Sal, I will be glad to do this. But I will have to do it this evening when I have some time and if someone doesn't do it before then. The question will then be, are YOU willing to look at the evidence in any kind of objective way, or simply dismiss it as just some subjective view point?
I have made this effort in the past, and you have never bothered you reply when evidence was presented that was contrary to your views. When asked about it later, you have said your participation in this forum is only for light banter and relaxation, and you don't care to engage in any serious talk. So, I would rather not waste my time if you are not going to be genuine participant. I gotta go now. --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@...> wrote: > That's what it seems to me as well~~ > if there were some posts made which > in any way proved Vaj's assertions to > be false, or even dealt with them on > any kind of level other than pseudo- > hysteria, I haven't seen them. Perhaps > lurk could point them out? Especially > since he seems so sure that Vaj has > been "exposed as a liar." Where, > exactly, did this occur lurk? I must > have missed the posts. And this > Richard Nelson seems more intent > on coming across more as mentally > unbalanced than in having any kind > of rational discussion. > > > > Did you even *notice* that feste did *exactly* > > what he was accusing Vaj of? He just slung insults, > > and presented not even a single supposed fact. > > > >> When asked to back up these assertions, the best he could > >> come up with, was "he heard it from someone" > > > > Yup. The people piling on didn't even go that far. They > > just claimed things *as if they were facts*, but without > > anything that could enable anyone to determine whether > > they were really facts or not. > > > > In other words, on one level what we seem to have here > > is a pissing contest, in which both sides are saying, > > "What I've heard is better than what you've heard." I > > call it total bullshit, on all sides. > > > > As for the "piling on" thang that Sal brings up, it *would* > > have been possible for Richard Nelson or others to just post > > a few verifiable facts (y'know...stuff including dates and > > contact information and where one could go to verify their > > claims) and leave it at that. They did not. What they did > > was to do *exactly* the same thing that Vaj did -- make a > > bunch of unverifiable claims -- and then proceed to call > > him names. > > Not only unverifiable claims, but almost hysterical ones at > that. Which isn't exactly what you'd call either a > great advertisement for meditation or a ringing > endorsement for their version of the "truth." > Sal >
