--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2008, at 4:17 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > I'm mystified by why so many people get confused > > about the difference between "This is what MMY > > says" and "What MMY says is true." > > So then you're saying that what MMY says, at least on occasion, he > might feel to be lies or half-truths, but he says it anyway?
No, I'm not saying that. Obviously MMY has said a lot of things that don't seem to have been true, but "mistaken" is another possibility. > We've been down this road before, Judy, and your point is > ludicrous. Oh, it most certainly is not ludicrous. I'm sick and tired of being pegged as a True Believer because I quote something MMY has said in a discussion *about* what he has said. I've seen it happen to others as well. This discussion was about *whether* he had said anything about the origin of the technique. Some were saying he hadn't. I brought up the essay to point out that in effect, he had, via Domash, in an official and important (to the TMO) publication. And Vaj promptly called me "gullible," when I hadn't said a word about whether I believed the account or not. It's really just a way of avoiding the issue. We see it here all the time. If you diss the person quoting MMY as a TB, then you don't have to actually consider whatever it was MMY had been quoted as saying. Somehow the purported "gullibility" of the person doing the quoting automatically makes whatever they were quoting null and void. I have no idea, and neither does anybody else here, whether what MMY had Domash say in the essay is accurate. It seems *plausible* to me--I haven't heard anybody make any good arguments against it-- but that's it. It's also plausible to me that he made it up.
