Gay Marriage-was, Kerry in trouble with intern.
BillyG.
news:b179f726.04021...@posting.google.com...
> "BillyG." <william...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<CD6Xb.23300$tD6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
> >
> > ..the purpose of sex is procreation.
> >
> Wrong. ONE OF the purposes of the sex act is procreation. It ALSO
> serves as the 'glue' that 'cements' two people together in a
> relationship.
Charlie Lutes use to say that as well, yes, it also functions in that
capacity, I agree.
That 'purpose' is just as important, from a
> cultural-success standpoint, as procreation. Keeping the two as a
> pair, regardless of their sex, has massive consequences in our
> culture.
Indeed!
> Preventing gays from vowing to stay together puts them in a position
> of infidelity and non-commitment, by law unable to bond to each other
> in the same way other couples can.
Yes, but short of *tyranny of the minority*, it will stay that way, as it is
better for the community at large. Gay marriage would only lead to gender
confusion for our little children growing up, not knowing whether to marry
Johnny or Susie, sexuality is fluid, to think it is set in stone is a
mistake, why do hetero prisoners engage in it? Democracy ensures the
greatest good, to the greatest number, no society will be completely happy
until all members are in harmony with natural law.
> > The generative force is the power of the Holy Spirit in man,
> >
> Wrong. The Holy Spirit doesn't give a squat about the generative
> force. The generative force is hormone driven, i.e. physical, not
> spiritual.
You speak with certainty, yet, without a source one would have to believe
you know from direct experience, which I doubt. My analysis comes from
scripture and conscience...and yours?
> > ...it can be used
> > for generation(procreation), regeneration (creativity), OR degeneration
> > (base sexual practices)....let's not go the way of Gomorra! Surely Unc,
you
> > must admit anal intercourse between men is a perverse use of the sexual
> > drive, yes? BillyG.
> >
> > P.S. Homosexuality is nothing more than a desperate attempt to find
> > happiness thru the senses which will never satisfy the mind, the Gay
> > community will ALWAYS be discontents,
> >
> LOL, you can say exactly the same for heterosexuality and the hetero
> community. Contentment doesn't come from a penis entering a vagina.
>
> > ...happiness does NOT come from SEX
> >
> Exactly, neither hetero nor homo.
>
> > ...it comes from harmony with Natural Law!
> >
> Actually, harmony with Natural Law comes along with Self knowledge and
> inner peace, no matter what is entering what.
If you are at peace with your penis entering another mans anus, perhaps
you're kidding yourself, and in fact, I believe this is the very reason gays
wish to change society to accept their behavior because they *can't* accept
it in themselves and think it's *because* of society, whereas, it's just a
natural reaction (guilt, shame) in someone when they engage in sexual
abominations. BillyG.
Mike Doughney
BillyG. <william...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>Yes, but short of *tyranny of the minority*, it will stay that way, as it is
>better for the community at large. Gay marriage would only lead to gender
>confusion for our little children growing up, not knowing whether to marry
You really are as stupid as a pail of exclamation points, aren't you?
BillyG.
"Mike Doughney" <mi...@mtd.com> wrote in message
news:c0nb9...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Unc already used that metaphor, much more effectively, sorry Doughnuthead,
try again! :-(
BillyG.
BTW Doughboy...aren't you one of the Initiators that betrayed MMY? BillyG
Mike Doughney
BillyG. <william...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>BTW Doughboy...aren't you one of the Initiators ...
I never advanced beyond the rank of "citizen meditator," and I've
never claimed otherwise.
> ...that betrayed MMY? BillyG
As if releasing his oh-so-secret special list of squeaks and oinks to
the public is "betrayal." That's pretty funny.
Mike Doughney
BillyG. <william...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Mike Doughney" <mi...@mtd.com> wrote in message
>news:c0nb9...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>>
>
>Unc already used that metaphor, much more effectively, sorry Doughnuthead,
>try again! :-(
I'm quite happy to admit that I don't obsessively read every word of
every post in this newsgroup. :-)
BillyG.
