives. Is it "sympathy" to point that out? What would count as "decent" behavior in this circumstance? Schadenfreude? Should Crowley and Harlow have *gloated* over the sentence? Should they have refrained from discussing the *fact* that the scene in the courtroom was highly emotional? Nobody said the emotion was all in favor of the boys. Common sense tells you it would have been split between those who were relieved the boys were convicted and would serve time, and those who had been hoping they'd get off. I'm not a fan of Crowley regardless of the fact that she's a TMer, BTW. But I can't find any fault in her reporting in this instance. One should also bear in mind that this breaking news report was hardly the only discussion of this crime and trial on CNN. I don't watch CNN, but I'd be astonished if folks who were distinctly unsympathetic to the boys hadn't had their say as well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Commenting as I go along --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Thank you for this balanced view, Steve. It helped me clarify my own thoughts and feelings about it. Isn't it usually the news director who chooses the angle of a news story? I thought Crowley's intro of the reporter was objective.Well, that makes two of us.It was the reporter Harlow who was initially sympathetic to the 2 boys.Of course. That would be the opinion of just about anybody who didn't have an agenda they wanted to push. And the legal expert Callan who came after her was very sympathetic.Right. I kept waiting to find this "smoking gun", but it wasn't there. But, of course that matters not to Michael. He has shown he is able to skew most any statement or behavior in or about the TMO, to suit his ends. The fact that he looks foolish doing so, (at least most of the time), seems to make little difference. And yes, that does point to some other underlying issues, a nice childhood, notwithstanding.  I'm just wondering if the news director chose him too and was attempting to present a balanced story. Crowley herself is the single mom of two teenaged boys but nonetheless I thought her comments were mostly objective given what she was commenting on, meaning the less objective angles taken by the reporter and the expert. In any case, I think for some on FFL it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.Well, I think Michael is the poster child for that now. Meaning if you do TM and you make mistakes then TM isn't what it claims to be.Mike's strategy on TMO is "heads I win, tails you lose", when presenting his opinions on the subject. But if you are successful and do TM and promote it, then it's because you're afraid of angering Oprah (-:Making me smile here Share. I can always use a smile. (-: > > > > > > From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:11 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > >  > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: > > > > And what do you consider whining about the effects of a relatively light sentence handed down on two punks who abused an unconscious girl? > It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full brain development until they are 25.  And I think the part of the brain that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part which evaluates the future consequences of our actions. I am just putting that out there as one thing to consider. > > > And are you losing sight that our criminal justice system is a more merciful system, with second and third chances.  Maybe you don't like that fact. > > Juvenile? Insensitive? Adding to the already atrocious attitudes about women who are raped and sexually abused and the boys will be boys attitude > about their attackers? > What are you talking about?  Not sure what you feel would be an appropriate punishment in this case.  And evidently you feel it is out of line to feel sympathy for those boys.  I feel sympathy for them. As well as the young woman.  That goes without saying. > > Or is it ok to express such attitudes when one is a TM Practitioner? > Finally.  Well it took a little while for you to get to your main point.  I suspect, this case has little meaning for you, outside of the "tie in".  > > If TM celebrities are people to be looked up to since their TM practice makes them phenomenal people, surely they should be held to even a modicum of decent behavior, I am not even suggesting a higher standard of behavior than poor non-TM'ers. Now here is a subject for discussion on FFL and I have probably posted out. > I am not sure what behavior you would consider exemplary in your opinion, but I suspect that you want to see 1950 stereotypes of model citizens.  I don't think it works that way. > > As regards Girish, unfortunately, you see it in every strata of life, where people who hold positions of power, will abuse that power.  Those in the TMO are not immune to that.  But I'd suspect that it may be more prevalent in countries where there has not been much progress in women's rights.  But likely these types of incidents move cultures in that direction. > > > > From: feste37 feste37@ > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:48 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > > > > > à> > You are not a > disciplined thinker, MJ. You just pour out anything that enters your head, and you seem obsessed with criticizing other people's behavior. I find it all very juvenile. > > > > --- In
