--- 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?
What you seem incapable of incorporating into your thinking is what the prosecutor (or defense attorney, depending on who's suing whom) would point out to the jury: that Vaj could have gotten every single one of those details from somebody else who *was* in Fairfield and who *did* know Robin. > 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. That's hardly a technicality. > But short of this standard, it seems to me that Vaj has > presented credible, seemingly first person evidence. Another point is that the "jury" in this case has heard "testimony" from Vaj on various issues for *years* now, not just for a few hours in a courtroom. He has not established a reputation for credibility, to say the least, among most of us here. Plus which, he has a clear motive to lie about what he knows firsthand: He's made it very plain that he is determined to "get" Robin any way he can. We don't know why he's on this personal vendetta, but there's no question that's what he's engaged in. And here, by the way, he's not testifying under penalty of perjury as he would be in a courtroom. A person who has stood up in public and sworn to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" acquires thereby a certain basic measure of credibility because the person is aware of the penalties for perjuring himself. Personally, just on the level of impressions, Vaj's "testimony" about his experiences with Robin remind me of nothing so much as the special effects trickery that inserted Forrest Gump into all kinds of important events. It's as if Vaj had Photoshopped himself into Robin's life. You can almost see the faint line between Vaj's image and the real ones. There's just no sense of first-person resonance, no ring of authenticity. <snip> > 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, I agree with you 100 percent on these points. As I said in another post, Robin has so much to contribute, and perhaps even something to receive, from more positive interactions here. It's hard not to respond when you feel you're being unfairly maligned, but I wish Robin could find it within himself to limit his responses to the attacks to short statements of fact and just carry on. > and that is certainly his perogative. You could say that. Vaj has the *right* to do what he's doing; but is it *right* that he's doing it?
