[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
The question Why? springs to my lips. It seems to me that your premise for thinking this is tied to attempts to further (and constantly bring to the forefront of FFL discussion) the Vaj Is A Liar meme that was started by one person here and that now has a following of other posters authorfriend: If you'll recall, Barry, the meme was pretty active on alt.meditation.transcendental as well, and it wasn't started by me. Nor were those here who feel the same as I do about Vaj parroting me... Actually it was probably me that started the meme. At the time, I posted that it was a lie that MMY had the ashram cook murder SBS, and that MMY then presented a forged will to the seat of the Jyotirmutt. There is no report in any of the Indian media that mentions a Shankaracharya being murdered at any time in South Asian history. It's just an outrageous lie! Guru Dev's death was considered untimely, brought on by natural causes, according to the attending physician and the coroners report. 'The Clerk of Jyotirmath' http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/clerk.htm ...the original will, itself already recognized as a legal document when the certificate of succession had been granted, some credibility would be gained. - Dana Sawyer Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/msg28211.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
..not sure what you ref. or offer [:D] To lend beauty to the mouth and purify it, to destroy all foul odour or an offer to play ..it was deeply connected with enjoyment and erotic play, it is not surprising to find frequent depiction of lovers sharing a betel roll or offering it to each other, or all the necessary utensils and implements for betel, specially in those miniatures depicting romantic themes. from footage from your link lol --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Judy, since you did enlighten me to the fact that I hadn't quite followed the conversation correctly, I think I may volunteer to be the first of your mind *less* followers. But, I reserve the right to abdicate at any time the mind *ful* part of my being and brain take over. Â In the meantime, I throw flower petals at your pinky toe. Â Crusher of illusion, buster of balls, behold the Supreme power of Sri Sri Judymataji: http://youtu.be/bHnEWmS1BNc ROARRR (Takes me forever to get that red crap off my tongue every night. But if that's what it takes to maintain my awesome power over you all...it's worth it.) Lay off the betel leaf. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1332436/the_tradition_of_chewing_paan/
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote: ..not sure what you ref. or offer [:D] To lend beauty to the mouth and purify it, to destroy all foul odour or an offer to play ..it was deeply connected with enjoyment and erotic play, it is not surprising to find frequent depiction of lovers sharing a betel roll or offering it to each other, or all the necessary utensils and implements for betel, specially in those miniatures depicting romantic themes. from footage from your link lol Meruda, I've seen the spitting walls of Delhi. It's a public spittoon for betel chewers. It ain't pretty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betel [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Betel.jpg/220p\ x-Betel.jpg] The stained teeth of a regular betel chewer --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Judy, since you did enlighten me to the fact that I hadn't quite followed the conversation correctly, I think I may volunteer to be the first of your mind *less* followers. But, I reserve the right to abdicate at any time the mind *ful* part of my being and brain take over. Â In the meantime, I throw flower petals at your pinky toe. Â Crusher of illusion, buster of balls, behold the Supreme power of Sri Sri Judymataji: http://youtu.be/bHnEWmS1BNc ROARRR (Takes me forever to get that red crap off my tongue every night. But if that's what it takes to maintain my awesome power over you all...it's worth it.) Lay off the betel leaf. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1332436/the_tradition_of_chewing_paan/
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Hey Steve, how come we haven't heard from Vaj? Just when he had an opportunity to come clean and mop up the details of his messy business with Robin, he went MIA. We haven't heard a peep out of him ever since Ann assured him that if a tape existed of Robin hitting someone between 1983-1986 she would have known about it. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302767 I'm glad you mentioned it. I was accused of being played by bringing up the issue again. But in my mind the arrival of Ann was a game changer. Suddenly there was an opportunity for some of puzzle pieces to be put into place. I'm disappointed Vaj didn't see fit to fill in some of those blanks. After all, why not. To my mind it wouldn't have been much different than the banter Curtis had with Ann, sharing some of the where and when during their time at MIU. But I must say that I'm a little disppointed that Robin has also gone MIA. He did offer some clarification in I guesss what was a final post, but I felt there was room for him to elaborate on some of the details.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: I agree. Despite some of the sharp differences here, I think everyone pretty much plays by the rules. So if you are going to participate in a discussion, in which you have some insight, why not be a little more forthcoming about it. These are event which took place 25 years ago. No one is asking for confidences to be violated. Just provide a little something in the way of bonofides. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: I agree Steve, based on what Vaj has said I can't tell exactly when he was with Robin. Particularly, a time that Ann could corroborate. Ann has been quite clear describing the time frame of her involvement with Robin's seminars. Just as a matter of fairness to Ann and to everyone who has been trying to sort through Vaj's vague and often contradictory statements about his involvement with Robin, he could at the very least be as forthcoming as Ann. I'd like to give Vaj the benefit of the doubt, but just as he has been slippery saying anything specific that would lend credibility to his claim that he was TM teacher, I'm sorry to say, his vagueness about being with Robin, seems like more of the same old slip and slide from the details. Hey Steve, how come we haven't heard from Vaj? Just when he had an opportunity to come clean and mop up the details of his messy business with Robin, he went MIA. We haven't heard a peep out of him ever since Ann assured him that if a tape existed of Robin hitting someone between 1983-1986 she would have known about it. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302767 Raunchy, I don't think you're clear on this playing by the rules thang that Steve referred to above. If what you're hoping to achieve is to restart the tired olde Vaj is a liar routine that you and Judy can't let go of, the accepted way to do this on Fairfield Life is to write five posts directly to Vaj, each of them at least 1000 to 2000 words long. In these posts you should go through each of the points that you demand he address, while pointing out his lack of integrity if he doesn't address them. Adopting a firm but hysterical tone (see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=drama%20queen) in your writing may help. Just saying, essentially, Steve, help me out here. I can't get anyone to talk about the 'Vaj is a liar' meme the way I want them to. Won't you be a good little boy and pile on so that at the very least the two of us can talk about it? is a tad transparent and wussy, doncha think? Not to mention lazy. We want the Full Robin treatment on this one. If you have characters whom you feel you have to assassinate, *put some fuckin' effort into it*. Leave Steve out of it. Let's see your own 10,000 words on the subject. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip Hey Steve, how come we haven't heard from Vaj? Just when he had an opportunity to come clean and mop up the details of his messy business with Robin, he went MIA. We haven't heard a peep out of him ever since Ann assured him that if a tape existed of Robin hitting someone between 1983-1986 she would have known about it. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302767 Raunchy, I don't think you're clear on this playing by the rules thang that Steve referred to above. If what you're hoping to achieve is to restart the tired olde Vaj is a liar routine that you and Judy can't let go of And that Barry and Curtis are desperate to flush down the memory hole because it was never resolved, and they want to keep it that way. Robin and Ann have both made themselves accountable; Vaj has not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip Hey Steve, how come we haven't heard from Vaj? Just when he had an opportunity to come clean and mop up the details of his messy business with Robin, he went MIA. We haven't heard a peep out of him ever since Ann assured him that if a tape existed of Robin hitting someone between 1983-1986 she would have known about it. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302767 Raunchy, I don't think you're clear on this playing by the rules thang that Steve referred to above. If what you're hoping to achieve is to restart the tired olde Vaj is a liar routine that you and Judy can't let go of And that Barry and Curtis are desperate to flush down the memory hole because it was never resolved, and they want to keep it that way. Robin and Ann have both made themselves accountable; Vaj has not. What are you accusing me of? Being desperate to flush WHAT down a memory hole? What contrived BS. Robin copped to doing it, we don't need a tape. That routine is over with his admission. He didn't cop to calling Vaj a liar when he knew it was true. He did the parsing dance. Vaj has reasons not to play this out online with people he considers hostile and some he considers unstable. With people who don't attack him the way you do, he communicates offline, as he invited Robin to do. Robin chose not to knowing that to preserve his anonymity here, Vaj would be at a disadvantage to defend himself. He could have taken it all offline as Vaj suggested. With my last little run in with he who will not be named, I completely understand Vaj's reasons for not providing more details, all of which are now unnecessary since the big confession. Vaj could have seen it all in a dream, it doesn't matter now. He was vindicated by the source himself. Isn't it interesting that the two people who do communicate with Vaj offline are most confident that he is being honest about his participation in TM. I wonder why that is
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Raunchy, I don't think you're clear on this playing by the rules thang that Steve referred to above. If what you're hoping to achieve is to restart the tired olde Vaj is a liar routine that you and Judy can't let go of, the accepted way to do this on Fairfield Life is to write five posts directly to Vaj, each of them at least 1000 to 2000 words long. In these posts you should go through each of the points that you demand he address, while pointing out his lack of integrity if he doesn't address them. Adopting a firm but hysterical tone (see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=drama%20queen) in your writing may help. Just saying, essentially, Steve, help me out here. I can't get anyone to talk about the 'Vaj is a liar' meme the way I want them to. Won't you be a good little boy and pile on so that at the very least the two of us can talk about it? is a tad transparent and wussy, doncha think? Not to mention lazy. We want the Full Robin treatment on this one. If you have characters whom you feel you have to assassinate, *put some fuckin' effort into it*. Leave Steve out of it. Let's see your own 10,000 words on the subject. :-) If you require instruction in how to do this properly, Raunchy, you need look no further than Judy's most recent reply to Curtis. It took her 4,564 words (including Curtis' quotes, of course) to say No, I'm not a poopy pants, YOU are a poopy pants. Now THAT is following in the Great Robin's footsteps. I expect no less of you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: snip If you require instruction in how to do this properly, Raunchy, you need look no further than Judy's most recent reply to Curtis. It took her 4,564 words (including Curtis' quotes, of course) Actually Curtis and I split it roughly in half. There were somewhat more words of mine than of Curtis's, but it *takes* more words to unravel the kind of deception and sophistry Curtis uses than the deception and sophistry themselves take.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip If you require instruction in how to do this properly, Raunchy, you need look no further than Judy's most recent reply to Curtis. It took her 4,564 words (including Curtis' quotes, of course) Actually Curtis and I split it roughly in half. There were somewhat more words of mine than of Curtis's, but it *takes* more words to unravel the kind of deception and sophistry Curtis uses than the deception and sophistry themselves take. Up to your brainwashing again, eh?