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Thank you for this balanced view, Steve. It helped me clarify my own thoughts and feelings about it. Isn't it usually the news director who chooses the angle of a news story? I thought Crowley's intro of the reporter was objective. It was the reporter Harlow who was initially sympathetic to the 2 boys. And the legal expert Callan who came after her was very sympathetic. I'm just wondering if the news director chose him too and was attempting to present a balanced story. Crowley herself is the single mom of two teenaged boys but nonetheless I thought her comments were mostly objective given what she was commenting on, meaning the less objective angles taken by the reporter and the expert. In any case, I think for some on FFL it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. Meaning if you do TM and you make mistakes then TM isn't what it claims to be. But if you are successful and do TM and promote it, then it's because you're afraid of angering Oprah (-: From: seventhray27 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:11 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > And what do you consider whining about the effects of a relatively light > sentence handed down on two punks who abused an unconscious girl? It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full brain development until they are 25. And I think the part of the brain that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part which evaluates the future consequences of our actions. I am just putting that out there as one thing to consider. And are you losing sight that our criminal justice system is a more merciful system, with second and third chances. Maybe you don't like that fact. > Juvenile? Insensitive? Adding to the already atrocious attitudes about women > who are raped and sexually abused and the boys will be boys attitude about their attackers? What are you talking about? Not sure what you feel would be an appropriate punishment in this case. And evidently you feel it is out of line to feel sympathy for those boys. I feel sympathy for them. As well as the young woman. That goes without saying. > Or is it ok to express such attitudes when one is a TM Practitioner? Finally. Well it took a little while for you to get to your main point. I suspect, this case has little meaning for you, outside of the "tie in". > If TM celebrities are people to be looked up to since their TM practice makes > them phenomenal people, surely they should be held to even a modicum of > decent behavior, I am not even suggesting a higher standard of behavior than > poor non-TM'ers. Now here is a subject for discussion on FFL and I have > probably posted out. I am not sure what behavior you would consider exemplary in your opinion, but I suspect that you want to see 1950 stereotypes of model citizens. I don't think it works that way. As regards Girish, unfortunately, you see it in every strata of life, where people who hold positions of power, will abuse that power. Those in the TMO are not immune to that. But I'd suspect that it may be more prevalent in countries where there has not been much progress in women's rights. But likely these types of incidents move cultures in that direction. > > From: feste37 feste37@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:48 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > > Â > You are not a disciplined thinker, MJ. You just pour out anything that enters your head, and you seem obsessed with criticizing other people's behavior. I find it all very juvenile. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: > > > > tell it to the tens of thousands of people who are reviling her for her > > sympathy for a couple of true idiots and abusers of a passed out 16 year > > old girl - in true TM addle-headed fashion, you are excusing asinine > > behavior purely because it is behavior of a TM'er and a TM'er who has been > > used to tout the greatness of TM - deal with it feste - TM is no panacea > > and a whole bunch of these celebrities like Howard Stern, Russell Brand, > > and Lynch himself are, perversely excellent poster children of TM for their > > bad behavior because it unintentionally highlights all that is screwed up > > and hypocritical in the Movement, but much like those who post some trivial > > bull manure that is happening in Latin America as "proof" of Raja Luis's phenomenal success in setting up flying groups there, while ignoring the other 25 things that are gong wrong
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > And what do you consider whining about the effects of a relatively light sentence handed down on two punks who abused an unconscious girl? It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full brain development until they are 25. And I think the part of the brain that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part which evaluates the future consequences of our actions. I am just putting that out there as one thing to consider. And are you losing sight that our criminal justice system is a more merciful system, with second and third chances. Maybe you don't like that fact. > Juvenile? Insensitive? Adding to the already atrocious attitudes about women who are raped and sexually abused and the boys will be boys attitude about their attackers? What are you talking about? Not sure what you feel would be an appropriate punishment in this case. And evidently you feel it is out of line to feel sympathy for those boys. I feel sympathy for them. As well as the young woman. That goes without saying. > Or is it ok to express such attitudes when one is a TM Practitioner? Finally. Well it took a little while for you to get to your main point. I suspect, this case has little meaning for you, outside of the "tie in". > If TM celebrities are people to be looked up to since their TM practice makes them phenomenal people, surely they should be held to even a modicum of decent behavior, I am not even suggesting a higher standard of behavior than poor non-TM'ers. Now here is a subject for discussion on FFL and I have probably posted out. I am not sure what behavior you would consider exemplary in your opinion, but I suspect that you want to see 1950 stereotypes of model citizens. I don't think it works that way. As regards Girish, unfortunately, you see it in every strata of life, where people who hold positions of power, will abuse that power. Those in the TMO are not immune to that. But I'd suspect that it may be more prevalent in countries where there has not been much progress in women's rights. But likely these types of incidents move cultures in that direction. > > From: feste37 feste37@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:48 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > > Â > You are not a disciplined thinker, MJ. You just pour out anything that enters your head, and you seem obsessed with criticizing other people's behavior. I find it all very juvenile. