--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> 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. > > From Mr. Dictionary: > > "figure of speech--a form of expression (as a simile or > metaphor) used to convey meaning or heighten effect often > by comparing or identifying one thing with another that > has a meaning or connotation familiar to the reader or > listener" > > He used the term loosely, not in the legal/technical > sense, to mean something that is alleged that can't be > verified. You know that, I know that.
And I believe it was used improperly in this case. There is a sense of parity in he said she said that is critical to the concept. But if we are going with the idea that any concept used as a figure of speech can mean anything no matter what the meaning of the concept is, then quantum mechanics is mathematically calculated as blibity blam, don't ya think? (just using mathematically calculated as a figure of speech you understand) > > > > > 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. > > Please cite them. I couldn't find any. I think you're > misremembering. I made my case, you didn't buy it. I'm cool with that and am certainly not going to pour over old posts to make my point again. (this concept will become useful later) > > > > > 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. > > Unless you're imagining the "shaping," of course. I made my case, you didn't buy it. > > > 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. > > What he said was that it isn't *verifiable*. There's a > difference between that and *credible*. He doesn't have > to have read the book to point out that it isn't > verifiable; and he can't say whether it's credible > without having read it. He said explicitly that he > didn't dismiss its credibility. Funny how clear you were on this very concept with Ravi, but are blind to it with Lawson. I suspect "shaping". > > > 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. > > Not that can be *verified*. Given the nature of the events this is not a reasonable standard IMO. You don't get that in histories and personal accounts. What you get is the account and your best guess of how credible it is. You know what assists in this process? Reading the book. > > > Is the account of Lincoln's assassination merely hearsay? I > > mean I never got a statement from Lincoln afterwards. > > Curtis, you're crashing and burning on this one. Histories have different standards of what is verifiable. Sexual histories about people who were alone in a room together are even less likely to be able to rise to the standard he set. > > > > > 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. > > Please cite some instances. I don't think that ever > happened. What did you believe I lied about? Not a fan of the moving on are you? I said all I had to say in the AMT posts about what I considered to be lies. Spent a lot of time on it as I remember because it really pissed me off. If you are interested in pursuing this topic I suggest it should be you who goes back and pours through the mountain of posts we generated. But I have nothing to add to that material now so don't expect me to get involved in this project if you do decide to get in the wayback machine. Suffice it to say that we both doubted each other's credibility back then but have moved beyond that now. We can agree to disagree. I prefer this way. YMMV but I am absolutely not interested. Arguing about how I though about something you wrote years and years and years ago has zero appeal for me. > > > > > > 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. >
