--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > [Rick wrote:] > > > > > > > There were numerous witnesses, in the person of > > > > > > > multiple women. Each had their own "events". > > > > > > > Only one has had the guts to write a book. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, so you now have several people claiming that > > > > > > several different events happened, apparently > > > > > > always in private. Still not anything more than > > > > > > he-said, she-said. > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > But your attempts to make it seem as if you can > > > > > write it off without reading it because of he said > > > > > she said is nonsense. You just don't want to read > > > > > it. Fair enough. Your choice. But assessing > > > > > credibility ahead of time just reveals how our minds > > > > > protect cherished beliefs from counter evidence. > > > > > You are not upholding some principle of not taking > > > > > he said she said stories seriously. > > > > > > > > Look, I'm completely convinced the story is true. > > > > But I'm also in total agreement with what Lawson > > > > is saying. You're overinterpreting the point he's > > > > making and attributing it to a belief on his part > > > > that the account is false, but you aren't doing > > > > that on the basis of anything he's actually > > > > *said*. > > > > > > You are right. In fact he has stated outright that he has > > > not come to a conclusion. > > > > > > But my point was that that shaping tells another story. > > > We both know and respect Lawson's intellect. So why would > > > he call it a he said she said when everyone knows that he > > > said nothing? > > > > Figure of speech. In this case the "he said" aspect is > > the folks who are denying it. > > He said she said is more technical than that and does not > include people who where not there in the room of the > alleged event. It is a statement of parity. It isn't he > said and later some other people said who were interested > in what happened.
>From Mr. Dictionary: "figure of speech--a form of expression (as a simile or metaphor) used to convey meaning or heighten effect often by comparing or identifying one thing with another that has a meaning or connotation familiar to the reader or listener" He used the term loosely, not in the legal/technical sense, to mean something that is alleged that can't be verified. You know that, I know that. > > > He is making excuses why it is reasonable that he NOT > > > read the account. But they are not really reasonable are > > > they? > > > > He made no such excuses that I saw, Curtis. He simply > > said he didn't intend to read it. Again you're making > > assumptions for which there's no basis in what he > > actually said. > > No, he also gave reasons why he wasn't going to. Reasons > that involved shaping. Please cite them. I couldn't find any. I think you're misremembering. > > > I mean we all have more than a little at stake with > > > Maharishi. > > > > Speak for yourself. Lawson's never seemed to have much > > of a stake in MMY's personal behavior either way, which > > could well be why he's not interested in reading it. > > As I said, words one way, shaping tells another story. Unless you're imagining the "shaping," of course. > But who really cares if Lawson reads anything? I was just > pointing out that the reasons he gave why it sounded less > than credible seemed bogus to me. What he said was that it isn't *verifiable*. There's a difference between that and *credible*. He doesn't have to have read the book to point out that it isn't verifiable; and he can't say whether it's credible without having read it. He said explicitly that he didn't dismiss its credibility. > We all came into the book with some standards of what > makes an account credible. Then we read it and applied > them. > > > But he's always ready to poke holes in folks' reasoning. > > I think he's right to point out that we're taking it all > > as established fact when there's no way that it could be; > > no matter how convincing one may find the book, it's > > still basically hearsay. > > I think you and I have some pretty high level corroboration > of Maharishi's personal life. Not that can be *verified*. > Is the account of Lincoln's assassination merely hearsay? I > mean I never got a statement from Lincoln afterwards. Curtis, you're crashing and burning on this one. > > Now I want to give you another chance to respond to a > > question I asked you last week in a post you chose not > > to respond to: > > > > > > Nobody has ever been able to show that I've ever lied > > > > about anything, here or on alt.m.t. And goodness knows > > > > folks have tried. If my assertions were in fact > > > > "laughable," it could only be because there was good > > > > reason to think they were untrue. There isn't and > > > > never has been. > > > > > > Judy you have never conceded to this point and I don't > > > want to dig up the past because you and I have gotten > > > beyond this. > > > > "Dig up the past"? You're suggesting I've lied in the > > past? If so, you've just regressed us right back to the > > beginning. *Before* the beginning, in fact. > > > > *Is* that what you're suggesting? > > Yes I believed that you lied in posts to me on AMT. I spent > many posts trying to get you to acknowledge them. You never > did. Please cite some instances. I don't think that ever happened. What did you believe I lied about? > And you accused me of lying about a million times. I also > never conceded that I did. > > Perhaps our communication disconnect was so profound back > then that neither of us lied but we both miss-perceived it > that way. > > I am happy that we are in the place we are in now and accept > that we will both see the past differently.
