--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "metoostill" <metoostill@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> 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.
>
> De nada. But it would have been nice for you to
> have apologized as well for so seriously
> misconstruing my post.
>
> <snip>
> > What I meant was, as you say, the idea that MMY knew is
> > a stab at legitimization on the part of the TMO.
>
> It doesn't seem to matter here whether MMY did or
> didn't know, does it?
>
> What I find interesting is that Hagelin says, "Many
> were surprised..." Apparently some were not. So it
> couldn't have been that well-kept a secret after all.
>
> > 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.
>
Sorry if I did misconstrue, or perhaps misunderstand, your post. In this
particular affair "MMY didn't know" could be used. like the more often employed
"MMY says", to legitimize a host of competing claims, and frankly I don't know
the players here well enough to instantly get who is trying what on the rest of
the crowd. In any case your tone in that particular instance seemed quite
civil and I thought that deserved an honorable "kind of you" reply.