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip If you require instruction in how to do this properly, Raunchy, you need look no further than Judy's most recent reply to Curtis. It took her 4,564 words (including Curtis' quotes, of course) Actually Curtis and I split it roughly in half. There were somewhat more words of mine than of Curtis's, but it *takes* more words to unravel the kind of deception and sophistry Curtis uses than the deception and sophistry themselves take. Up to your brainwashing again, eh? (I'm brainwashing Barry??) All anybody has to do to see your deception and sophistry is read the exchange.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
What is this continued focus on Judy and brainwashing? Brainwashing and cult mentality, maybe. Brainwashing by Judy? You are affording her an unbelievable amount of power, with this accusation. And, of course, you are assuming the rest of us to be dumb clucks, unable to think for themselves or stay *at all* objective. I will say, that having read all of the recent exchanges, if I put on my irony glasses, they are a real hoot. Sorry for laughingit really is pretty humorous. From Wikipedia: Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind abuse, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated.[1] The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making. InPropaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, Jacques Ellul sustains that the principal aims of these psychological methods is to destroy a man's habitual patterns, space, hours, milieu, and so on.[2] Theories of brainwashing and of mind control were originally developed to explain how totalitarian regimes appeared to succeed in systematically indoctrinating prisoners of war through propaganda and torture techniques. These theories were later expanded and modified to explain a wider range of phenomena, especially conversions to new religious movements(NRMs). From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip If you require instruction in how to do this properly, Raunchy, you need look no further than Judy's most recent reply to Curtis. It took her 4,564 words (including Curtis' quotes, of course) Actually Curtis and I split it roughly in half. There were somewhat more words of mine than of Curtis's, but it *takes* more words to unravel the kind of deception and sophistry Curtis uses than the deception and sophistry themselves take. Up to your brainwashing again, eh?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
Whoops...I mean think for ourselves. Please attribute this to the brainwashing...I'm in complete denial. From: Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:15 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? What is this continued focus on Judy and brainwashing? Brainwashing and cult mentality, maybe. Brainwashing by Judy? You are affording her an unbelievable amount of power, with this accusation. And, of course, you are assuming the rest of us to be dumb clucks, unable to think for themselves or stay *at all* objective. I will say, that having read all of the recent exchanges, if I put on my irony glasses, they are a real hoot. Sorry for laughingit really is pretty humorous. From Wikipedia: Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind abuse, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated.[1] The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making. InPropaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, Jacques Ellul sustains that the principal aims of these psychological methods is to destroy a man's habitual patterns, space, hours, milieu, and so on.[2] Theories of brainwashing and of mind control were originally developed to explain how totalitarian regimes appeared to succeed in systematically indoctrinating prisoners of war through propaganda and torture techniques. These theories were later expanded and modified to explain a wider range of phenomena, especially conversions to new religious movements(NRMs). From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip If you require instruction in how to do this properly, Raunchy, you need look no further than Judy's most recent reply to Curtis. It took her 4,564 words (including Curtis' quotes, of course) Actually Curtis and I split it roughly in half. There were somewhat more words of mine than of Curtis's, but it *takes* more words to unravel the kind of deception and sophistry Curtis uses than the deception and sophistry themselves take. Up to your brainwashing again, eh?
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: What is this continued focus on Judy and brainwashing? Brainwashing and cult mentality, maybe. Brainwashing by Judy? What leads you to believe that there is a difference? When it comes to the brainwashing mentality, who is the more dangerous -- those who work for some spiritual org or teacher and serve as constant apologists for them, because they have a vested financial or organizational interest in doing so, or those who do it for free, because they're True Believers? Seems to me that the latter -- especially if they have been apologizing for the antics of their cult or cult leader for decades and at the same time systematically cyberstalking those who criticize them -- are a tad more to be feared. But that could just be me. Your call.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: What is this continued focus on Judy and brainwashing? Brainwashing and cult mentality, maybe. Brainwashing by Judy? You are affording her an unbelievable amount of power, with this accusation. And, of course, you are assuming the rest of us to be dumb clucks, unable to think for themselves or stay *at all* objective. Emily, to be fair, brainwashing was the term *I* used to describe Curtis's theory that I influenced others to see Vaj as untrustworthy. Curtis objected to my use of the term, saying it was an absurdly false characterization of what he had said. And now he's using it to describe my characterization of his arguments as deceptive and sophistical to get back at me. But what he said originally *did* imply what you say--that the folks who agree with me about Vaj weren't thinking for themselves but following my lead because of my forceful personality. When one argues with Curtis, things tend to get very convoluted. In any case, the term brainwashing is commonly used as I did, to refer simply to persuasion rather than coercive mind control per se. Curtis appears to believe that all I have to do is accuse Vaj of untruthfulness, and all my followers are instantly persuaded to step smartly into line. I will say, that having read all of the recent exchanges, if I put on my irony glasses, they are a real hoot.  Sorry for laughingit really is pretty humorous.  From Wikipedia: Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind abuse, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated.[1] The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making. InPropaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, Jacques Ellul sustains that the principal aims of these psychological methods is to destroy a man's habitual patterns, space, hours, milieu, and so on.[2] Theories of brainwashing and of mind control were originally developed to explain how totalitarian regimes appeared to succeed in systematically indoctrinating prisoners of war through propaganda and torture techniques. These theories were later expanded and modified to explain a wider range of phenomena, especially conversions to new religious movements(NRMs). From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip If you require instruction in how to do this properly, Raunchy, you need look no further than Judy's most recent reply to Curtis. It took her 4,564 words (including Curtis' quotes, of course) Actually Curtis and I split it roughly in half. There were somewhat more words of mine than of Curtis's, but it *takes* more words to unravel the kind of deception and sophistry Curtis uses than the deception and sophistry themselves take. Up to your brainwashing again, eh? Â
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
I think it's just you. Are you saying Judy is a True Believer, as different from Buck, for example, who might fall into your definition in the first part of the post? I don't actually know how you define TB, or Judy's background, nor have I noticed her apologizing for the antics of their cult or cult leader for decades and at the same time systematically cyberstalking those who criticize them. I don't have the history or context of you, Judy, Curtis, Vaj and Robin to make such calls in the relatively short time I've been here. This is why I find much of it pretty humorous, objectively. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: What is this continued focus on Judy and brainwashing? Brainwashing and cult mentality, maybe. Brainwashing by Judy? What leads you to believe that there is a difference? When it comes to the brainwashing mentality, who is the more dangerous -- those who work for some spiritual org or teacher and serve as constant apologists for them, because they have a vested financial or organizational interest in doing so, or those who do it for free, because they're True Believers? Seems to me that the latter -- especially if they have been apologizing for the antics of their cult or cult leader for decades and at the same time systematically cyberstalking those who criticize them -- are a tad more to be feared. But that could just be me. Your call.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
Ha ha ha...see how funny it all is? From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: What is this continued focus on Judy and brainwashing? Brainwashing and cult mentality, maybe. Brainwashing by Judy? You are affording her an unbelievable amount of power, with this accusation. And, of course, you are assuming the rest of us to be dumb clucks, unable to think for themselves or stay *at all* objective. Emily, to be fair, brainwashing was the term *I* used to describe Curtis's theory that I influenced others to see Vaj as untrustworthy. Curtis objected to my use of the term, saying it was an absurdly false characterization of what he had said. And now he's using it to describe my characterization of his arguments as deceptive and sophistical to get back at me. But what he said originally *did* imply what you say--that the folks who agree with me about Vaj weren't thinking for themselves but following my lead because of my forceful personality. When one argues with Curtis, things tend to get very convoluted. In any case, the term brainwashing is commonly used as I did, to refer simply to persuasion rather than coercive mind control per se. Curtis appears to believe that all I have to do is accuse Vaj of untruthfulness, and all my followers are instantly persuaded to step smartly into line. I will say, that having read all of the recent exchanges, if I put on my irony glasses, they are a real hoot.  Sorry for laughingit really is pretty humorous.  From Wikipedia: Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind abuse, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated.[1] The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making. InPropaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, Jacques Ellul sustains that the principal aims of these psychological methods is to destroy a man's habitual patterns, space, hours, milieu, and so on.[2] Theories of brainwashing and of mind control were originally developed to explain how totalitarian regimes appeared to succeed in systematically indoctrinating prisoners of war through propaganda and torture techniques. These theories were later expanded and modified to explain a wider range of phenomena, especially conversions to new religious movements(NRMs). From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip If you require instruction in how to do this properly, Raunchy, you need look no further than Judy's most recent reply to Curtis. It took her 4,564 words (including Curtis' quotes, of course) Actually Curtis and I split it roughly in half. There were somewhat more words of mine than of Curtis's, but it *takes* more words to unravel the kind of deception and sophistry Curtis uses than the deception and sophistry themselves take. Up to your brainwashing again, eh? Â
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
