Maybe Vaj has been interested in posting on this TM oriented forum for years and years and years because he had personal experience as a teacher of TM and has since changed his perspective on its value like most of us here.
And maybe Vaj's obvious intererest in Robin comes from his experiences with Robin in his previous role. You know, the ones he has related here. I get it that the "Vaj never even did TM" team is not gunna budge." It provides a complete ad hominem against anything he says as Nabbie repeated below. And since he doesn't seem interested in proving his TM involvement to them that seems like a position that isn't gunna budge. But for we who hold no stock options in that angle, it seems more likely that the guy is interested in these topics due to previous experiences with them. And if I had to guess why he has not answered critics with "proof" of his involvement, it would be in a folder labeled: F'ing with people. And so far it seems like it is working pretty well. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > > > Robin, > > > > Has it ocurred to you that Vaj has built his case, (if you want to call > > it a case) on specific details. Your response has been to declare that > > it is all a lie. Now, if there were a bench of 12 jurors listening to > > the evidence, on the issue of "Did this Vajradhatu know or meet this > > Robin Wordworth Carlson", what would be the verdict? Now Judy may say, > > well, you haven't presented any person who can identify this Vajrahatu > > at the scene, and because of this technicality, the case could be > > thrown out. But short of this standard, it seems to me that Vaj has > > presented credible, seemingly first person evidence. I am sorry to have > > to come to this conclusion since it seems to bother you so much, and > > because I like you. > > > > On the other hand, what is so wrong with simply dealing with these > > events that happened 25 or 30 years ago, and then moving on? Or at > > least trying to move on. It appears that Vaj is going to continue to > > confront you with these past events, and that is certainly his > > perogative. > > > > Vag might as well have heard these stories from persons present at the time. > His credebility on this list is on zero already, as you probably know. > > Or he read them in some FBI-files. >
