Thanks Wayback. I appreciate a little nod of support. But the fact of the matter is that I think the whole affair is being kept alive by Robin for some reason. On the one hand he claims to be sensitive to those who were involved in his activities way back when.
Then, in almost the same sentence he will not consent to moving the discusssion offline where it could be determined if Vaj is being credible in his statements. So as Richard is fond of saying, "go figure". One the one hand we have specifics. On the other hand we have a flat denial based on, based on, based on..... Sheesh what is the denial based on? And then we close off the means to verify. With regards to Ravi, I think we in the west sort of like to be approached as equals. After so many times as being referred to as Ravi's bitch, or one of his many bitches, you sort of build up a little resentment. OMG. OMG. Did I just divulge that I'm not enlightened? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > > > I'd sure like to know the burden of proof you are looking for Judy. > > Evidently details such as time and place, nuances are not good enough > > for you. Vaj must keep a complete dossier on Robin, which he must also > > have pretty much memorized since he posts in nearly zero lag time in > > response to Robin's posts. But evidently you maintain that all this > > could be accounted for by public records, interviews, newspaper articles > > that Vaj has compiled. > > > > And of course this could be the case. But a more likely scenario is > > that Vaj was present in the scenes he describes. And if I were the > > betting type, and someone asked me to be on the other side a bet which > > said that Vaj's story was all heresay, I would take that bet. > > I agree with you on this one, Steve. If we assume that Vaj was present for > some of these events and has such insider knowledge, it makes me think that > either he or someone close to him was one of Robin's followers or else, for > some reason, was very interested in the outcome of the whole enterprise. > > It does sound as if there was some very odd, extreme behavior happening with > Robin in those days -whether mental instability or some kundalini triggered > imbalance. Without the "protection" of being part of the TMO or any other > such org, he would have ended up in the hospital, or jail, in the real world. > > > This entire subject seems beaten to death here on FFL. I don't get the > ongoing fascination with this, or with Ravi, either. > > > > I guess there is the other matter where Vaj has asked Robin to carry on > > the discussion offline, whereby names and other details could be > > discussed in private. That offer was declined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contemporaneous time --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > <jstein@> 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? > > > > > > 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? > > > > > >