Judy, O Supreme True Believer...who are your mindless followers on this forum? I need help with this. From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: What is this continued focus on Judy and brainwashing? Brainwashing and cult mentality, maybe. Brainwashing by Judy? You are affording her an unbelievable amount of power, with this accusation. And, of course, you are assuming the rest of us to be dumb clucks, unable to think for themselves or stay *at all* objective. Emily, to be fair, brainwashing was the term *I* used to describe Curtis's theory that I influenced others to see Vaj as untrustworthy. Curtis objected to my use of the term, saying it was an absurdly false characterization of what he had said. And now he's using it to describe my characterization of his arguments as deceptive and sophistical to get back at me. But what he said originally *did* imply what you say--that the folks who agree with me about Vaj weren't thinking for themselves but following my lead because of my forceful personality. When one argues with Curtis, things tend to get very convoluted. In any case, the term brainwashing is commonly used as I did, to refer simply to persuasion rather than coercive mind control per se. Curtis appears to believe that all I have to do is accuse Vaj of untruthfulness, and all my followers are instantly persuaded to step smartly into line. I will say, that having read all of the recent exchanges, if I put on my irony glasses, they are a real hoot.  Sorry for laughingit really is pretty humorous.  From Wikipedia: Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind abuse, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated.[1] The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making. InPropaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, Jacques Ellul sustains that the principal aims of these psychological methods is to destroy a man's habitual patterns, space, hours, milieu, and so on.[2] Theories of brainwashing and of mind control were originally developed to explain how totalitarian regimes appeared to succeed in systematically indoctrinating prisoners of war through propaganda and torture techniques. These theories were later expanded and modified to explain a wider range of phenomena, especially conversions to new religious movements(NRMs). From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip If you require instruction in how to do this properly, Raunchy, you need look no further than Judy's most recent reply to Curtis. It took her 4,564 words (including Curtis' quotes, of course) Actually Curtis and I split it roughly in half. There were somewhat more words of mine than of Curtis's, but it *takes* more words to unravel the kind of deception and sophistry Curtis uses than the deception and sophistry themselves take. Up to your brainwashing again, eh? Â
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: What is this continued focus on Judy and brainwashing? Brainwashing and cult mentality, maybe. Brainwashing by Judy? What leads you to believe that there is a difference? When it comes to the brainwashing mentality, who is the more dangerous -- those who work for some spiritual org or teacher and serve as constant apologists for them, because they have a vested financial or organizational interest in doing so, or those who do it for free, because they're True Believers? Seems to me that the latter -- especially if they have been apologizing for the antics of their cult or cult leader for decades and at the same time systematically cyberstalking those who criticize them -- are a tad more to be feared. Note that Barry uses the term apologist to mean one who apologizes. Actually it means one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something. Anyone who reads my posts knows I defend some things about TM/MMY/the TMO and criticize others. It's unclear what he means by systematically cyberstalking. He used to claim that I had followed him from forum to forum, which he knew was blatantly false. These days he's less specific, but he hopes others will infer his original claim. To the extent that one could conceivably expand the definition of cyberstalking to include what I do with regard to Barry, the term would also apply to what he's been doing with regard to me for some 16 years now. The biggest difference between us is the degree of truthfulness in our posts criticizing each other. Barry has often claimed that I go after him and Vaj and Curtis because they're TM critics. That's also knowingly false, as is obvious from the fact that I don't go after those who make sincere, honest criticisms (I have many myself). (Robin is the ultimate counterexample, of course, given his wholesale rejection of TM and MMY and his teaching.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
Judy, since you did enlighten me to the fact that I hadn't quite followed the conversation correctly, I think I may volunteer to be the first of your mind *less* followers. But, I reserve the right to abdicate at any time the mind *ful* part of my being and brain take over. In the meantime, I throw flower petals at your pinky toe. From: Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? Judy, O Supreme True Believer...who are your mindless followers on this forum? I need help with this. From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: What is this continued focus on Judy and brainwashing? Brainwashing and cult mentality, maybe. Brainwashing by Judy? You are affording her an unbelievable amount of power, with this accusation. And, of course, you are assuming the rest of us to be dumb clucks, unable to think for themselves or stay *at all* objective. Emily, to be fair, brainwashing was the term *I* used to describe Curtis's theory that I influenced others to see Vaj as untrustworthy. Curtis objected to my use of the term, saying it was an absurdly false characterization of what he had said. And now he's using it to describe my characterization of his arguments as deceptive and sophistical to get back at me. But what he said originally *did* imply what you say--that the folks who agree with me about Vaj weren't thinking for themselves but following my lead because of my forceful personality. When one argues with Curtis, things tend to get very convoluted. In any case, the term brainwashing is commonly used as I did, to refer simply to persuasion rather than coercive mind control per se. Curtis appears to believe that all I have to do is accuse Vaj of untruthfulness, and all my followers are instantly persuaded to step smartly into line. I will say, that having read all of the recent exchanges, if I put on my irony glasses, they are a real hoot.  Sorry for laughingit really is pretty humorous.  From Wikipedia: Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind abuse, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated.[1] The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making. InPropaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, Jacques Ellul sustains that the principal aims of these psychological methods is to destroy a man's habitual patterns, space, hours, milieu, and so on.[2] Theories of brainwashing and of mind control were originally developed to explain how totalitarian regimes appeared to succeed in systematically indoctrinating prisoners of war through propaganda and torture techniques. These theories were later expanded and modified to explain a wider range of phenomena, especially conversions to new religious movements(NRMs). From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip If you require instruction in how to do this properly, Raunchy, you need look no further than Judy's most recent reply to Curtis. It took her 4,564 words (including Curtis' quotes, of course) Actually Curtis and I split it roughly in half. There were somewhat more words of mine than of Curtis's, but it *takes* more words to unravel the kind of deception and sophistry Curtis uses than the deception and sophistry themselves take. Up to your brainwashing again, eh? Â
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Judy, O Supreme True Believer...who are your mindless followers on this forum? Â I need help with this. Well, you for one. Also Ravi, Robin, futur_musik, Raunchy, Nabby, Willytex, obbajeeba, merudanda. If you include those who don't find Vaj credible: Xeno, Feste (I think), do.rflex (he hasn't been here in a while), BillyG (wgm4u), Alex, emptybill, and several others I'm forgetting.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Judy, since you did enlighten me to the fact that I hadn't quite followed the conversation correctly, I think I may volunteer to be the first of your mind *less* followers. Oh, I thought you already were! Shoot. Well, better late than never, I suppose. How have you managed to resist for so long? But, I reserve the right to abdicate at any time the mind *ful* part of my being and brain take over. Â In the meantime, I throw flower petals at your pinky toe. Blessings upon you, my child. Your reward is in the works. But think *carefully* before you decide to reengage your being and brain. That may have some unpleasant consequences you'd prefer to avoid. It's so much easier just to, you know, go along.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
I second that! : ) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Judy, O Supreme True Believer...who are your mindless followers on this forum? Â I need help with this. Well, you for one. Also Ravi, Robin, futur_musik, Raunchy, Nabby, Willytex, obbajeeba, merudanda. If you include those who don't find Vaj credible: Xeno, Feste (I think), do.rflex (he hasn't been here in a while), BillyG (wgm4u), Alex, emptybill, and several others I'm forgetting.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip Hey Steve, how come we haven't heard from Vaj? Just when he had an opportunity to come clean and mop up the details of his messy business with Robin, he went MIA. We haven't heard a peep out of him ever since Ann assured him that if a tape existed of Robin hitting someone between 1983-1986 she would have known about it. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302767 Raunchy, I don't think you're clear on this playing by the rules thang that Steve referred to above. If what you're hoping to achieve is to restart the tired olde Vaj is a liar routine that you and Judy can't let go of And that Barry and Curtis are desperate to flush down the memory hole because it was never resolved, and they want to keep it that way. Robin and Ann have both made themselves accountable; Vaj has not. What are you accusing me of? Being desperate to flush WHAT down a memory hole? What contrived BS. You having trouble with reading comprehension, Curtis? Try reading what Barry said before reading my comment. Robin copped to doing it, we don't need a tape. That routine is over with his admission. He didn't cop to calling Vaj a liar when he knew it was true. He did the parsing dance. As Robin said, he didn't deny anything he knew to be true. He denied what he was being accused of. And the issue of whether Vaj lied about other aspects of this is still wide open. Vaj has reasons not to play this out online with people he considers hostile and some he considers unstable. Maybe he shouldn't have started playing it at all online, then, don't you think? What exactly do you think Vaj accomplished, Curtis? How does what he did benefit any of us? With people who don't attack him the way you do, he communicates offline, as he invited Robin to do. Robin didn't attack Vaj?? Ooopsie! Robin chose not to knowing that to preserve his anonymity here, Vaj would be at a disadvantage to defend himself. Seems you aren't above a little mind-reading yourself, eh? If I wanted to maintain my privacy, Vaj is the *last* person I'd want to have access to my email address. He could have taken it all offline as Vaj suggested. With my last little run in with he who will not be named, I completely understand Vaj's reasons for not providing more details, all of which are now unnecessary since the big confession. Vaj could have seen it all in a dream, it doesn't matter now. He was vindicated by the source himself. Only Vaj's very last version of his striking-students claim was vindicated, as I pointed out to you in my response to your attack on Robin. By that time he'd walked it back so it wasn't in such conflict with what Robin admitted to. In that post Vaj even labeled one of the early versions of his claim as a false rumor that had been propagated *by TM TBs*. Isn't it interesting that the two people who do communicate with Vaj offline are most confident that he is being honest about his participation in TM. I wonder why that is Easier to be brainwashed in friendly private communications, I'd say.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Judy, since you did enlighten me to the fact that I hadn't quite followed the conversation correctly, I think I may volunteer to be the first of your mind *less* followers. But, I reserve the right to abdicate at any time the mind *ful* part of my being and brain take over.  In the meantime, I throw flower petals at your pinky toe.  Crusher of illusion, buster of balls, behold the Supreme power of Sri Sri Judymataji: http://youtu.be/bHnEWmS1BNc From: Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?  Judy, O Supreme True Believer...who are your mindless followers on this forum?  I need help with this.   