I'm going to channel my inner Judy now..a poor imitation of her but I will try.. Look how Turqster, the trickster spins his deception. Now he says it's all opinion, both Vaj and Richardson are stating opinions and he doesn't side with either of them when he clearly sides with the liar Vaj, one trick parrot, the proponent of the Vakragita. He converts both lies and truth into opinions and subtly portrays that neither is any better since it's all opinion. He keeps repeating he doesn't believe in ayurveda but he is quite animated. Hats off to the Turqster, the Trickster, the master of deception.
--- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ > > wrote: > > > > > > > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand > > > > sources who acutally were in a position to know some of the > > > > details which were alleged to have taken place. > > > > > > In other words, EXACTLY the same as Vaj's. His > > > opinion is based on (he says) what he heard from > > > a direct student of one of the parties involved. > > > > Are you aware of the pecking order of sources? There are > > primary sources, and then there are secondard sources. > > And none of EITHER has been cited in this pissing > contest. The only thing that has happened is that > someone has *claimed* to have heard something from > a "source." None of the actual sources have been > quoted, and no way of contacting them to get their > opinion first-hand has been provided. > > > I believe most of Richard's sources are primary sources. > > As Sal pointed out, that's fairly questionable. He > has not replied to how he met the "lawyer" he claims > handled SBS's will over fifty years ago, or named him. > He has similarly given no contact data for any of his > supposed sources. > > I honestly think that you "believe" what you want to > believe, and that's the end of it. There have been > neither primary nor secondary sources involved in > this discussion, only *claims* of what they might > have said by two people. I don't trust EITHER of > them. I won't believe what EITHER of them say until > they provide me with contact information so that I > can contact their supposed "source" myself and ask > them directly. > > And even THEN what have I got? Someone's OPINION. > Not fact. > > > Not the the case with Vaj. > > Dismiss this protocal if you wish. > > I'm dismissing you, for the reasons I state above. > > > > And yet you somehow give more credence to what > > > Richard says. Could it possibly be because...wait > > > for it...what Richard says (filtered through his > > > own obvious agenda) conforms to what you want to > > > believe (filtered through your own)? > > > > You always surprise me in this way. This is or has become > > one of your "stock in trade" accusations. > > I think it's also accurate. You don't even know the > difference between a source and a claim of a source, > as indicated above. And you want me to believe that > you don't have any *bias* in this? Puhleeeeze. > > > But excuse me if I don't bite on it. You > > might want to "look in the mirror" on this one. > > I have stated my position on the bullshit being argued > about. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT. I think that Ayurveda > is and has always been a scam. Thus I don't care who > thought up some detail of the scam "first." > > > > THERE HAVE BEEN NO FACTS PRESENTED. By anyone, > > > on either side. All that's happened is a "My sources > > > are better than your sources" pissing contest. I'm > > > starting to wonder whether Jimbo is not the only > > > person here whose intellect has devolved to the > > > vegetable level. > > > > Ta Da! The insult! Medicore IMO as insults go. Look, if > > you wish to put all sources on the same level of credibility, > > i.e. an anonymous source as opposed to an identified source, > > feel free do so. > > If you wish to place a *claim* of a source on the same > level as an actual source, by all means do so. But don't > expect me to respect you when you do. > > I don't believe EITHER of them. Get it? Both Vaj and > Richard are FAR too emotional and riding the hobbyhorse > of agenda for me to take anything EITHER of them says > as valid just because they say it. > > You, on the other hand, do. And you think I'm the one > who doesn't understand? > > > But unfortunately, and I can guarantee this, should there be > > an issue that would affect you in a significant way, and where > > facts needed to be presented which would affect an outcome in > > which you had a stake, you would care very much. > > Still harping on the "primary vs. secondary source" > red herring? NO SOURCES HAVE BEEN PRESENTED. > There have only been *claims* of what "sources" made, > by two people who are both clearly overemotional about > the issue. I don't believe a word either of them says. > And I'm kinda curious as to why you do. > > > > I have no horse in this race (or dick in this pissing > > > contest). I DON'T GIVE A SHIT. All of this Ayurveda > > > bullshit happened long after I'd walked away from the > > > TMO, and if I hadn't it would have caused me to walk > > > away when it appeared. From my point of view it's as > > > much "medicine" as an African shaman shaking a rattle > > > at someone. So WHO FUCKING CARES who stole what > > > meaningless "formula" from who? > > > > Has it ever occurred to you, that anyone who has to regularly > > proclaim, this. Nay SCREAM it as often as you do, might just > > not be so detached as they claim to be. > > No. I really don't give a shit. Ayurveda has never > touched my life, and never will. I've never bought a > single "remedy" and never will. I think it's a scam. > Why would I care who invented the scam "first?" > > > > The only reason I've chimed in is that people like > > > you, Ray, who I used to respect, have managed to cause > > > me to doubt the wisdom of doing so. > > > > Doubt is sometimes a good thing. Right? > > Yup. After this post, with you not being able to tell > a "source" from a "claim of a source," I doubt that > you're telling us the truth about why you side with > the side you do. > > > > What I've been seeing is "like agenda gravitating to > > > like." Nothing more. People who already believe (or > > > want to believe) something tend to project credence > > > onto the person who agrees with them. And then they > > > declare that the person whose agenda they don't like > > > has been "proven wrong." And all the time not a single > > > fact has been presented, on either side. > > > > Richard Nelson gave accounts that seemed more credible. > > To you. I find his credibility as difficult to believe > in as Vaj's in this matter, and for the same reason. He > is just too overemotional and *invested* in his position > for me to believe that he wouldn't lie about it to advance > his position. > > > He identified them, gave places. > > All hearsay. Yet you believe his and don't believe Vaj's. > > > Did not give names or dates as far as Iknow. He sources seemed > > more credible to me. > > Don't you GET it? There was *never* a "source" quoted > in this whole tempest in a pisspot. There were only > second-hand *claims* of what a supposed source might > have said or believed, presented by two equally biased > and emotionally involved arguers. I don't believe either. > > > If you wish too ascribe all sorts of TB motives to me for > > doing so, be my guest. > > I ascribe fuzzy thinking to you. > > > All I can say again, is that should there a matter in which > > the outcome mattered to you, and which relied on the credi- > > bility of sources, then you may have a different attitude. > > All I can say is that if I were ever in such a situation, > I would demand to go to the actual sources. You feel no > need to do so. You're ready to believe someone who merely > claims to have "sources." > > > > If this is what TM produces in the way of intellect, > > > I am not impressed. I doubt lurkers here are, either. > > > > Ah, "I am superior" flourish. Nicely done. > > I, at least, understand the difference between a "source" > and a "claim of a source." You clearly do not. >
