Thanks as always for your reply. You've brought up some things that I need to think about. I have a tendency to come to some rash conclusuions. Some times I have to back away from them, and some times I hit the mark. But it's not often that we have an opportunity to resolve a claim in a definitive way.
You are saying that there is no video, but if there is a video you don't want it posted publicly. Or maybe you are saying that there may be a video but it does not show what Vaj claims it shows, and that you want to preserve the privacy of the inividuals who are in the video. If that is the case, why don't you say so. Otherwise, why not ask Vaj to post the video. That would expose Vaj as a liar if he could not produce the video, or if it clearly did not portray what he says it portrays. These are events that took place 25 years ago. I would think that this might be sufficient time for those portrayed in the video to put events in their proper perspective. Things posted here fade pretty fast. Or in some cases the posts can be deleted if they are determined to be detrimental to a person's well being. And we know Rick's threshold is pretty low for this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > No equivocation at all, Steve. Your nun story breaks down in this response. Vaj has no such video. What is equivocal about having Vajj share this evidence with someone like Curtis—or Rick Archer? The point is not to see the video; the point is to confirm that Robin struck some participant at one of his seminars, something I did not do. You don't understand context, Steve, or you would never accuse me of equivocating. You are literalizing me out of the honesty of my response to Vaj. I appreciate the nun story, but here you are a victim of something unconsciously mischievous. I am a straight shooter, Steve: you have no idea what happened in those ten years [when I was enlightened]. Do you not think it significant that not one person who experienced the power of the context of one of those seminars has ever come onto FFL to give their own testimony about this? Let that tell you how intense and complex the reality was. You have a tendency, Steve, to make superficial what is something deep, and something that asks something more from you than you are willing to give. Read my responses to Curtis and Vaj and tell me whether I am someone who equivocates. This is a misreading of me, Steve, and a serious one at that. I do not equivocate; I will not equivocate. You have to let reality have some say in your understanding of something, Steve. Think of how happy you were when Curtis first turned back my post to him: "You scored, dude. You scored!" And then consider how you felt upon reading my final five-part response to Curtis. You liked, you were predisposed to like, Curtis initial post, but you hated my own post, even though you would never post something negative about it. Because you couldn't. But this is uncontrollable prejudice in you: you would much rather I had never responded to Curtis. You have a problem with me, Steve; I am asking more of you than you wish to give of yourself. > > There is no video, by the way, of me striking someone in a seminar. > > But for you re: Robin and Vaj, it all comes down to finding something about Robin which would disqualify him from criticizing Vaj, and by golly, you are going to do your darndest to smoke this out. You get me wrong, Steve. > > Neil Young was great. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > Vaj seems to feel he needs to not just bring Robin down > > > but grind him into the dirt, destroy him as a human being. > > > > > Well Judy, doesn't Robin equivicate? First he says bring on the video, > > then he says, to post it privately. Which is it? > > > > Do you really think the people in the video are going to be damaged by > > its release? I'm asking. I don't know. Likely it will be a splash > > for a moment and then fade. I say let's see it. Let's draw our own > > conclusions. > > >