From: authfriend jstein@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: What is this continued focus on Judy and brainwashing?  Brainwashing and cult mentality, maybe. Brainwashing by Judy?  You are affording her an unbelievable amount of power, with this accusation. And, of course, you are assuming the rest of us to be dumb clucks, unable to think for themselves or stay *at all* objective. Emily, to be fair, brainwashing was the term *I* used to describe Curtis's theory that I influenced others to see Vaj as untrustworthy. Curtis objected to my use of the term, saying it was an absurdly false characterization of what he had said. And now he's using it to describe my characterization of his arguments as deceptive and sophistical to get back at me. But what he said originally *did* imply what you say--that the folks who agree with me about Vaj weren't thinking for themselves but following my lead because of my forceful personality. When one argues with Curtis, things tend to get very convoluted. In any case, the term brainwashing is commonly used as I did, to refer simply to persuasion rather than coercive mind control per se. Curtis appears to believe that all I have to do is accuse Vaj of untruthfulness, and all my followers are instantly persuaded to step smartly into line.  I will say, that having read all of the recent exchanges, if I put on my irony glasses, they are a real hoot. àSorry for laughingit really is pretty humorous. àFrom Wikipedia:àMind controlà(also known asàbrainwashing,àcoercive persuasion,àmind abuse,àthought control, oràthought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethicallyàmanipulativeàmethods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated.[1]àThe term has been applied to any tactic,àpsychologicalàor otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their ownàthinking, behavior, emotions or decision making. InPropaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes,àJacques Ellulàsustains that the principal aims of these psychological methods is to destroy a man's habitual patterns, space, hours, milieu, and so on.[2] Theories of brainwashing and of mind control were originally developed to explain howàtotalitarianàregimes appeared to succeed in systematically indoctrinatingàprisoners of waràthrough propagandaàandàtortureàtechniques. These theories were later expanded and modified to explain a wider range of phenomena, especially conversions toànew religious movements(NRMs). From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip If you require instruction in how to do this properly, Raunchy, you need look no further than Judy's most recent reply to Curtis. It took her 4,564 words (including Curtis' quotes, of course) Actually Curtis and I split it roughly in half. There were somewhat more words of mine than of Curtis's, but it *takes* more words to unravel the kind of deception and sophistry Curtis uses than the deception and sophistry themselves take. Up to your brainwashing again, eh? ÃÂ
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Judy, since you did enlighten me to the fact that I hadn't quite followed the conversation correctly, I think I may volunteer to be the first of your mind *less* followers. But, I reserve the right to abdicate at any time the mind *ful* part of my being and brain take over. Â In the meantime, I throw flower petals at your pinky toe. Â Crusher of illusion, buster of balls, behold the Supreme power of Sri Sri Judymataji: http://youtu.be/bHnEWmS1BNc ROARRR (Takes me forever to get that red crap off my tongue every night. But if that's what it takes to maintain my awesome power over you all...it's worth it.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
[Tangential to the thread (below): Great chant, big vibes. Love the exuberance of Hinduism. Thanks for the vid.] *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Judy, since you did enlighten me to the fact that I hadn't quite followed the conversation correctly, I think I may volunteer to be the first of your mind *less* followers. But, I reserve the right to abdicate at any time the mind *ful* part of my being and brain take over.  In the meantime, I throw flower petals at your pinky toe.  Crusher of illusion, buster of balls, behold the Supreme power of Sri Sri Judymataji: http://youtu.be/bHnEWmS1BNc From: Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?  Judy, O Supreme True Believer...who are your mindless followers on this forum?  I need help with this.   From: authfriend jstein@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: What is this continued focus on Judy and brainwashing?  Brainwashing and cult mentality, maybe. Brainwashing by Judy?  You are affording her an unbelievable amount of power, with this accusation. And, of course, you are assuming the rest of us to be dumb clucks, unable to think for themselves or stay *at all* objective. Emily, to be fair, brainwashing was the term *I* used to describe Curtis's theory that I influenced others to see Vaj as untrustworthy. Curtis objected to my use of the term, saying it was an absurdly false characterization of what he had said. And now he's using it to describe my characterization of his arguments as deceptive and sophistical to get back at me. But what he said originally *did* imply what you say--that the folks who agree with me about Vaj weren't thinking for themselves but following my lead because of my forceful personality. When one argues with Curtis, things tend to get very convoluted. In any case, the term brainwashing is commonly used as I did, to refer simply to persuasion rather than coercive mind control per se. Curtis appears to believe that all I have to do is accuse Vaj of untruthfulness, and all my followers are instantly persuaded to step smartly into line.  I will say, that having read all of the recent exchanges, if I put on my irony glasses, they are a real hoot. àSorry for laughingit really is pretty humorous. àFrom Wikipedia:àMind controlà(also known asàbrainwashing,àcoercive persuasion,àmind abuse,àthought control, oràthought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethicallyàmanipulativeàmethods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated.[1]àThe term has been applied to any tactic,àpsychologicalàor otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their ownàthinking, behavior, emotions or decision making. InPropaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes,àJacques Ellulàsustains that the principal aims of these psychological methods is to destroy a man's habitual patterns, space, hours, milieu, and so on.[2] Theories of brainwashing and of mind control were originally developed to explain howàtotalitarianàregimes appeared to succeed in systematically indoctrinatingàprisoners of waràthrough propagandaàandàtortureàtechniques. These theories were later expanded and modified to explain a wider range of phenomena, especially conversions toànew religious movements(NRMs). From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip If you require instruction in how to do this properly, Raunchy, you need look no further than Judy's most recent reply to Curtis. It took her 4,564 words (including Curtis' quotes, of course) Actually Curtis and I split it roughly in half. There were somewhat more words of mine than of Curtis's, but it *takes* more words to unravel the kind of deception and sophistry Curtis uses than
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Judy, since you did enlighten me to the fact that I hadn't quite followed the conversation correctly, I think I may volunteer to be the first of your mind *less* followers. But, I reserve the right to abdicate at any time the mind *ful* part of my being and brain take over. Â In the meantime, I throw flower petals at your pinky toe. Â Crusher of illusion, buster of balls, behold the Supreme power of Sri Sri Judymataji: http://youtu.be/bHnEWmS1BNc ROARRR (Takes me forever to get that red crap off my tongue every night. But if that's what it takes to maintain my awesome power over you all...it's worth it.) Lay off the betel leaf. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1332436/the_tradition_of_chewing_paan/
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: I agree. Despite some of the sharp differences here, I think everyone pretty much plays by the rules. So if you are going to participate in a discussion, in which you have some insight, why not be a little more forthcoming about it. These are event which took place 25 years ago. No one is asking for confidences to be violated. Just provide a little something in the way of bonofides. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: I agree Steve, based on what Vaj has said I can't tell exactly when he was with Robin. Particularly, a time that Ann could corroborate. Ann has been quite clear describing the time frame of her involvement with Robin's seminars. Just as a matter of fairness to Ann and to everyone who has been trying to sort through Vaj's vague and often contradictory statements about his involvement with Robin, he could at the very least be as forthcoming as Ann. I'd like to give Vaj the benefit of the doubt, but just as he has been slippery saying anything specific that would lend credibility to his claim that he was TM teacher, I'm sorry to say, his vagueness about being with Robin, seems like more of the same old slip and slide from the details. Hey Steve, how come we haven't heard from Vaj? Just when he had an opportunity to come clean and mop up the details of his messy business with Robin, he went MIA. We haven't heard a peep out of him ever since Ann assured him that if a tape existed of Robin hitting someone between 1983-1986 she would have known about it. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302767
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Thanks for the clarification, Ann. When others inevitably start discussing this in the context you've provided, it will be interesting to see what role the various players on FFLife decide to assume either in defense of Vaj or Robin. Pass the popcorn. I happen to believe that Vaj did attend seminars. But I think it would be very helpful to know the time frame in which he did attend the seminars and the locations. If I have followed the discussion correctly, what he has divulged is that he was there towards the end. Ann has been so specific about most every detail of her involvement. I don't see any reason why not to be precise on the when and where, and other details which might be pertinent. I'd ask Vaj to provide these details.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Thanks for the clarification, Ann. When others inevitably start discussing this in the context you've provided, it will be interesting to see what role the various players on FFLife decide to assume either in defense of Vaj or Robin. Pass the popcorn. I happen to believe that Vaj did attend seminars. But I think it would be very helpful to know the time frame in which he did attend the seminars and the locations. If I have followed the discussion correctly, what he has divulged is that he was there towards the end. Ann has been so specific about most every detail of her involvement. I don't see any reason why not to be precise on the when and where, and other details which might be pertinent. I'd ask Vaj to provide these details. The question Why? springs to my lips. It seems to me that your premise for thinking this is tied to attempts to further (and constantly bring to the forefront of FFL discussion) the Vaj Is A Liar meme that was started by one person here and that now has a following of other posters, who actively try to bring it up again whenever discussion of the tired old meme dies down. Robin, it would appear, is toast. My take on the fallout since is that it has mainly consisted of attempts to turn all discussion away from him and his possible failings, and turn it instead to Vaj, as part of their ongoing campaign to shoot the messenger. They're PISSED OFF that another of their clique seems to have self-destructed. So they take their anger out on Vaj. My further take, and this one on the group as a whole, is that there is a sometimes...uh, sorry, but there is no other way to say it...lazy tendency on the part of many posters to want to rerun old, tired arguments...as entertainment. FFL has *gotten used* to these battles, imaginary and often personal grudge-based as they are, and they feel something is missing if someone is not arguing about them all the time. So they pile on when the same old same old arguments die down, and attempt to restart them again. I understand that you're honestly curious, Steve, but to be equally honest I think there is an aspect of Let's start the Vaj Is A Liar arguments again, because cutting loose from them feels like going cold turkey on my favorite soap opera to it all. Apologies in advance if I'm wrong. Bottom line from my POV is that if the post is actively calling for Vaj to defend himself, there is active