Look, Steve, just as with the Nun: you have to use more than possible contingencies in levelling an accusation against someone. Anyone who reads my posts carefully recognizes something that could not be true about me: viz. that I fudge, equivocate, avoid, lie. Don't fucking use your stupid logic on me without bringing along some 'feel' for the context within which my comments are made. And get off this 'prove it to me jag'.
If you knew what these persons underwenteven what I underwentin those ten years, you would understand how many of those formerly associated with me who have had children since the big smashup in 1986-87 would not wish to have their past history with me something made public*at this time*. There are a number of devout Catholics among these ex-friends of mine, who have assumed prominent positions within the Church. Why should they somehow become answerable for their pasts through something as subversive as a video? Of course I would be quite content to have any videos of myself postedif it came to a matter of truth-telling and settling of the matter of my honesty or dishonesty; my equivocation or my sincerity. But I feel I am not in a position to make use of our past history together as the means of establishing the integrity of myself in your eyes. If you asked some of the persons who appeared in Vaj's photograph of me inside the campus grounds of MIU carrying Guru Dev's portrait, they would express their desire that they not become the subject of discussion here at FFL. Now I ask you, Stevie Wonder, what should constitute my greater responsibility: to prove to you my good intentions hereand my probityor attempt to persuade you that you are chasing a notion of me which has been thoroughly disproven in a fair reading of all my posts at FFL? You see, Steve, you have to MAKE CONTACT WITH SOMETHING when you use some form of inference to put into doubt someone's sincerity. If you had read my five part post to Curtisor even the entire dialogues I had with Curtis before thisyou would therefore have to hold this context of experience and understanding and weigh this against what you think you may have got a hold of in my post to Vaj as insinuating that I am equivocating. I know what I am doing. If I had the permission of these former friends of mine to make them the means to prove to Steve that I was not equivocating, then I would urge Vaj to post the tape in any way he wishes to. The point really is: Did Robin strike someone publicly at a seminar and is there a video of him doing this? You are lusting after the possibility that there just might be some truth in thisa truth which would serve your psychological needs big time. Meanwhile Vaj knows whether he has indeed such a tape, and it would be impossible for him, if he does, to not contradict my claims here by not doing anything to demonstrate that I am lying. He is fighting back in the only way he knows howeven as he has given a promise not to bring up my more ancient past in order to resolve the issues between us that take the form of something completely in the present. You can confront me with some idea that I am equivocatingand you are insisting on still doing this in this post. But you once again do not bear the responsibility of taking hold of the entirety of the context of my posts which would in any way whatsoever be consistent with this notion that Robin is equivocatingi.e. trying to avoid the presentation of, ah! a smoking gun. Now I was in a very real sense out of control in my enlightenment. I did many things which I would never have dreamed of doing had I remained in waking state consciousnessanyone who knew me before and then after my enlightenment would remark on the dramatic even cataclysmic difference in me. So, if a video was played of those ten years (which will happen when I die I believe) I am sure I would be embarrassed and ashamed by many of my actions. But for me to have struck someone physically during a seminar, this is not something I would have done. You see, Steve, you don't want to understand the context of those ten years; you don't want to have to take into yourself the context of my five-part post to Curtis; you only want one thing: something to incriminate Robin with. And I ask you, Steve, in all my posts at FFL is there evidence for me acting in some dishonest and cowardly and deceitful way? Or do my posts make it unlikely that I would lieno matter whathere at FFL? Think about that, Seve. Vaj knows whether he has this video of Robin or not. I have proposed a means whereby he can vindicate himself in this accusation by showing it confidentially to Curtis. If you really are keen on proving I am a liar, why don't you urge Vaj to show the tape to YOU? That would be an acceptable alternative to me. But you would then just have to say: "I have seen the tape, Robin, What Vaj says is true." I think you will have to settle for this level of satisfaction in your quest to make me appear to be someone other than how I have appeared here at FFL so far. Your dogged refusal to open yourself to the context of reality before seizing upon a certain item that quite possibly possesses the power to reinforce your: "You scored dude" syndrome, this is much more significant than this dispute over how it can be established whether Robin physically struck some person who attended one of his seminars. You had no business believing in that nun, Steve, unless you were making contact with something about her which contradicted the suspicions of those who were going after her. Similarly, you are obsessively focusing on a particular 'fact' hereRobin did not actually just tell Vaj to go ahead and post the video of Robin hitting someone: ergo he must be trying to slip out of the noose. But I have had my say, Steve. There is a simple means for Vaj to establish the existence of that tape, and I am happy to have this matter resolved to the point where there will not exist any equivocation about itand therefore any issue about my own tendency to equivocate, which only you, among the posters at FFL, Steve, have thought to charge me with. You have the means to find out whether I am like the dishonest nun. Now go out there and get your satisfaction, Steve. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > > 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 Curtisor 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. > > > > > >
