--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Finally, I'll note that those who don't question the MMY
> > BAD interpretation *are basing their certainty on TMO
> > spin*, assuming that what we're being told is the gospel
> > truth.
> > 
> > I find that hilarious, frankly.
> 
> Apologies, Metoostill. I'd forgotten you had said earlier
> you thought the chances that MMY knew about it at all were
> only 50/50. So you, at least, aren't buying the TMO spin.
>
Kind of you to say so.  It occurred to me after writing "50/50 MMY knew" that 
my post could be misinterpreted as one absolving him of any responsibility, 
which is liable to become a popular way out of the thicket, the other popular 
way out appearing here on FFL already as "so what, what's wrong with having 
children?", already responded to quite correctly with "nothing, its the idea 
that they need to be a secret that paints a dysfunctional picture."  What I 
meant was, as you say, the idea that MMY knew is a stab at legitimization on 
the part of the TMO.  In another post I opine that if this one flies, its off 
to the races.  It transfers to the next generation MMY's capability of 
declaring really pretty much anything (usually with a similar reverential 
reference to his master) and its being accepted as gospel.

Reply via email to