participation on the part of that poster in whatever the latest attack on Vaj is that he should defend himself from. It's very little different than Robin writing tens of thousands of words demanding that Curtis defend himself against Robin's hallucinated attacks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Thanks for the clarification, Ann. When others inevitably start discussing this in the context you've provided, it will be interesting to see what role the various players on FFLife decide to assume either in defense of Vaj or Robin. Pass the popcorn. I happen to believe that Vaj did attend seminars. But I think it would be very helpful to know the time frame in which he did attend the seminars and the locations. If I have followed the discussion correctly, what he has divulged is that he was there towards the end. Ann has been so specific about most every detail of her involvement. I don't see any reason why not to be precise on the when and where, and other details which might be pertinent. I'd ask Vaj to provide these details. The question Why? springs to my lips. It seems to me that your premise for thinking this is tied to attempts to further (and constantly bring to the forefront of FFL discussion) the Vaj Is A Liar meme that was started by one person here and that now has a following of other posters, If you'll recall, Barry, the meme was pretty active on alt.meditation.transcendental as well, and it wasn't started by me. Nor were those here who feel the same as I do about Vaj parroting me. who actively try to bring it up again whenever discussion of the tired old meme dies down. Or whenever Vaj tells another lie or makes another misleading statement or posts yet another new and different version of a story he's told previously. What you're leaving out here is that it's been Vaj himself who has been responsible for establishing his lack of credibility among many of us. It didn't arise in a vacuum. In that context, it's incumbent on him to convince us of his truthfulness when he says something we find questionable. He doesn't get much benefit of the doubt. Robin, it would appear, is toast. It would appear to your hopeful imagination, you mean. My take on the fallout since is that it has mainly consisted of attempts to turn all discussion away from him and his possible failings, and turn it instead to Vaj, as part of their ongoing campaign to shoot the messenger. Translation: Barry hasn't read most of the postings, so he hasn't seen the extensive discussion of Robin's possible failings, because those who think they may not be quite as serious as the anti-Robin faction has tried to portray them are on Barry's Do Not Read list. And that's just on the failings' own terms, not with reference to Vaj. Nor is Barry willing to give Robin the tiniest bit of benefit of the doubt, even though, unlike Vaj, Robin's credibility had never been in question up to this point. Plus which, astoundingly, Barry is happy to shoot the messenger who, also unlike Vaj, has *confessed* to misleading us (also in a post Barry hasn't read, although he's eagerly read all the denunciations by the anti-Robinites). It takes moral courage to confess to one's sins, especially to an audience with a contingent of those extremely hostile to oneself, and another contingent of those whose trust one has breached. Robin has more moral courage in the tip of his earlobe than Barry or Vaj or Curtis have in their whole bodies. They're PISSED OFF that another of their clique seems to have self-destructed. So they take their anger out on Vaj. Another of their clique? In addition to whom, pray? My further take, and this one on the group as a whole, is that there is a sometimes...uh, sorry, but there is no other way to say it...lazy tendency on the part of many posters to want to rerun old, tired arguments...as entertainment. FFL has *gotten used* to these battles, imaginary and often personal grudge-based as they are, and they feel something is missing if someone is not arguing about them all the time. So they pile on when the same old same old arguments die down, and attempt to restart them again. Translation: Those whose approach to discussion here is to make questionable statements as though they were established fact should be immune to challenge, as far as Barry is concerned. I understand that you're honestly curious, Steve, but to be equally honest I think there is an aspect of Let's start the Vaj Is A Liar arguments again, because cutting loose from them feels like going cold turkey on my favorite soap opera to it all. Apologies in advance if I'm wrong. You're wrong, obviously, because this particular issue hasn't been settled, due to Vaj's unwillingness to back up his story. Bottom line from my POV is that if the post is actively calling for Vaj to defend himself, there is active participation on the part of that poster in whatever the latest attack on Vaj is that he should defend himself from. It's very
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Thanks for the clarification, Ann. When others inevitably start discussing this in the context you've provided, it will be interesting to see what role the various players on FFLife decide to assume either in defense of Vaj or Robin. Pass the popcorn. I happen to believe that Vaj did attend seminars. But I think it would be very helpful to know the time frame in which he did attend the seminars and the locations. If I have followed the discussion correctly, what he has divulged is that he was there towards the end. Ann has been so specific about most every detail of her involvement. I don't see any reason why not to be precise on the when and where, and other details which might be pertinent. I'd ask Vaj to provide these details. The question Why? springs to my lips. It seems to me that your premise for thinking this is tied to attempts to further (and constantly bring to the forefront of FFL discussion) the Vaj Is A Liar meme that was started by one person here and that now has a following of other posters, who actively try to bring it up again whenever discussion of the tired old meme dies down. I would have to disagree. My question is why not. Specifically, I thought of you when framing this questions to Vaj. If you were in a discussion with someone, or a group about Rama, would it not be a normal part of the discussion for you share even the most general details of when you were involved? Would that be implying that you were a liar to ask for some clarification about that.. Vaj seems as though he wishes to be circumspect in regards to people's privacy, but jeez, what's wrong with asking the time frame in which he was active. If towards the waning years is good enough for you, great. But if you are going to be participate in a discussion about it, then be willing to provide some details that provide credibility. Robin, it would appear, is toast. My take on the fallout since is that it has mainly consisted of attempts to turn all discussion away from him and his possible failings, and turn it instead to Vaj, as part of their ongoing campaign to shoot the messenger. They're PISSED OFF that another of their clique seems to have self-destructed. So they take their anger out on Vaj. I detect residual affection on Ann's part, if not so much towards Robin, at least to the experience with Robin and WTS. And I think that is situation most of us find us in with regards to the spiritual trips we participated in. Vaj says he was there for part of Robin's deal. I believe him. So, once again, you feel it is an intrusive question to ask when he participated? Or that by doing so, I am implying that he is lying? I feel differently. My further take, and this one on the group as a whole, is that there is a sometimes...uh, sorry, but there is no other way to say it...lazy tendency on the part of many posters to want to rerun old, tired arguments...as entertainment. FFL has *gotten used* to these battles, imaginary and often personal grudge-based as they are, and they feel something is missing if someone is not arguing about them all the time. So they pile on when the same old same old arguments die down, and attempt to restart them again. Jesus Barry, isn't that what you just did a day or so ago impugning Judy, and taking it upon yourself to inventory what you felt were her faults. I understand that you're honestly curious, Steve, but to be equally honest I think there is an aspect of Let's start the Vaj Is A Liar arguments again, because cutting loose from them feels like going cold turkey on my favorite soap opera to it all. Apologies in advance if I'm wrong. Barry, I have been accused of being a slow processor. This post of Raunchy's incubated with me for a few days, and then I felt like responding. Bottom line from my POV is that if the post is actively calling for Vaj to defend himself, there is active participation on the part of that poster in whatever the latest attack on Vaj is that he should defend himself from. It's very little different than Robin writing tens of thousands of words demanding that Curtis defend himself against Robin's hallucinated attacks. Okay, if Vaj doesn't care to answer the question, or feels it is offensive in some manner, then I guess he will take a pass. I'll say that it was 80% curious on my part, and 20% challenge. How's that? BTW, I likely won't be able to reply to any threads on this till evening. But thanks for your feedback.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
Hey Stever, I am liking you more and more with every post. Those sharpshooters are starting to look dangerous in that holster of yours. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Thanks for the clarification, Ann. When others inevitably start discussing this in the context you've provided, it will be interesting to see what role the various players on FFLife decide to assume either in defense of Vaj or Robin. Pass the popcorn. I happen to believe that Vaj did attend seminars. But I think it would be very helpful to know the time frame in which he did attend the seminars and the locations. If I have followed the discussion correctly, what he has divulged is that he was there towards the end. Ann has been so specific about most every detail of her involvement. I don't see any reason why not to be precise on the when and where, and other details which might be pertinent. I'd ask Vaj to provide these details. The question Why? springs to my lips. It seems to me that your premise for thinking this is tied to attempts to further (and constantly bring to the forefront of FFL discussion) the Vaj Is A Liar meme that was started by one person here and that now has a following of other posters, who actively try to bring it up again whenever discussion of the tired old meme dies down. I would have to disagree. My question is why not. Specifically, I thought of you when framing this questions to Vaj. If you were in a discussion with someone, or a group about Rama, would it not be a normal part of the discussion for you share even the most general details of when you were involved? Would that be implying that you were a liar to ask for some clarification about that.. Vaj seems as though he wishes to be circumspect in regards to people's privacy, but jeez, what's wrong with asking the time frame in which he was active. If towards the waning years is good enough for you, great. But if you are going to be participate in a discussion about it, then be willing to provide some details that provide credibility. Robin, it would appear, is toast. My take on the fallout since is that it has mainly consisted of attempts to turn all discussion away from him and his possible failings, and turn it instead to Vaj, as part of their ongoing campaign to shoot the messenger. They're PISSED OFF that another of their clique seems to have self-destructed. So they take their anger out on Vaj. I detect residual affection on Ann's part, if not so much towards Robin, at least to the experience with Robin and WTS. And I think that is situation most of us find us in with regards to the spiritual trips we participated in. Vaj says he was there for part of Robin's deal. I believe him. So, once again, you feel it is an intrusive question to ask when he participated? Or that by doing so, I am implying that he is lying? I feel differently. My further take, and this one on the group as a whole, is that there is a sometimes...uh, sorry, but there is no other way to say it...lazy tendency on the part of many posters to want to rerun old, tired arguments...as entertainment. FFL has *gotten used* to these battles, imaginary and often personal grudge-based as they are, and they feel something is missing if someone is not arguing about them all the time. So they pile on when the same old same old arguments die down, and attempt to restart them again. Jesus Barry, isn't that what you just did a day or so ago impugning Judy, and taking it upon yourself to inventory what you felt were her faults. I understand that you're honestly curious, Steve, but to be equally honest I think there is an aspect of Let's start the Vaj Is A Liar arguments again, because cutting loose from them feels like going cold turkey on my favorite soap opera to it all. Apologies in advance if I'm wrong. Barry, I have been accused of being a slow processor. This post of Raunchy's incubated with me for a few days, and then I felt like responding. Bottom line from my POV is that if the post is actively calling for Vaj to defend himself, there is active participation on the part of that poster in whatever the latest attack on Vaj is that he should defend himself from. It's very little different than Robin writing tens of thousands of words demanding that Curtis defend himself against Robin's hallucinated attacks. Okay, if Vaj doesn't care to answer the question, or feels it is offensive in some manner, then I guess he will take a pass. I'll say that it was 80% curious on my part, and 20% challenge. How's that? BTW, I likely won't be able to reply to any threads