OK, but did you post anything on trancnet, or did anybody do it for you?
BillyG.
BillyG.
I can relate to that, when I get bored here, I go back and read my own posts
over again! :-) BillyG.
Mike Doughney
BillyG. <william...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>OK, but did you post anything on trancnet, or did anybody do it for you?
>BillyG.
I don't recall having "posted" on or otherwise having anything to do
with what's on trancenet.org.
My TM-related website is at minet.org; is that what you're upset about?
BillyG.
Ah-ha! Indeed! But you have a right to say what you wish, although by
providing a vehicle for traitors is almost as bad as being one yourself, you
understand that, right? BTW, why do you have that website? Are you a
born-again Christian? OR, what has MMY done to you that was so bad? BillyG.
Mike Doughney
BillyG. <william...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Mike Doughney" <mi...@mtd.com> wrote in message
>news:c0p0u...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
>
>Ah-ha! Indeed! But you have a right to say what you wish, although by
>providing a vehicle for traitors is almost as bad as being one yourself, you
>understand that, right?
This is pretty damn funny, and another reason why the TM movement
stands little hope of ever being taken seriously again, with
hyperactive, hypersensitive nuts like you running around in public
ranting "traitor" at those who no longer care to repeat the "party
line." Last I checked, the TM technique isn't sold with the
requirement that the buyer sign a loyalty oath, and never has
been. All that "simple mental technique" and "not a religion" and "not
a lifestyle" happy horseshit never included anything about how to
avoid being branded a "traitor" by those who, still, after all these
decades of movement stupidity and empty-headed wishful thinking, hang
onto all this silly movement rhetoric. The requirements for teachers
still never qualified as such a requirement, and are unenforceable
anyway.
>BTW, why do you have that website? Are you a born-again Christian?
As I said, you really are as stupid as a pail of exclamation points,
or you haven't read any of my posts lately. No, I am not a Christian
of any kind.
> OR, what has MMY done to you that was so bad? BillyG.
In a nutshell, since it's been many years since I've talked about any
of this: let's just say, speaking from immediate personal experience,
that the TM techniques have sometimes been quite effective at making
one's wallet a little bit lighter, and at reforming young people and
even adults into babbling, obsessive-compulsive loonies. And the
"sidhis program," based on my observation, seems to have this
consequence of making people incapable of dealing rationally with
others, and provides nothing which could sensibly be labeled a
benefit. Fortunately, largely due to my circumstances at the time, I
got far away from anything to do with TM before taking the sidhis
course myself or getting involved any deeper than I did. I later
realized that I'd had something of a close call since I was at one
point considering getting heavily involved with the movement and maybe
moving to Fairfield.
Bob Hopeless
> ...the TM technique and the "sidhis program"...provides nothing which
could sensibly be labeled a benefit.
All honest objective people say without hestitation that TM and the sidhis
have no benefit whatsoever. Only self-deceiving liars like billyg, mcgurk,
english, marion continue to pretend they are getting some positive result
knowing in their heart that it isn't true. Objective measurements of the
various aspects of their lives would conclusively demonstrate no
improvements. Honest objective people deplore MMY's charade and speak out
strongly against it and its falseness. Only those who don't value honesty
continue to maintain the lie that TM has value. Strong minded people who
insist on total honesty and eschew wishful thinking like doughney, hopeless,
skolnick, are capable of accurately assessing the merits of TM and MMY. The
weak continue to cling to empty promises and obvious lies. TM has no
benefit. Abandon false hope right now.
Bob Hopeless
Mike Doughney
Bob Hopeless <des...@nohoper.com> wrote:
>
>... Honest objective people deplore MMY's charade and speak out
>strongly against it and its falseness. Only those who don't value honesty
>continue to maintain the lie that TM has value. Strong minded people who
>insist on total honesty and eschew wishful thinking like doughney, hopeless,
>skolnick, are capable of accurately assessing the merits of TM and MMY. The
>weak continue to cling to empty promises and obvious lies. TM has no
>benefit. Abandon false hope right now.
