Ah, now this is Anne we've come to know. No worries. Anne, read Robin's post. Read the various comments I have made about it. Now, what I am gathering is that you think I am mistaken! Yes, I managed to pick that up.!
Now, I've told you why I came to the conclusions I've come to. And you are saying, "You're wrong Steve, and I'm right, because I am an authority in this area. That is what I believe is called an Appeal to Authority. And it is a fallacy. You have said nothing to support your position other than, "I Am An Authority on this Subject" Anne, you may not realize this, but your supposed "authorityness" is pretty compromised. I mean it is kind of funny that in all the months Robin posted here, he never addressed you directly, once! Yikes!! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote: Anne, both you and Judy think that I totally missed the mark in my recollection of Robin's post from several years ago. I don't think I did miss the mark, at least by much. Steve, as I said, I don't really care one way or another but you did, in fact, get it wrong, missed the mark. Pray tell, in what sense did Robin go to any sort of "confession" with anyone on a regular (or irregular) basis at Starbucks? Come on. You really did go way off what was said in that post you referenced. But what is wrong with my feeling that Judy had some attachment to Robin? Nothing, per se. It was the way in which you said it that was starting to become boorish and rude. I mean she said as much, (and I am not going to look up that post). Now whether she said so in jest or seriousness, I don't know, but there was a comment along those lines. And given the frequency with which those kindred souls would alternate between irony and seriousness, I'm not going to speculate much beyond that. Good idea, no speculating, because if you miss this one like you screwed up the "confession" post then it is bound to be a doozy. I am not sure that accuracy is your forte, Steve. You are a nice guy (most of the time) and were awfully adorable in that picture you posted with the Three Stooges but let's not push our luck and have to include you as the fourth (Stooge, that is). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote: and yikes II, this is pretty revealing. I didn't realize how deep the attachment went. Do you think it may have run mostly in one direction, though? Is this where things start to gravitate below the belt? And if so, why Steve? Is it not possible to engage in a discussion without getting personal and far-fetched in your unfounded theories? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote: My memory is excellent, and I followed Robin's posts more closely than anyone here. The two of us were good friends and had extensive email correspondence. You repeatedly get things wrong that have happened in the past. I never saw him say anything like what you imagine. You made the claim, you find the post. Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is. If he said it, it will be there in the record. Without being too boastful, my memory is pretty good. My impression is that he had nothing to do with e-mails, and seemed to predate his participation here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote: You've got something screwy here, Stevie. He may have been talking about email, in which case he probably meant with me. But there was no "daily confessional." My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, feelings. I would say this was a couple months before he stopped posting. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote: emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams of quotes notwithstanding. "Daily confessional with his friend at Starbuck's"?? Robin never said anything remotely like that. Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans. However, he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly espousing a pseudo-humility. Sorta my take on the whole thing. On the other hand, we do have the "missing" years when he was substitute teaching. Could get some checks in the humility column for that. And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at Starbucks. Do I have that right?
