--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > 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.
Okay, stop right here. First, let me confess, I did not read the five part post to Curtis. I only read three quarters of the first post, and bits and pieces of the rest. But for you to say, that I want something to incriminate you with, well that is entirely inaccurate. I like you. I view you as a friend. On the other hand, I do not know you well. I have had other friends that I thought I knew well deceive me. But that has not hardened me. It has only made me wiser. An accusation has been made against you. You had an initial response. Then you revised that response. First you wanted to bet Vaj $10,000 that he didn't have a video reporting to show what he said it showed. Then it seemed to wanted to reduce the bet to $100.00. If I misread your intentions, I apologize. But I am not in the least bit interested in seeing you incriminated is some way. The standard we seem to have established here, at least recently, is if I would cover your back in a dark alley, or possibly a safari, and the answer is yes, (in both settings). Although in setting two it might depend on who could run the fastest. Now let me send this post before something happens to it, and I will continue reading. 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. > > > > > > > > > >
