--- In [email protected], "Ravi Yogi" <raviyogi@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: <snip> > > Have you read the book Lawson? Those who haven't done > > so sound pretty foolish when trying to dismiss its > > credibility.
(Note that Lawson was not trying to dismiss its credibility.) > Would you care to give a brief summary of why you think > it's credible? I read it, and I found it credible. It's hard to say why something like this book has the ring of authenticity; it's more a matter of whether it has any signs of *in*authenticity. And it didn't, as far as I could tell. Part of it is that it's so amateurishly written. Typically, folks who write sensational false exposes do so with a great deal of care because they know what they write is going to be closely scrutinized, and they want to make sure it's as convincing as they can possibly make it. I didn't get any sense of that sort of calculation from Judith's book, but rather of an unskilled, awkward, artless innocence. That's really, really hard to fake. Another aspect--probably even more significant--is that the tone isn't vindictive but instead sad and regretful, almost wistful. That isn't typical of a false expose either. She spends quite a bit of time expressing her great admiration for MMY; she doesn't try to make him into a villain or a fraud as some of the critics here do. So those are two specific points. The rest is mostly intuition: it just *sounds true*. > If you are going to lose any commission on this book > by doing so please forgive me and feel free to ignore. Oh, give me a *break*, Ravi! You sound like Nabby at his absolute worst. Why do you even care about any of this anyway?
