--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > [Rick wrote:] > > > > There were numerous witnesses, in the person of > > > > multiple women. Each had their own "events". > > > > Only one has had the guts to write a book. > > > > > > Well, so you now have several people claiming that > > > several different events happened, apparently > > > always in private. Still not anything more than > > > he-said, she-said. > > > <snip> > > But your attempts to make it seem as if you can > > write it off without reading it because of he said > > she said is nonsense. You just don't want to read > > it. Fair enough. Your choice. But assessing > > credibility ahead of time just reveals how our minds > > protect cherished beliefs from counter evidence. > > You are not upholding some principle of not taking > > he said she said stories seriously. > > Look, I'm completely convinced the story is true. > But I'm also in total agreement with what Lawson > is saying. You're overinterpreting the point he's > making and attributing it to a belief on his part > that the account is false, but you aren't doing > that on the basis of anything he's actually > *said*.
You are right. In fact he has stated outright that he has not come to a conclusion. But my point was that that shaping tells another story. We both know and respect Lawson's intellect. So why would he call it a he said she said when everyone knows that he said nothing? He is making excuses why it is reasonable that he NOT read the account. But they are not really reasonable are they? I mean we all have more than a little at stake with Maharishi. I do respect that you took the time to assess it for yourself. It is not a trivial account. Just my opinion. I could be wrong, I often am. > > (Actually I don't agree with what he says about > "preponderance of evidence" in a civil case. That > standard is looser than he thinks. But there's a > distinction between "de jure" (as a matter of law) > and "de facto" (as a matter of fact). It's > entirely possible for a person to be a child > molester, to use your example, *de jure* but not > *de facto*. Or vice-versa.) >