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: > > > > tell it to the tens of thousands of people who are reviling her for her sympathy for a couple of true idiots and abusers of a passed out 16 year old girl - in true TM addle-headed fashion, you are excusing asinine behavior purely because it is behavior of a TM'er and a TM'er who has been used to tout the greatness of TM - deal with it feste - TM is no panacea and a whole bunch of these celebrities like Howard Stern, Russell Brand, and Lynch himself are, perversely excellent poster children of TM for their bad behavior because it unintentionally highlights all that is screwed up and hypocritical in the Movement, but much like those who post some trivial bull manure that is happening in Latin America as "proof" of Raja Luis's phenomenal success in setting up flying groups there, while ignoring the other 25 things that are gong wrong in the same geographical area, you continue to embrace fantasy as reality. > > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > > From: feste37 feste37@ > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:24 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > > > > > ÃÂ > > Only an idiot would use this to take a swipe at TM. Time to grow up, MJ. I watched it. She is not "oozing sympathy." There's nothing wrong with what she says. She's pursuing the story, that's all. The youth of the defendants, and what will happen to them, is part of that story. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > Candy Crowley Oozes Sympathy for Steubenville Rapists > > > http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/candy-crowley-oozes-sympathy-steubenvil\ le-r > > > > > > Candy Crowley, proud practitioner of TM is nearly as good an example of what TM can do for folks as cussing chain smoking David Lynch > > > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
And what do you consider whining about the effects of a relatively light sentence handed down on two punks who abused an unconscious girl? Juvenile? Insensitive? Adding to the already atrocious attitudes about women who are raped and sexually abused and the boys will be boys attitude about their attackers? Or is it ok to express such attitudes when one is a TM Practitioner? If TM celebrities are people to be looked up to since their TM practice makes them phenomenal people, surely they should be held to even a modicum of decent behavior, I am not even suggesting a higher standard of behavior than poor non-TM'ers. Now here is a subject for discussion on FFL and I have probably posted out. From: feste37 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:48 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars You are not a disciplined thinker, MJ. You just pour out anything that enters your head, and you seem obsessed with criticizing other people's behavior. I find it all very juvenile. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > tell it to the tens of thousands of people who are reviling her for her > sympathy for a couple of true idiots and abusers of a passed out 16 year old > girl - in true TM addle-headed fashion, you are excusing asinine behavior > purely because it is behavior of a TM'er and a TM'er who has been used to > tout the greatness of TM - deal with it feste - TM is no panacea and a whole > bunch of these celebrities like Howard Stern, Russell Brand, and Lynch > himself are, perversely excellent poster children of TM for their bad > behavior because it unintentionally highlights all that is screwed up and > hypocritical in the Movement, but much like those who post some trivial bull > manure that is happening in Latin America as "proof" of Raja Luis's > phenomenal success in setting up flying groups there, while ignoring the > other 25 things that are gong wrong in the same geographical area, you > continue to embrace fantasy as reality. > > > > > > From: feste37 > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:24 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > > Â > Only an idiot would use this to take a swipe at TM. Time to grow up, MJ. I > watched it. She is not "oozing sympathy." There's nothing wrong with what she > says. She's pursuing the story, that's all. The youth of the defendants, and > what will happen to them, is part of that story. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > Candy Crowley Oozes Sympathy for Steubenville Rapists > > http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/candy-crowley-oozes-sympathy-steubenville-r > > > > Candy Crowley, proud practitioner of TM is nearly as good an example of > > what TM can do for folks as cussing chain smoking David Lynch > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
You are not a disciplined thinker, MJ. You just pour out anything that enters your head, and you seem obsessed with criticizing other people's behavior. I find it all very juvenile. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > tell it to the tens of thousands of people who are reviling her for her > sympathy for a couple of true idiots and abusers of a passed out 16 year old > girl - in true TM addle-headed fashion, you are excusing asinine behavior > purely because it is behavior of a TM'er and a TM'er who has been used to > tout the greatness of TM - deal with it feste - TM is no panacea and a whole > bunch of these celebrities like Howard Stern, Russell Brand, and Lynch > himself are, perversely excellent poster children of TM for their bad > behavior because it unintentionally highlights all that is screwed up and > hypocritical in the Movement, but much like those who post some trivial bull > manure that is happening in Latin America as "proof" of Raja Luis's > phenomenal success in setting up flying groups there, while ignoring the > other 25 things that are gong wrong in the same geographical area, you > continue to embrace fantasy as reality. > > > > > > From: feste37 > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:24 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > > Â > Only an idiot would use this to take a swipe at TM. Time to grow up, MJ. I > watched it. She is not "oozing sympathy." There's nothing wrong with what she > says. She's pursuing the story, that's all. The youth of the defendants, and > what will happen to them, is part of that story. