--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > On Feb 11, 2012, at 9:46 PM, awoelflebater wrote: > > > > > I never said you had an obligation to defend others, this is something > > > you need to decide for yourself if you want to do or not. What I am > > > saying is that in the case of your post to Robin you were battering at > > > Robin in order to somehow absolve Vaj, gloating even. Is there not a way > > > to make a point that you think is valid without undermining the other > > > person? And I have to say (God, I hate beating this very dead and stinky > > > horse), I still don't see the rationale for why Vaj was right. He said he > > > saw a tape of a seminar where someone was being struck. Robin had said he > > > never struck anyone at a seminar. I said I don't remember ever seeing him > > > strike a person at a seminar. Why do you still say Vaj was correct? > > > Because Robin hit someone at Sunnyside, in a private house that pre-dated > > > Vaj's supposed involvement with Robin by at least 4 years? Anyway, I > > > don't get it. > > > > > > I can't speak for Curtis, but I suspect that he trusts the fact that I've > > stated clearly that a benefactor of R's and his wife insisted I view this > > video - they wouldn't take no for an answer - and that all the people I > > knew locally severed any connection after that tape surfaced and > > circulated. I've also clarified my dim remembrance of the video to point > > out it looked as if Robindra was at the end of a long (and unsuccessful) > > confrontation and, as if in exasperation, began pounding his fists on the > > person. It looked like a person at their wits end. What it was not was a > > person punching a person, or hitting them in the face or anything of that > > sort. But this video represented a "last straw" for many late hangers on. > > > > Once Robin admitted to hitting someone, despite numerous lies to the > > contrary, the cat was out of the bag. > > > > Understand these were also the same people who I went with to confront R. > > later in person, the so-called ego food incident. > > > > If I can get an answer as to what confrontation this was and who the person > > was, I'll drop you a line privately both so you'll know and because I'd > > love to hear your perspective. > > Vaj just doubled down on his story contingent on finding out > "what confrontation this was and who the person was." Red > herring. Not gonna happen.
Unless there was another "confrontation" that Vaj has never mentioned, it would appear that the one he's talking about here was the one in DC that he and Robin discussed quite a lot. Vaj claims to have been one of three people who visited Robin to talk about past issues (including an unsuccessful attempt to get a newly Catholic Robin to look at his Jyotish chart, astrology being a big no-no in Catholicism). Robin was very skeptical that Vaj was one of the three people. The only one of the other two people who was identified by both Robin and Vaj was someone named Gary. Now it appears the third person may have been Gary's wife, if the same two people who allegedly showed Vaj the video were those who were in the DC delegation. Which would mean that this Gary was the supposed WTS benefactor. Vaj referred to the visitation--during which he claims to have demonstrated that Robin was not enlightened by some technique that he declines to discuss--as the "ego food incident" for the first time on Friday, at least according to Yahoo Advanced Search. Unless Vaj has deleted other posts that use the phrase, of course. Also interesting is the fact that when Vaj first described this "confrontation" in 2006, there were four people in the delegation: "In the 80's, I was invited by three close friends--an old TM teacher, an MIU grad and a Sidha, to confront Robin Woodsworth Carlsen who was then living in an apartment in Washington DC. It was actually my first time at debunking a claim of enlightenment, but when it was all over and done, we were all convinced this man was without a doubt, a fraud." As far as I can tell, all Vaj's subsequent mentions of this incident have involved only three people (again, unless he's deleted other posts in which he said there were four). So we can add to the questions for Vaj: What happened to the fourth person? > Information that Vaj could more easily provide that Ann could verify: > 1. Who was Robin's benefactor and wife that insisted Vaj view a video? > 2. When did Vaj see the video and when and where was it filmed? There were no > videos of meetings at Sunnyside. Four years after Sunnyside Ann was behind > the camera filming and/or attending all Robin's seminars. If such a tape > existed during this time she would have known about it. > 3. Where was "locally" when the tape surfaced and circulated and people saw > it? If the video was a "last straw" for many late hangers on, Ann would have > heard about people leaving because of a video. > > Clues, Vaj, we need clues. Who shot the video? Was it Colonel Mustard in the > kitchen? Did he use film or digital? Inquiring minds want to know.