Wow. What a pompous-assed troll. And it sounds like you've been
hitting the Neo-Tech classics and stylebook way too hard. Take a break
and switch to decaf, okay?
Unknown
This is doughney's personal site :
AS you can see, he's, like, against things !
Steve Ralph
You were using 'oink' as a mantra? No wonder you ended up pig ignorant
SR
Steve Ralph
Using 'oink' as a mantra is not reccomended, as it tends to permanantly
damage the sense of humour
SR
Steve Ralph
> In article <DhUXb.25830$tY7....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
> BillyG. <william...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Mike Doughney" <mi...@mtd.com> wrote in message
> >news:c0p0u...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >
> >> My TM-related website is at minet.org; is that what you're upset about?
> >
> >Ah-ha! Indeed! But you have a right to say what you wish, although by
> >providing a vehicle for traitors is almost as bad as being one yourself,
you
> >understand that, right?
>
> This is pretty damn funny, and another reason why the TM movement
> stands little hope of ever being taken seriously again,
<oink> you take the TMO very serioulsy indeed, judging by your actions.
If you didn't take them seriously, you simply wouldn't bother. Turning into
an embittered obsessed looser and blaming TM is taking things far too
seriously imo.
<squeak>
with
> hyperactive, hypersensitive nuts like you running around in public
> ranting "traitor" at those who no longer care to repeat the "party
> line." Last I checked, the TM technique isn't sold with the
> requirement that the buyer sign a loyalty oath, and never has
> been. All that "simple mental technique" and "not a religion" and "not
> a lifestyle" happy horseshit never included anything about how to
> avoid being branded a "traitor" by those who, still, after all these
> decades of movement stupidity and empty-headed wishful thinking, hang
> onto all this silly movement rhetoric. The requirements for teachers
> still never qualified as such a requirement, and are unenforceable
> anyway.
>
> >BTW, why do you have that website? Are you a born-again Christian?
>
> As I said, you really are as stupid as a pail of exclamation points,
> or you haven't read any of my posts lately.
<oink>
> No, I am not a Christian
> of any kind.
<squeak>
That is blindingly obvious!
BillyG.
"Steve Ralph" <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nG1Yb.3891$h44.6...@stones.force9.net...
Ha, ha, ha, ha.............SR, that comment is precious, using 'oink' NO
wonder Doughboy didn't get any results!! Ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ohhhh, what a belly laught! :-) BillyG.
>
BillyG.
I think SR was right, using 'oink' as your mantra won't get you very far,
too bad! BillyG.
BillyG.
"Bob Hopeless" <des...@nohoper.com> wrote in message
news:d4mdnfI0H5N...@look.ca...
>
> "Mike Doughney" <mi...@mtd.com> wrote in message
> news:c0p74...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > ...the TM technique and the "sidhis program"...provides nothing which
> could sensibly be labeled a benefit.
>
> All honest objective people say without hestitation that TM and the sidhis
> have no benefit whatsoever.
Where are you studies?
Only self-deceiving liars like billyg, mcgurk,
> english, marion continue to pretend they are getting some positive result
> knowing in their heart that it isn't true.
Where are your studies?
Objective measurements of the
> various aspects of their lives would conclusively demonstrate no
> improvements. Honest objective people deplore MMY's charade and speak out
> strongly against it and its falseness.
Where are your studies?
Only those who don't value honesty
> continue to maintain the lie that TM has value. Strong minded people who
> insist on total honesty and eschew wishful thinking like doughney,
hopeless,
> skolnick, are capable of accurately assessing the merits of TM and MMY.
The
> weak continue to cling to empty promises and obvious lies. TM has no
> benefit. Abandon false hope right now.
I don't think so!