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: I'd ask Vaj to provide these details. The question Why? springs to my lips. It seems to me that your premise for thinking this is tied to attempts to further (and constantly bring to the forefront of FFL discussion) the Vaj Is A Liar meme that was started by one person here and that now has a following of other posters, who actively try to bring it up again whenever discussion of the tired old meme dies down. I would have to disagree. Your right. My question is why not. Specifically, I thought of you when framing this questions to Vaj. If you were in a discussion with someone, or a group about Rama, would it not be a normal part of the discussion for you share even the most general details of when you were involved? Would that be implying that you were a liar to ask for some clarification about that.. It would never come up, but I guess if it did I would judge my response based on what I perceived to be the *intent* of the question-asker. If it seemed mere curiosity, I might answer. If it seemed more of a data-gathering prelude to a shoot the messenger hit, I probably wouldn't. Most people can tell the difference, especially if they've been around the Internet block a few times. Vaj seems as though he wishes to be circumspect in regards to people's privacy, but jeez, what's wrong with asking the time frame in which he was active. See above, the part about *intent*. These questions are no longer being asked innocently, out of curiosity. They have been tied to a much larger agenda, namely, Vaj Is A Liar. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, Steve. If towards the waning years is good enough for you, great. It's more than enough for me, because I don't much give a shit. Robin is among the least interesting humans I've run across on this planet, not among the most. I don't need details on his life, or on the dates of Vaj's glances of that life. My internal Give-A-Fuck Meter doesn't even budge on that stuff. :-) But if you are going to be participate in a discussion about it, then be willing to provide some details that provide credibility. I see. So it's Play by our rules or we'll take our ball and go home and call you nasty names. Where have I heard this before? :-) Robin, it would appear, is toast. My take on the fallout since is that it has mainly consisted of attempts to turn all discussion away from him and his possible failings, and turn it instead to Vaj, as part of their ongoing campaign to shoot the messenger. They're PISSED OFF that another of their clique seems to have self-destructed. So they take their anger out on Vaj. I detect residual affection on Ann's part, if not so much towards Robin, at least to the experience with Robin and WTS. So do I. No problemo. And I think that is situation most of us find us in with regards to the spiritual trips we participated in. Vaj says he was there for part of Robin's deal. I believe him. So, once again, you feel it is an intrusive question to ask when he participated? I feel that you're being played. YMMV.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: snip I detect residual affection on Ann's part, if not so much towards Robin, at least to the experience with Robin and WTS. So do I. No problemo. snipped from Barry's response: My further take, and this one on the group as a whole, is that there is a sometimes...uh, sorry, but there is no other way to say it...lazy tendency on the part of many posters to want to rerun old, tired arguments...as entertainment. FFL has *gotten used* to these battles, imaginary and often personal grudge-based as they are, and they feel something is missing if someone is not arguing about them all the time. So they pile on when the same old same old arguments die down, and attempt to restart them again. Jesus Barry, isn't that what you just did a day or so ago impugning Judy, and taking it upon yourself to inventory what you felt were her faults. Barry: crickets An excellent example of what I just wrote about lack of moral courage.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Thanks for the clarification, Ann. When others inevitably start discussing this in the context you've provided, it will be interesting to see what role the various players on FFLife decide to assume either in defense of Vaj or Robin. Pass the popcorn. I happen to believe that Vaj did attend seminars. But I think it would be very helpful to know the time frame in which he did attend the seminars and the locations. If I have followed the discussion correctly, what he has divulged is that he was there towards the end. Ann has been so specific about most every detail of her involvement. I don't see any reason why not to be precise on the when and where, and other details which might be pertinent. I'd ask Vaj to provide these details. I agree Steve, based on what Vaj has said I can't tell exactly when he was with Robin. Particularly, a time that Ann could corroborate. Ann has been quite clear describing the time frame of her involvement with Robin's seminars. Just as a matter of fairness to Ann and to everyone who has been trying to sort through Vaj's vague and often contradictory statements about his involvement with Robin, he could at the very least be as forthcoming as Ann. I'd like to give Vaj the benefit of the doubt, but just as he has been slippery saying anything specific that would lend credibility to his claim that he was TM teacher, I'm sorry to say, his vagueness about being with Robin, seems like more of the same old slip and slide from the details.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
Barry, I guess what I am saying is that if someone asked me about my time in the TMO, I would answer them. It wouldn't make much difference to me if they were asking out of curiosity, or if they were challenging me. Why wouldn't I answer? There may be things, that looking back, I might have done differently, but I own my experience during that time. I keep an anonymous handle here because I still have friend in the TMO both lay and administrative, and want to retain some degree of anonymity, although many here know my real identity, and I am not opposed to divulging it privately to those I feel will maintain my confidentiality. But I am trying to figure out what advantage there is in remaining vague about these details? With regards to Vaj, the only explanation I can come up with is that he seems to have a prerogative to keep any teaching with which he was associated, confidential. Or at least the Buddhist aligned teachings. But other than this reason, I cannot fathom why he would not be more forthcoming about it. And it does give the appearance of sort of sniping behind the hedges. YMMV. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: I'd ask Vaj to provide these details. The question Why? springs to my lips. It seems to me that your premise for thinking this is tied to attempts to further (and constantly bring to the forefront of FFL discussion) the Vaj Is A Liar meme that was started by one person here and that now has a following of other posters, who actively try to bring it up again whenever discussion of the tired old meme dies down. I would have to disagree. Your right. My question is why not. Specifically, I thought of you when framing this questions to Vaj. If you were in a discussion with someone, or a group about Rama, would it not be a normal part of the discussion for you share even the most general details of when you were involved? Would that be implying that you were a liar to ask for some clarification about that.. It would never come up, but I guess if it did I would judge my response based on what I perceived to be the *intent* of the question-asker. If it seemed mere curiosity, I might answer. If it seemed more of a data-gathering prelude to a shoot the messenger hit, I probably wouldn't. Most people can tell the difference, especially if they've been around the Internet block a few times. Vaj seems as though he wishes to be circumspect in regards to people's privacy, but jeez, what's wrong with asking the time frame in which he was active. See above, the part about *intent*. These questions are no longer being asked innocently, out of curiosity. They have been tied to a much larger agenda, namely, Vaj Is A Liar. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, Steve. If towards the waning years is good enough for you, great. It's more than enough for me, because I don't much give a shit. Robin is among the least interesting humans I've run across on this planet, not among the most. I don't need details on his life, or on the dates of Vaj's glances of that life. My internal Give-A-Fuck Meter doesn't even budge on that stuff. :-) But if you are going to be participate in a discussion about it, then be willing to provide some details that provide credibility. I see. So it's Play by our rules or we'll take our ball and go home and call you nasty names. Where have I heard this before? :-) Robin, it would appear, is toast. My take on the fallout since is that it has mainly consisted of attempts to turn all discussion away from him and his possible failings, and turn it instead to Vaj, as part of their ongoing campaign to shoot the messenger. They're PISSED OFF that another of their clique seems to have self-destructed. So they take their anger out on Vaj. I detect residual affection on Ann's part, if not so much towards Robin, at least to the experience with Robin and WTS. So do I. No problemo. And I think that is situation most of us find us in with regards to the spiritual trips we participated in. Vaj says he was there for part of Robin's deal. I believe him. So, once again, you feel it is an intrusive question to ask when he participated? I feel that you're being played. YMMV.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Barry, I guess what I am saying is that if someone asked me about my time in the TMO, I would answer them. It wouldn't make much difference to me if they were asking out of curiosity, or if they were challenging me. Why wouldn't I answer? There may be things, that looking back, I might have done differently, but I own my experience during that time. I keep an anonymous handle here because I still have friend in the TMO both lay and administrative, and want to retain some degree of anonymity, although many here know my real identity, and I am not opposed to divulging it privately to those I feel will maintain my confidentiality. But I am trying to figure out what advantage there is in remaining vague about these details? I am not the person to ask about this, since I have been clear about my real name since Day One on FFL, when (I think) Rick asked me about who I was. I am so far away from anything TM or TMO that nothing I could say about it could affect my life in any way. Even prospective employers are not likely to hold a cult against me that I was last a member of 34 years ago. :-) For others, I can see that anonymity has advantages. I have gotten, for example, the impression that one of our number is a card-carrying domegoer. I would expect that there is some pressure for her to retain her anonymity, for fear that card goes poof! Others may feel for other reasons that they don't want their whole TMO career on view on the Internet forever, and I don't blame them for their concerns. As Curtis has pointed out, there are often real-world consequences to being stalked on the Internet. But I never went that route, so my life is pretty much an open book. I honestly suspect that what a few folks on this forum object to is that my book sounds more interesting than theirs. :-) With regards to Vaj, the only explanation I can come up with is that he seems to have a prerogative to keep any teaching with which he was associated, confidential. I don't know. If this matters to you, I would suggest that you ask Vaj, in those terms. I