--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> > It is entirely possible that Vaj could have gleaned or picked up
> > particulars about TM and Robin's group from reading materials or
> > from discussing these particulars with other people. And in
> > light what he mentioned a short time ago, it may be that this
> > the case.
> >
> > What I am saying is that Vaj, has for the most part come across
> > as credible to me on the topics in which he opines, including TM
> > and the Vedic Tradition.
>
> Really? You believe he's always described the instructions
> for TM accurately?
I am not able to muster any interest in the effortless of the technique
debate. I am just not interested because I guess to me the terms have
some leeway in what they can mean. So, I have never even much read the
exchanges.
> > Yes, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.
> > For me that has both plusses and minuses, but mostly plusses,
> > (by a long shot).
> >
> > There is also the burden of proof each of us might require, i.e.
> > "preponderance of evidence" (civil case), and "beyond a reasonable
> > doubt" (criminal case).
> >
> > As to the accusation that Vaj was not a participant of the TMO,
> > you may inclined to draw a conclusion based on a preponderance
> > of evidence, whereas I would want more substantial evidence
> >(beyond a reasonable doubt).
>
> You've switched conclusions. Your original post said there
> was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he *was* a TMO
> participant.
What I mean't to say was, that I believe you are willing to judge that
he was not a TMer based on a "preponderance of evidence", (lower
threshold), and I was holding out for evidence "beyond a reasonable
doubt", which for me would have been that no one knew him. And I don't
wish to go any further along this line of thought because I don't wish
to breach any confidentiality.
> In any case, my conclusion is based on *absence* of any
> evidence for that premise; plus in one case *negative*
> evidence: By me, the inability to correctly cite the
> instructions for the practice of TM is evidence beyond a
> reasonable doubt that Vaj was never a TM teacher.
>
> > But I believe Vaj himself has helped clear up that mystery.
>
> Oh? And how has he managed to do that, if I may ask?
I believe he indicated the extent of his involvement in TM, which, from
the impression I got, was short of being an instructor. It sounds like
he passed on the other opportunities. What impression did you get?
>
>
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If I were on a jury, and had to make a determination based
> > > > on the evidence I have heard over my time on FFL, I would
> > > > say that IMO the evidence is irrefutable (or at least
> > > > beyond a reasonable doubt) that Vaj was a very active
> > > > participant in the TMO.
> > >
> > > What evidence have you seen that Vaj has TMO-related
> > > knowledge and understanding that he could *not* have
> > > obtained except by being an active participant in the
> > > TMO? Is there anything he's said that could not be
> > > accounted for by his having read TMO-related materials
> > > and/or spoken to people who *were* active in the TMO?
> > >
> > > Those testifying in court on Vaj's behalf would surely
> > > be cross-examined to that effect, and if they couldn't
> > > come up with anything solid, the prosecution would use
> > > that failure to impeach their testimony to the jury.
> > >
> > > > To me the only evidience, (or lack of evidence in this case)
> > > > is that no one, here at least, seems to have personal
> > > > knowledge of his participation. But no one here, except on
> > > > one ocassion, (Jim Flanagan), has ever brought this up.
> > >
> > > How could anyone have personal knowledge of his
> > > participation if he doesn't use his real name and won't
> > > even cite any of the facts of that participation? He's
> > > been asked over and over and over again for such facts,
> > > like the name of his initiator or the date and location
> > > of his TTC, and he refuses to respond, even though
> > > those facts wouldn't identify him in and of themselves.
> > >
> > > > And based on what I have heard here, Vaj also has an intimate
> > > > understanding of Robin's past stint as being the leader of
> > > > his own spirtitual group.
> > >
> > > Again, what understanding of Robin's past has Vaj
> > > demonstrated that he could *not* have obtained except
> > > by active participation in the TMO? What does Vaj know
> > > about Robin that he could not have learned from reading
> > > pertinent material (such as Robin's books, which contain
> > > his own detailed accounts of that period) and/or talked
> > > with people who were Robin's followers? Robin's past
> > > history is well documented, and Vaj has let it be known
> > > that he has collected quite an archive of material
> > > relating to Robin. And it would hardly be a surprise
> > > if some of Robin's past followers were eager to spill
> > > beans into a sympathetic ear about that ultimately
> > > disastrous experience.
> > >
> > > > So, the accusations listed below don't realy strike a chord
> > > > with me. Vaj is a pesky adversary, and I have found his
> > > > arguments to be pretty tight.
> > >
> > > You're aware that a number of others here have said
> > > very similar things about the way Vaj responds to
> > > challenge or inquiry, right? The items in Robin's
> > > list aren't just his own viewpoint by any means.
> > >
> > > You're aware that at least seven former or current TM
> > > teachers on this forum have found some of the things
> > > he's said about TM practice to be factually incorrect,
> > > right? Basic facts, such as the claim that we're
> > > instructed to wait for the mantra to show up rather
> > > than introducing it.
> > >
> > > > I don't find instances of the outright lies of which he is often
> > > > accused.