> Bob Hopeless
(..."I couldn't find it in the dictionary", why, I otta!@#)
BillyG.
snip
> This is pretty damn funny, and another reason why the TM movement
> stands little hope of ever being taken seriously again, with
> hyperactive, hypersensitive nuts like you running around in public
> ranting "traitor" at those who no longer care to repeat the "party
> line."
Initiators were specifically ask to recite a verbal oath of privacy
administered by Jerry Jarvis as early as 1972 in Fuiggi, Italy! You have
knowingly allowed ex-Initiators to violate that promise!!
Last I checked, the TM technique isn't sold with the
> requirement that the buyer sign a loyalty oath, and never has
> been.
All meditators were ask to keep the mantra *private*...did you agree? If
you did, you violated your word of honor! BillyG
snip
Mike Doughney
Haven't used mantras for over 15 years, so you're not talking to me.
> as it tends to permanantly damage the sense of humour
Never said the troll wasn't funny. Ha, ha, look, another silly troll.
Steve Ralph
> In article <_H1Yb.3892$h44.6...@stones.force9.net>,
> Steve Ralph <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Using 'oink' as a mantra is not reccomended,
>
> Haven't used mantras for over 15 years, so you're not talking to me.
LOL you've been posting them on the internet for 15 years!
<squoink>
Mike Doughney
Steve Ralph <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote:
>
>you take the TMO very serioulsy indeed, judging by your actions.
And those actions would be, just what, exactly?
>If you didn't take them seriously, you simply wouldn't bother.
Lessee... do a little google search (what wonderful tools we have
online today)... 19 posts here on this newsgroup by me since Jan 1
2003. If you were paying attention, you might have even noticed that I
addressed the subject of TM in exactly zero of those 19 posts. Going
back a bit farther, I'm still having trouble finding where I've
last commented on TM directly, maybe as far back as September
'02. Even got a post here where I'm critical of a "critic."
So yes, as a matter fact, I can, unlike some here, walk away from this
the subject of TM on this newsgroup for over a year at a time. One
rather low-key and not even particularly critical post by me and the
shitstorm starts again full force, with all the same
accusatory language as before, as if the same can has been reopened.
Fascinating.
>Turning into an embittered obsessed looser
Embittered? Nothing bitter about it, just making a few statements of
fact, and seeing what happens. (What happens are the predictable
knee-jerk reactions of the long-term meditator, right on cue.)
Obsessed? See above.
"Looser?" Start by learning how to spell. Then we'll talk.
>and blaming TM
For what? I blame TM for *nothing* that has happened to me
personally. (It doesn't get any credit either.) I take full
responsibility for my own actions while involved with the TM
program. Live, and learn, and grow up to know better than the childish
fantasies and endless, even recursive, wishful thinking spewed by the
TM movement.
At the same time, one of the TM movement's purposes is to make people
run around spewing an enormous amount of sillyness, to among other
things, sell its products. That's what it is. Those of us that tire of
sillyness and things that don't work and make people say and do stupid
things might sometimes point that out, and watch all you hangers-on
for dear life get your panties in a bunch.
>is taking things far too seriously imo.
Y'know, it looks to me like I'm the one who's making at least a little
bit of an attempt to not... "take things far too seriously" and avoid
direct personal attack language, like exclamation point boy's use of
the word "traitor" to label those who simply found the TM movement and
its products lacking, and who moved on to something else (or nothing
else.)
>> No, I am not a Christian
>> of any kind.
>
>That is blindingly obvious!
Obviously it's not obvious to all. The assumption that critics are by
definition "born-again Christians" is pervasive in the TM movement,
and it doesn't apply to me. At all.
Mike Doughney
again!
In article <%36Yb.24447$GS5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>,
BillyG. <william...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>Initiators were specifically ask to recite a verbal oath of privacy
>administered by Jerry Jarvis as early as 1972 in Fuiggi, Italy! You have
>knowingly allowed ex-Initiators to violate that promise!!