have no such qualms. I hold no initiation or teaching I have ever received to be holy enough or special enough to keep confidential. Or at least the Buddhist aligned teachings. But other than this reason, I cannot fathom why he would not be more forthcoming about it. I can imagine one. The longer he is cagy about it, the longer and more obviously a few people on this forum obsess over it, and thus display their obsessive nature. :-) And it does give the appearance of sort of sniping behind the hedges. YMMV. I don't actually have that much of an opinion on the matter. I enjoy many of Vaj's posts, and don't enjoy others. I feel that when it comes to descriptions of practices I have studied as well that he is often Right On, in ways that convince me he's been there, done that. I do NOT have this feeling when armchair TMers discuss them, having only read about these practices or heard about them. Vaj does seem IMO to place a lot of faith in tradition, and in the benefits of following one. I am less attached to that. I'm just chiming in (on the heels of Curtis) to point out that I think all of this recent Get Vaj stuff is a reaction to a certain clique losing one of its own to egobubris burnout, otherwise known as NPD (Narcissistic Poopoo Dump). :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: I'd ask Vaj to provide these details. The question Why? springs to my lips. It seems to me that your premise for thinking this is tied to attempts to further (and constantly bring to the forefront of FFL discussion) the Vaj Is A Liar meme that was started by one person here and that now has a following of other posters, who actively try to bring it up again whenever discussion of the tired old meme dies down. I would have to disagree. Your right. My question is why not. Specifically, I thought of you when framing this questions to Vaj. If you were in a discussion with someone, or a group about Rama, would it not be a normal part of the discussion for you share even the most general details of when you were involved? Would that be implying that you were a liar to ask for some clarification about that.. It would never come up, but I guess if it did I would judge my response based on what I perceived to be the *intent* of the question-asker. If it seemed mere curiosity, I might answer. If it seemed more of a data-gathering prelude to a shoot the messenger hit, I probably wouldn't. Most people can tell the
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
I agree. Despite some of the sharp differences here, I think everyone pretty much plays by the rules. So if you are going to participate in a discussion, in which you have some insight, why not be a little more forthcoming about it. These are event which took place 25 years ago. No one is asking for confidences to be violated. Just provide a little something in the way of bonofides. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: I agree Steve, based on what Vaj has said I can't tell exactly when he was with Robin. Particularly, a time that Ann could corroborate. Ann has been quite clear describing the time frame of her involvement with Robin's seminars. Just as a matter of fairness to Ann and to everyone who has been trying to sort through Vaj's vague and often contradictory statements about his involvement with Robin, he could at the very least be as forthcoming as Ann. I'd like to give Vaj the benefit of the doubt, but just as he has been slippery saying anything specific that would lend credibility to his claim that he was TM teacher, I'm sorry to say, his vagueness about being with Robin, seems like more of the same old slip and slide from the details.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
Thanks for the clarification Vaj. The Sunnyside experience rather than the place is what I am referring to here. The early days, the days before the Americans got involved and the house was renovated. This was a whole new time, a whole new process. It is like the difference between a group playing in a garage band and later performing at the Royal Albert Hall. Actually, that is probably a bad comparison but you get the idea. So, you having visited Sunnyside 8 years later is irrelevant to any inside, first hand knowledge of what went on at those dinners. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Jan 24, 2012, at 11:20 PM, awoelflebater wrote: I know I have come into this whole argument late, like months late, and I may be missing some essential pieces but bear with me. Robin's open letter admits that he, in the most literal terms, hit people during the Sunnyside days. Not to put too fine a point on it there were no seminars in those days. This was a close-knit group of friends who loved and appreciated Robin before his Arosa experience and who were in on his early days after returning from Switzerland. This was intimate stuff. A tiny house in Vic West, 10-12 people often coming together for dinners and social gatherings. It was intensely private and very unorganized and spontaneous. There were no lights, no cameras no ideas for expanding anything beyond those confined walls of the Sunnyside house, all 900 sq. feet of it. All of this was between friends. They knew and trusted Robin and they were willing participants in this new adventure with this newly enlightened man who was part of a tradition they were also involved in - TM. It was a heady experience and it was unknown. As far as they were concerned they were spending an evening eating, talking and open to whatever the divine drama might reveal. They were there on their own volition. So, if we are getting technical here, and we seem to be, Robin (as I outlined in my post a few days ago) was not a physically violent man within the context of his organization, the World Teacher Seminar. Hitting etc. was not a technique he employed to confront at the time Vaj claimed to be involved. Vaj, as a reasonable person, would not be able to comment on times and events he was not there for just as I would not be able to. Sunnyside pre-dated both of us. For Vaj to be accurate he can only reveal what he witnessed, either on video or live. Robin has confessed to using physical force pre seminar days. He claims in the title of his open letter that he had lied about hitting because even though he had hit but not within the time frame of Vaj's assertions. Does this make a difference in the grand scheme of things? Do we now brand Vaj a liar because according to my evidence it did not occur when he said it did? Do we brand Robin a liar because hitting really had occurred but under different contexts and conditions that Vaj was privy too? I don't bloody well know. What I do know is there are probably apologies due on both sides. Will this ever happen? Who knows? Does it matter? Probably. Can we all get on with our lives if we just drop it? Definitely. Good night. The incident I was referring to was at the end of the World Teacher Seminar, at least from my POV. I saw it on tape, but was shown it for one reason: Robin, in what seemed to be a dead-end confrontation, ends up pounding his fists, as if in frustration and exasperation, on a student, on stage. As far as I was aware: this was the tape that ended it all. Shortly after that, again, from my POV, the WTS ceased to be. The people I knew, withdrew. Robin has suggested that no such tape ever existed. This is untrue. There seemed to be some concern that I might either produce this tape and digitize it, in an attempt to cause harm to Robin in some manner or to simply prove that it, in fact, did exist. I have no interest in any such thing. If anything, I'd review the tape to refresh my own memory, and if there was a discrepancy, mention it should the subject ever come up again. I do believe this tape is the source of the rumor that R. beat his students. But I want to emphasize again, it's not fair to suggest that Robin beat or deliberately harmed his students, although once the word 'hit the street' many rumors did spread and Robin's actions were made to appear as if he had abused someone. Without an understanding of the context of the 'enlightenment theatre' Robin started, it would not be possible that an outsider could fully understand what was even going on, let alone R's overwhelming sense of frustration. And as to whether or not some confrontation tapes will ever see the light of day, my feeling is they would not - and should not. These are extremely
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
On Jan 25, 2012, at 9:37 AM, awoelflebater wrote: Thanks for the clarification Vaj. The Sunnyside experience rather than the place is what I am referring to here. The early days, the days before the Americans got involved and the house was renovated. This was a whole new time, a whole new process. It is like the difference between a group playing in a garage band and later performing at the Royal Albert Hall. Actually, that is probably a bad comparison but you get the idea. So, you having visited Sunnyside 8 years later is irrelevant to any inside, first hand knowledge of what went on at those dinners. That's right. Other than the book The Sunnyside Drama: The First Three Years of Enlightenment and from talks, I was not privy to that early dynamic. I did however want to reframe that the hitting I saw was at the opposite end and was in fact recorded on video tape - and that contextually not everything was as it appeared. Sometimes bitch- slapping someone can be a form of compassionate activity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
That is an interesting book and a very good example of the intimacy of the group because it basically contains letters Robin wrote to his friends during that time (Vaj knows this but for others who have not read it). However I see Vaj was unable to refrain from being a tad dramatic and, inaccurate, I might add, when he uses the words bitch slapping. Pounding on someone's chest as Vaj earlier attests is not quite the same thing as an open handed slap across the face. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Jan 25, 2012, at 9:37 AM, awoelflebater wrote: Thanks for the clarification Vaj. The Sunnyside experience rather than the place is what I am referring to here. The early days, the days before the Americans got involved and the house was renovated. This was a whole new time, a whole new process. It is like the difference between a group playing in a garage band and later performing at the Royal Albert Hall. Actually, that is probably a bad comparison but you get the idea. So, you having visited Sunnyside 8 years later is irrelevant to any inside, first hand knowledge of what went on at those dinners. That's right. Other than the book The Sunnyside Drama: The First Three Years of Enlightenment and from talks, I was not privy to that early dynamic. I did however want to reframe that the hitting I saw was at the opposite end and was in fact recorded on video tape - and that contextually not everything was as it appeared. Sometimes bitch- slapping someone can be a form of compassionate activity.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
On Jan 25, 2012, at 10:14 AM, awoelflebater wrote: That is an interesting book and a very good example of the intimacy of the group because it basically contains letters Robin wrote to his friends during that time (Vaj knows this but for others who have not read it). However I see Vaj was unable to refrain from being a tad dramatic and, inaccurate, I might add, when he uses the words bitch slapping. Pounding on someone's chest as Vaj earlier attests is not quite the same thing as an open handed slap across the face. Do you recall the tape I am referring to?
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
I have been racking my brain on that one and, no, I can not. If it exists I would have been on the other side of the camera taping it because between attending every seminar and/or taping them I literally was there for everything between 1983-1986. One thing I know for sure, it wasn't me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Jan 25, 2012, at 10:14 AM, awoelflebater wrote: That is an interesting book and a very good example of the intimacy of the group because it basically contains letters Robin wrote to his friends during that time (Vaj knows this but for others who have not read it). However I see Vaj was unable to refrain from being a tad dramatic and, inaccurate, I might add, when he uses the words bitch slapping. Pounding on someone's chest as Vaj earlier attests is not quite the same thing as an open handed slap across the face. Do you recall the tape I am referring to?
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: [snip] But I want to emphasize again, it's not fair to suggest that Robin beat or deliberately harmed his students I quite agree. I wish I could get my hands on the person who aired that idea here and stank the place out. Anyhoo - now that's cleared up, we can move on, eh? Next!