> > >
> > > Highly selective reading, seems to me.
> > >
> > > > The most egregious behavior of Vaj's I have found so far was
> > > > when he intentially over posted some time back to foul up
> > > > the system, just to try to test the moderators post counting,
> > > > (or something along these lines). I think Alex got pretty
> > > > pissed off, and I didn't blame him.
> > > >
> > > > And quite honestly, I thought that indicated a real lack of
> > > > integrity on Vaj's part.
> > >
> > > To refresh your memory, I had accidentally made three
> > > posts on a Thursday evening, thinking it was Friday,
> > > when I had already used up my 50. I immediately deleted
> > > them and emailed Alex telling him what had happened. He
> > > and Rick decided not to ban me for a week because it had
> > > been an accident. That apparently infuriated Vaj, who
> > > proceeded to *deliberately* overpost and then went back
> > > and deleted a bunch of his past posts for that week to
> > > compensate, daring the moderators to make him take a week
> > > off. And yes, Alex was furious.
> > >
> > > And how about when Vaj suggested that Robin was breaking
> > > Yahoo rules by using the email address no_reply@?
> > > That *could* be explained by simple ignorance (although
> > > it's hard to imagine, given how long he's been conversing
> > > here with the many folks to whom Yahoo has *assigned* that
> > > dummy email address because they don't want to use their
> > > real one), except that when informed of Yahoo's routine
> > > use of the dummy address, Vaj claimed he already knew
> > > about it.
> > >
> > > Note one other point: Vaj continually accuses his
> > > adversaries here of lying, but he almost never cites any
> > > specific lies that they've allegedly told. But Vaj's
> > > adversaries have cited chapter and verse concerning Vaj's
> > > lies.
> > >
> > > Consider one additional point: Robin has every reason to
> > > conceal the facts of his past with the TMO, but he has
> > > been remarkably open about them and willingly takes
> > > responsibility for his past behavior. Contrast that with
> > > Vaj's determined reticence about *his* alleged TMO past.
> > >
> > > > , --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You really missed the mark again Robin - you're not even
> > > > > close to the truth. What's up with that? How can you so
> > > > > consistently hit the mark. Do you have a straw man fetish
> > > > > or something?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 18, 2011, at 12:32 AM, maskedzebra wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 1. You never seek to address the essence of what
> > > > > > someone says in a given post.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. You selectively chose segments from a post which
> > > > > > you choose to comment on, and those segments usually
> > > > > > do not bear upon the fundamental point or theme of
> > > > > > the post. You ignore the most important ideas of a
> > > > > > given post. You are only interested in using certain
> > > > > > aspects of the post to serve your own strange and
> > > > > > essentially negative agenda.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. You have no motivation that is based upon wanting
> > > > > > learn something at FFL, or to clarify some idea, or to
> > > > > > argue with some expectation of resolving an issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. You have no feel for the truth of anything you say;
> > > > > > you are not governed by fact or honesty in your posts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5. You are an archivist who then appropriates the
> > > > > > material and information you collect into the claim
> > > > > > that you have lived out these experiences. This is
> > > > > > classic fantasizing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 6. You don't know how to proceed such as to fulfill
> > > > > > your own agenda, because you are essentially a confused
> > > > > > and disoriented person when it comes to knowing what
> > > > > > you are up to when you post at FFL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 7. You don't know where you are at any moment in your
> > > > > > interaction with various persons here at FFL. There is
> > > > > > no intellectual or moral or even psychological coherence
> > > > > > in what you write such that the reader can estimate
> > > > > > where you are going with your posts. You don't know what
> > > > > > you are doing at FFL, Vaj: FFL is like some kind of
> > > > > > dream you are having and inside that dream you are
> > > > > > behaving bizarrely
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 8. "Who the hell is Tim Tebow?"direct quote from Vaj
> > > > > > two weeks ago. Now it's: "I knew who he was; I just
> > > > > > wasn't that interested". Do you ever admit to yourself,
> > > > > > not to say others, when you deliberately make what is
> > > > > > unreal for you into something that then becomes part of
> > > > > > your personal history, as if you have passed through the
> > > > > > experience; meanwhile what you say you have lived through
> > > > > > remains separate from you entirely. It is never something
> > > > > > that is inside of you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 9. You are in some kind of disassociated state, Vaj:
> > > > > > because you don't ever connect the dots. You don't know
> > > > > > where you are going; you don't know what you are doing;
> > > > > > you have no contact with reality. You are in a very bad
> > > > > > state indeed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 10. You lieand evidently it has reached the point where
> > > > > > even you don't know the difference between saying
> > > > > > something that is not true and saying something that is
> > > > > > true. The line between what is a lie and what is the
> > > > > > truth has become so blurred that you don't even know what
> > > > > > it is like to know that something really happened to you
> > > > > > as opposed to something that never happened to you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 11. You have no idea of the common denominator of
> > > > > > experience of most everyone on this forum.
> > >
> >
>