Any whistle-blower is by definition "violating" some kind of
promise. Whoever provided me with those lists of mantras decided that
that "promise" or alleged "oath" wasn't worth keeping. I'd guess that
after years of hype about how special and complicated the mantra
selection process was supposed to have been, at least one initiator,
upon learning it's just based on age, began to suspect that this
"oath" was one silly thing in a mountain of silly, pointless things.
>All meditators were ask to keep the mantra *private*...did you agree? If
>you did, you violated your word of honor! BillyG
As far as meditators are concerned, there was nothing said to me
before, during or after initiation about "honor," and this isn't the
kind of thing you can apply decades after one has agreed to go through
an initiation. In particular, the program was sold as a simple
technique, nothing more, and certainly it was sold as including
nothing that might involve "honor" or anything about lifestyle or
"religion" that might imply that "honor" might be somehow involved. To
the contrary, the announced rationale to keep the mantra private was
solely based upon the idea that the program wouldn't work if you spoke
about or shared your mantra. Any other rationale is something you've
come up with after the fact, presumably because my violation of the
"mantra mystique" is something you find so personally
offensive. They're just noises. Get over it.
I haven't meditated for 15 years plus, so I certainly don't care
whether or not the technique works. So "ahemm" and "aing namah" to you
all!
Mike Doughney
Steve Ralph <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote:
>
>LOL you've been posting them on the internet for 15 years!
It'll be 10 years on March 6. See:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=2ld046%24a1q%40ss1.digex.net
Steve Ralph
even follow simple instructions!
SR
Steve Ralph
> In article <qT1Yb.3894$h44.6...@stones.force9.net>,
> Steve Ralph <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >you take the TMO very serioulsy indeed, judging by your actions.
>
> And those actions would be, just what, exactly?
10 years of misuse of mantras - and a great deal of work put in
solely for the purpose of trashing TM.
You take it a lot more seriously than I do.
SR
BillyG.
> I know I must have had this argument online ten years ago. Here we go
> again!
> >All meditators were ask to keep the mantra *private*...did you agree?
If
> >you did, you violated your word of honor! BillyG
>
> As far as meditators are concerned, there was nothing said to me
> before, during or after initiation about "honor,"
Doughney-You can't be serious, NO ONE has suggested, but YOU, that honor was
mentioned during the initiation ceremony!
and this isn't the
> kind of thing you can apply decades after one has agreed to go through
> an initiation. In particular, the program was sold as a simple
> technique, nothing more, and certainly it was sold as including
> nothing that might involve "honor"
Poor Doughney-Can't you see that when you give your word and then, go back
on it, you compromise your honor?
or anything about lifestyle or
> "religion" that might imply that "honor" might be somehow involved. To
> the contrary, the announced rationale to keep the mantra private was
> solely based upon the idea that the program wouldn't work if you spoke
> about or shared your mantra.
D-And where did you find this teaching? There isn't any! Period! And the
only instruction I remember is, that by expressing your mantra to others it
could *weaken* it's effectiveness, that is all!
Any other rationale is something you've
> come up with after the fact, presumably because my violation of the
> "mantra mystique" is something you find so personally
> offensive. They're just noises. Get over it.
Well Mr. Doughney if, indeed, you were using the mantra, *oink* obviously
you didn't get any results, perhaps it's time for checking? :-) BillyG
BillyG.
Afterall, using *oink* for 10 years can really add up, you know what I mean!
:-) BillyG.
BillyG.
>
> "Mike Doughney" <mi...@mtd.com> wrote in message
> news:c0rdb...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > In article <qT1Yb.3894$h44.6...@stones.force9.net>,
> > Steve Ralph <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >you take the TMO very serioulsy indeed, judging by your actions.
> >
> > And those actions would be, just what, exactly?
>
> 10 years of misuse of mantras - and a great deal of work put in
> solely for the purpose of trashing TM.
> You take it a lot more seriously than I do.
>
> SR
Yeah...but maybe no one ever told him that *oink* was NOT a mantra, buyer
beware!!! *Oink* as suggested by Mr. Doughney of minet.org is NOT a
mantra...alert, alert....*oink* is NOT a mantra! BillyG.