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: snip There seemed to be some concern that I might either produce this tape and digitize it, in an attempt to cause harm to Robin in some manner or to simply prove that it, in fact, did exist. I have no interest in any such thing. Vaj must think we have awfully short memories. --- On Dec 19, 2011, at 3:05 PM, maskedzebra wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: snip So please follow through on this. Vaj: Maybe you were dissociating? Should I post it here or on YouTube? --- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299183 And from just this past Sunday: --- Oh and Ann, thanks for sharing this. I do believe given the mention of several video tapes out there, we should consider digitizing some of these for private circulation. I do still own a good VCR and a digitizing DVD recorder I use to transfer tapes to the digital format. Of course my opinion is, and I believe Robin agrees, most if not all of these people have moved on. It could be horribly damaging to these people if they were freely circulated publicly. But old seminar participants might enjoy having something to remember it by. --- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302446 I should also add, that I've been in Sunnyside several times, after it was restored c. 1983. From November 4: I remember the people scampering for your darshan - even the darshan of your bathroom at Sunnyside, where we'd do program in the bathroom. Sensitive sidhas paradoxically felt that was where the highest vibes were. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/294259
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: snip I'm still in the dark on later confrontations like the one you mention. I did not know they were even going on that late. Vaj isn't aware Robin's seminars at MIU involved confrontations? Whatever Vaj believes he saw, whenever he claims to have been around Robin, he's been completely unable to give a consistent, coherent account of any of it. It's a different story each time, it seems. Can you imagine him being cross-examined on the witness stand? (No, that isn't a threat. Just talking about standards of evidence.) Interesting that Curtis doesn't seem to take epistemology into account with regard to his evaluation of Vaj's truthfulness. But boy, it's important with regard to the experiences reported by Robin and his group, isn't it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: Does this make a difference in the grand scheme of things? Do we now brand Vaj a liar because according to my evidence it did not occur when he said it did? Do we brand Robin a liar because hitting really had occurred but under different contexts and conditions that Vaj was privy too? I don't bloody well know. What I do know is there are probably apologies due on both sides. Will this ever happen? Who knows? Does it matter? Probably. Can we all get on with our lives if we just drop it? Definitely. Good night. Nice post Ann. Thanks for your perspective.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
A very striking argument very much appreciated thank you. (My father, acclaimed equestrian artist/teacher/horse whisperer in the oldest equestrian Renaissance tradition of Haute Ecole, used to say a person who loves horses has to be honest and good and to be trusted and loved) [:)] This description of a close-knit group of friends of the Sunnyside house in a loving intimate expecting-in -waiting -mode resemble the group in Arosa then -with its irritating electrifying claiming mode and MMY in a hijacking context. Remind me to delete the pre-MZ post with the Tibet Buddhist inspired line of Heinrich Harrer: Never speak/talk during hill or mountain climbing [;)] excuse me just saying just thinking aloud [:D] good afternoon Bluebells, illuminated in the golden late sunlight? At dawn their perfume is wonderful, at evening their color is spectacular --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: I know I have come into this whole argument late, like months late, and I may be missing some essential pieces but bear with me. Robin's open letter admits that he, in the most literal terms, hit people during the Sunnyside days. Not to put too fine a point on it there were no seminars in those days. This was a close-knit group of friends who loved and appreciated Robin before his Arosa experience and who were in on his early days after returning from Switzerland. This was intimate stuff. A tiny house in Vic West, 10-12 people often coming together for dinners and social gatherings. It was intensely private and very unorganized and spontaneous. There were no lights, no cameras no ideas for expanding anything beyond those confined walls of the Sunnyside house, all 900 sq. feet of it. All of this was between friends. They knew and trusted Robin and they were willing participants in this new adventure with this newly enlightened man who was part of a tradition they were also involved in - TM. It was a heady experience and it was unknown. As far as they were concerned they were spending an evening eating, talking and open to whatever the divine drama might reveal. They were there on their own volition. So, if we are getting technical here, and we seem to be, Robin (as I outlined in my post a few days ago) was not a physically violent man within the context of his organization, the World Teacher Seminar. Hitting etc. was not a technique he employed to confront at the time Vaj claimed to be involved. Vaj, as a reasonable person, would not be able to comment on times and events he was not there for just as I would not be able to. Sunnyside pre-dated both of us. For Vaj to be accurate he can only reveal what he witnessed, either on video or live. Robin has confessed to using physical force pre seminar days. He claims in the title of his open letter that he had lied about hitting because even though he had hit but not within the time frame of Vaj's assertions. Does this make a difference in the grand scheme of things? Do we now brand Vaj a liar because according to my evidence it did not occur when he said it did? Do we brand Robin a liar because hitting really had occurred but under different contexts and conditions that Vaj was privy too? I don't bloody well know. What I do know is there are probably apologies due on both sides. Will this ever happen? Who knows? Does it matter? Probably. Can we all get on with our lives if we just drop it? Definitely. Good night.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
God, do I love that quote: A person who loves horses has to be honest and good to be trusted and loved. Thank you for that. It was worth the price of admission. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote: A very striking argument very much appreciated thank you. (My father, acclaimed equestrian artist/teacher/horse whisperer in the oldest equestrian Renaissance tradition of Haute Ecole, used to say a person who loves horses has to be honest and good and to be trusted and loved) [:)] This description of a close-knit group of friends of the Sunnyside house in a loving intimate expecting-in -waiting -mode resemble the group in Arosa then -with its irritating electrifying claiming mode and MMY in a hijacking context. Remind me to delete the pre-MZ post with the Tibet Buddhist inspired line of Heinrich Harrer: Never speak/talk during hill or mountain climbing [;)] excuse me just saying just thinking aloud [:D] good afternoon Bluebells, illuminated in the golden late sunlight? At dawn their perfume is wonderful, at evening their color is spectacular --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: I know I have come into this whole argument late, like months late, and I may be missing some essential pieces but bear with me. Robin's open letter admits that he, in the most literal terms, hit people during the Sunnyside days. Not to put too fine a point on it there were no seminars in those days. This was a close-knit group of friends who loved and appreciated Robin before his Arosa experience and who were in on his early days after returning from Switzerland. This was intimate stuff. A tiny house in Vic West, 10-12 people often coming together for dinners and social gatherings. It was intensely private and very unorganized and spontaneous. There were no lights, no cameras no ideas for expanding anything beyond those confined walls of the Sunnyside house, all 900 sq. feet of it. All of this was between friends. They knew and trusted Robin and they were willing participants in this new adventure with this newly enlightened man who was part of a tradition they were also involved in - TM. It was a heady experience and it was unknown. As far as they were concerned they were spending an evening eating, talking and open to whatever the divine drama might reveal. They were there on their own volition. So, if we are getting technical here, and we seem to be, Robin (as I outlined in my post a few days ago) was not a physically violent man within the context of his organization, the World Teacher Seminar. Hitting etc. was not a technique he employed to confront at the time Vaj claimed to be involved. Vaj, as a reasonable person, would not be able to comment on times and events he was not there for just as I would not be able to. Sunnyside pre-dated both of us. For Vaj to be accurate he can only reveal what he witnessed, either on video or live. Robin has confessed to using physical force pre seminar days. He claims in the title of his open letter that he had lied about hitting because even though he had hit but not within the time frame of Vaj's assertions. Does this make a difference in the grand scheme of things? Do we now brand Vaj a liar because according to my evidence it did not occur when he said it did? Do we brand Robin a liar because hitting really had occurred but under different contexts and conditions that Vaj was privy too? I don't bloody well know. What I do know is there are probably apologies due on both sides. Will this ever happen? Who knows? Does it matter? Probably. Can we all get on with our lives if we just drop it? Definitely. Good night.
[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: I know I have come into this whole argument late, like months late, and I may be missing some essential pieces but bear with me. Robin's open letter admits that he, in the most literal terms, hit people during the Sunnyside days. Not to put too fine a point on it there were no seminars in those days. This was a close-knit group of friends who loved and appreciated Robin before his Arosa experience and who were in on his early days after returning from Switzerland. This was intimate stuff. A tiny house in Vic West, 10-12 people often coming together for dinners and social gatherings. It was intensely private and very unorganized and spontaneous. There were no lights, no cameras no ideas for expanding anything beyond those confined walls of the Sunnyside house, all 900 sq. feet of it. All of this was between friends. They knew and trusted Robin and they were willing participants in this new adventure with this newly enlightened man who was part of a tradition they were also involved in - TM. It was a heady experience and it was unknown. As far as they were concerned they were spending an evening eating, talking and open to whatever the divine drama might reveal. They were there on their own volition. So, if we are getting technical here, and we seem to be, Robin (as I outlined in my post a few days ago) was not a physically violent man within the context of his organization, the World Teacher Seminar. Hitting etc. was not a technique he employed to confront at the time Vaj claimed to be involved. Vaj, as a reasonable person, would not be able to comment on times and events he was not there for just as I would not be able to. Sunnyside pre-dated both of us. For Vaj to be accurate he can only reveal what he witnessed, either on video or live. Robin has confessed to using physical force pre seminar days. He claims in the title of his open letter that he had lied about hitting because even though he had hit but not within the time frame of Vaj's assertions. Does this make a difference in the grand scheme of things? Do we now brand Vaj a liar because according to my evidence it did not occur when he said it did? Do we brand Robin a liar because hitting really had occurred but under different contexts and conditions that Vaj was privy too? I don't bloody well know. What I do know is there are probably apologies due on both sides. Will this ever happen? Who knows? Does it matter? Probably. Can we all get on with our lives if we just drop it? Definitely. Good night. Thanks for the clarification, Ann. When others inevitably start discussing this in the context you've provided, it will be interesting to see what role the various players on FFLife decide to assume either in defense of Vaj or Robin. Pass the popcorn.
