--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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? > > Figure of speech. In this case the "he said" aspect is > the folks who are denying it.
He said she said is more technical than that and does not include people who where not there in the room of the alleged event. It is a statement of parity. It isn't he said and later some other people said who were interested in what happened. > > > He is making excuses why it is reasonable that he NOT > > read the account. But they are not really reasonable are > > they? > > He made no such excuses that I saw, Curtis. He simply > said he didn't intend to read it. Again you're making > assumptions for which there's no basis in what he > actually said. No, he also gave reasons why he wasn't going to. Reasons that involved shaping. > > > I mean we all have more than a little at stake with > > Maharishi. > > Speak for yourself. Lawson's never seemed to have much > of a stake in MMY's personal behavior either way, which > could well be why he's not interested in reading it. As I said, words one way, shaping tells another story. But who really cares if Lawson reads anything? I was just pointing out that the reasons he gave why it sounded less than credible seemed bogus to me. We all came into the book with some standards of what makes an account credible. Then we read it and applied them. > > But he's always ready to poke holes in folks' reasoning. > I think he's right to point out that we're taking it all > as established fact when there's no way that it could be; > no matter how convincing one may find the book, it's > still basically hearsay. I think you and I have some pretty high level corroboration of Maharishi's personal life. Is the account of Lincoln's assassination merely hearsay? I mean I never got a statement from Lincoln afterwards. > > ----- > > Now I want to give you another chance to respond to a > question I asked you last week in a post you chose not > to respond to: > > > > Nobody has ever been able to show that I've ever lied > > > about anything, here or on alt.m.t. And goodness knows > > > folks have tried. If my assertions were in fact > > > "laughable," it could only be because there was good > > > reason to think they were untrue. There isn't and > > > never has been. > > > > Judy you have never conceded to this point and I don't > > want to dig up the past because you and I have gotten > > beyond this. > > "Dig up the past"? You're suggesting I've lied in the > past? If so, you've just regressed us right back to the > beginning. *Before* the beginning, in fact. > > *Is* that what you're suggesting? Yes I believed that you lied in posts to me on AMT. I spent many posts trying to get you to acknowledge them. You never did. And you accused me of lying about a million times. I also never conceded that I did. Perhaps our communication disconnect was so profound back then that neither of us lied but we both miss-perceived it that way. I am happy that we are in the place we are in now and accept that we will both see the past differently. >