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > Candy Crowley Oozes Sympathy for Steubenville Rapists > > http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/candy-crowley-oozes-sympathy-steubenville-r > > > > Candy Crowley, proud practitioner of TM is nearly as good an example of > > what TM can do for folks as cussing chain smoking David Lynch > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Candy Crowley Oozes Sympathy for Steubenville Rapists > http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/candy-crowley-oozes-sympathy-steubenville-r > Two-Year-Old Onion Story Perfectly Predicted CNN's Shocking Steubenville Rape Trial Coverage http://gawker.com/5991175/this-two+year+old-onion-story-perfectly-predicted-cnns-shocking-steubenville-rape-trial-coverage http://tinyurl.com/bsss4fl
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
And you're the "other side of the story" okaaay. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > tell it to the tens of thousands of people who are reviling her for her sympathy for a couple of true idiots and abusers of a passed out 16 year old girl - in true TM addle-headed fashion, you are excusing asinine behavior purely because it is behavior of a TM'er and a TM'er who has been used to tout the greatness of TM - deal with it feste - TM is no panacea and a whole bunch of these celebrities like Howard Stern, Russell Brand, and Lynch himself are, perversely excellent poster children of TM for their bad behavior because it unintentionally highlights all that is screwed up and hypocritical in the Movement, but much like those who post some trivial bull manure that is happening in Latin America as "proof" of Raja Luis's phenomenal success in setting up flying groups there, while ignoring the other 25 things that are gong wrong in the same geographical area, you continue to embrace fantasy as reality. > > > > > > From: feste37 feste37@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:24 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars > > > Â > Only an idiot would use this to take a swipe at TM. Time to grow up, MJ. I watched it. She is not "oozing sympathy." There's nothing wrong with what she says. She's pursuing the story, that's all. The youth of the defendants, and what will happen to them, is part of that story. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: > > > > Candy Crowley Oozes Sympathy for Steubenville Rapists > > http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/candy-crowley-oozes-sympathy-steubenvil\ le-r > > > > Candy Crowley, proud practitioner of TM is nearly as good an example of what TM can do for folks as cussing chain smoking David Lynch > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
tell it to the tens of thousands of people who are reviling her for her sympathy for a couple of true idiots and abusers of a passed out 16 year old girl - in true TM addle-headed fashion, you are excusing asinine behavior purely because it is behavior of a TM'er and a TM'er who has been used to tout the greatness of TM - deal with it feste - TM is no panacea and a whole bunch of these celebrities like Howard Stern, Russell Brand, and Lynch himself are, perversely excellent poster children of TM for their bad behavior because it unintentionally highlights all that is screwed up and hypocritical in the Movement, but much like those who post some trivial bull manure that is happening in Latin America as "proof" of Raja Luis's phenomenal success in setting up flying groups there, while ignoring the other 25 things that are gong wrong in the same geographical area, you continue to embrace fantasy as reality. From: feste37 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:24 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars Only an idiot would use this to take a swipe at TM. Time to grow up, MJ. I watched it. She is not "oozing sympathy." There's nothing wrong with what she says. She's pursuing the story, that's all. The youth of the defendants, and what will happen to them, is part of that story. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Candy Crowley Oozes Sympathy for Steubenville Rapists > http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/candy-crowley-oozes-sympathy-steubenville-r > > Candy Crowley, proud practitioner of TM is nearly as good an example of what > TM can do for folks as cussing chain smoking David Lynch >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Keep talking Michael. You're making a strong case, but not the one you think. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Candy Crowley Oozes Sympathy for Steubenville Rapists > http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/candy-crowley-oozes-sympathy-steubenvil\ le-r > > Candy Crowley, proud practitioner of TM is nearly as good an example of what TM can do for folks as cussing chain smoking David Lynch >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
Only an idiot would use this to take a swipe at TM. Time to grow up, MJ. I watched it. She is not "oozing sympathy." There's nothing wrong with what she says. She's pursuing the story, that's all. The youth of the defendants, and what will happen to them, is part of that story. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > Candy Crowley Oozes Sympathy for Steubenville Rapists > http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/candy-crowley-oozes-sympathy-steubenville-r > > Candy Crowley, proud practitioner of TM is nearly as good an example of what > TM can do for folks as cussing chain smoking David Lynch >