Mike Doughney
> Mike Doughney wrote:
>> Steve Ralph wrote:
>> >
>> >you take the TMO very serioulsy indeed, judging by your actions.
>>
>> And those actions would be, just what, exactly?
>
(cleans coffee off the flat panel) I don't take "misuse of mantras"
seriously. Who does, except for a handful of TM program defenders
who're still indulging an unthinking reflex at the thought of a stray
mantra?
> - and a great deal of work put in
>solely for the purpose of trashing TM.
Lessee... maybe an hour or two putting the mantra chart together, an
evening or three reformatting the TM-EX newsletter articles. Not much
else on the site, and I did all that many years ago. I don't call this
"work."
I get nuts writing me all the time about all the "work" I put into my
websites. They aren't something I put much effort into at all, and
usually the complainers, like you, are focused on something I haven't
thought much about in five years or more. So I'm still trying to
figure out where this image of me doing "work" comes from. The mere
presence of a website on the net usually means somebody paid someone to
put it there, and that's about it.
>You take it a lot more seriously than I do.
I'm still trying to figure out where this insistence on my seriousness
comes from. Must be a stylistic thing or something, because what I'm
actually doing is showing zero (0) serious reverence to a list of
sounds that you oh so seriously insist must be treated with the utmost
care and pseudo-secrecy lest they be (ha ha ha) "misused," and
generally pointing out that the TM movement is a pretty silly thing
for middle-aged or better adults to be defending as if it's something
serious, like a religion or something. You're defending it as if it's
something serious, so you must be the one who's taking it
seriously.
I'm just pointing out the obvious, prodding you to again display in
public your oh-so-SERIOUS defense of something that looks even weirder
with every passing day and encourages the average, well-adjusted
person to run quickly in the obvious direction, thus insuring the
continued demise of the TM movement. Thank you for seriously
participating in this process, I couldn't do even half as much without
you.
Bob Hopeless
> Wow. What a pompous-assed troll.
Wow. What a humorless tit. Okay, your turn.
> And it sounds like you've been
> hitting the Neo-Tech classics and stylebook way too hard.
People who know what Neo-tech classics and stylebook are and suggest that
others have been hitting them too hard are a degraded and contemptible class
of people . Anyone with any sense knows this. People who have never heard of
the Neo-tech classics and stylebook, such as myself, are exalted beyond
measure. All sane people agree with this assessment.
Take a break
> and switch to decaf, okay?
I'm too sexy for decaf.
Bob Hopeless
willytex
> the announced rationale to keep the mantra private
> was solely based upon the idea that
Mike - It's no longer on-topic to dicuss mantras and intiations on
this forum. There's only one respondent left here who's still on the
TM program.
So, you don't know if your mantra worked or not, since you shared it
with others. If so, and the case seems pretty solid that you shared
it, then you haven't practiced TM nor were you ever a meditator.
> the program wouldn't work if you spoke about
> or shared your mantra.
It has not been established that you were ever on the program.
> I haven't meditated for 15 years plus,
How do you know? Meditation means to 'think things over' and surely
you've paused once or twice to take stock of your own thoughts.
> so I certainly don't care whether or not the
> technique works.
There's no such thing as "TM" - you made that up. Apparently, you were
in a trance-induced, self-hypnotic state for years. If I were you, I'd
think seriously about seeing a cult exit-counselor. If you're still
worried after all these years about your honor for sharing all those
"mantras", you may need professsional help.
mi...@mtd.com (Mike Doughney) wrote in message news:<c0red...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
Mike Doughney
Bob Hopeless <des...@nohoper.com> wrote:
>People who (x) are a degraded and contemptible class
>of people . Anyone with any sense knows this. People who (y),
>such as myself, are exalted beyond measure. All sane
>people agree with this assessment.
It might have been mildly funny the first time, but the humor doesn't
hold up after multiple showings. Yawn.