--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:
> > Your response provides some interesting context for your repeated > > statements that Unc lies. While I have seen no indication of that, > > what he says may often be inconsequential, > > > but here I have not > > > seen outright lies. > > Well, yes, you have, actually. Assuming you are referring to the last part of my sentence, I guess you mean I have seen the words that comprise the lie, but that I have been oblivious to them. Do you always parse words so tightly? It seems you do so, here and in adjacent posts, to make a "factual point" something that indeed is true, but is a quite a limited, that is low probability, interpreation of intent. > > However your claim that the Shankaracharaya linneage debate has not > > "raged on AMT for a while as well" struck me as quite odd. > > It *would* have been quite odd if that were the > claim I had made. However, in context, I was > referring to the current "pissing contest," i.e., > concerning Anoop Chandola's account of what > Shantinanda said about MMY, which appeared to be > what Vaj was referring to as well. Well, that is your IMO limited interpretation of what Vaj intended. An interpretation that made Vaj's statemtn appear false. Why did your mind not go to the, IMO, larger and more obvious interpreation that he was referring to the JM shank lineage debate? Because you assume Vaj often speaks falsely and you wanted to reinforce your presumption? ... > Moreover, Vaj's phrasing seemed to suggest there > was a debate about this raging *concurrently* on > alt.m.t, whereas in fact the most recent post > mentioning Chandola was from three years ago. I don't see why his words in any way inferred "concurrently". While thats a possible interpretation, its an added layer of assumption. Best to stick to what the words ARE, not some possible but low probability interpretation. > > Also, speaking of truthfulness, one might question > your use of the term "rants" with reference to my > comments on Unc not telling the truth. See adjacent post apology. I would have been more accurate using a more neutral word. > Finally, being incorrect is one thing. Not telling > the truth--lying--is quite another. OK. Nice platitude. But what does that have to do with the current discussion? Are you asserting that Vaj, per your interpretation of his words, just made a careless mistake and hallucinated that the debate was current, but "opps" it wasn't? It appears to me that your implication was Vaj was 'making it up' aka, lying. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
