Some comments below:
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
> > wrote:
> > > > But today, you have Raunchy coming in with a blistering attack
> > > > on Vaj's credibility. You have Curtis strongly suggesting an
> > > > apology to Vaj from Robin. Two intelliegent people with
> > > > divergent opinions. Both quite articulate IMO.
> > >
> > > Which you don't seem able to find any way to weigh against
> > > each other. Such as, for instance, motivation.
> >
> > I view things differently than you do. To you things are
> > quite clear as it pertains to Vaj. I see it differently.
> > Or in this case you see the comments Curtis made to Robin
> > differently than I do.
>
> Steve, I'll make the same suggestion again: Look at
> the *motivation* behind Raunchy's comments versus
> Curtis's comments. What's Raunchy's motivation for
> dissing Vaj? What's Curtis's motivation for dissing
> Robin? What's the history here? Just let "dissing"
> stand in for the opinions; we can agree that both
> were instances of dissing, right?
>
> The following isn't relevant to what I'm trying to
> get at with you, but if I may I'll comment on it
> on its own terms:
>
> > FWIW, I could perfectly understand Robin's rationale for why
> > he might strike someone i.e. to jolt someone out of a pattern
> > of thinking. I might not agree with, but I understand it.
> > And the fact of matter is, that evidently, striking someone is
> > sometimes used in Buddhist traditions for the same reason.
>
> Right, we agree on this. In neither case was/is it
> punishment or anger or retaliation or ritualistic violence,
> as Robin noted. Nobody was physically injured.
>
> > What bothered me was how the story changed regarding the
> > striking. From outright denial to an acknowledgement that
> > it did take place.
>
> Yes, but it wasn't actually *outright* denial. It was
> denial of only the aspects of Vaj's accusations that
> Robin was convinced were, or knew to be, false: not
> "beating," as Vaj had originally claimed; not on stage,
> and not during seminars, also as Vaj had originally
> claimed. As Robin noted in his post, "I did not deny
> something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused
> of."
Judy, this makes me smile, and it is quite true.
> If Vaj had simply said Robin used to strike his students,
> Robin couldn't have denied it. Robin never said, "I never
> struck my students." He always qualified it: I never
> struck a student onstage; I never struck anyone at my
> seminars.
>
> Yes, the denial was "Clintonesque," as Curtis said. But:
>
> > And I actually thought Robin presented a decent case on why
> > he come forth with the whole story when he did.
>
> If you mean why he didn't come out with it earlier, you're
> accepting that he had a good reason for holding it back.
Yes, Judy, this is true. I was willing to give him the benefit of the
doubt. He opened himself to the kind of criticism Curtis made, and with
which I concurred. I retract my criticism about that, and grant him the
benefit of the doubt that he wished to clarify it if and when a proper
time came up. (sorry Robin)
> If you mean why he *did* come out with it now rather than
> continuing to hold it back, you're also accepting his timing.
Yes, I think he did a pretty good job of acknowledging that timing wise,
it did not put him in the best light, but he had a rationale for it.
> He didn't come out with it earlier because the context--as
> you saw if you read his post--was so convoluted and arcane
> he figured nobody would have understood or believed it. He
> came out with it when he did because someone had appeared
> on the scene who had herself experienced the context and
> could back him up on it.
>
> That's the basis for the initial "Clintonesque" denial and
> the subsequent change of story.
Ok, I buy this.
> > But I also feel that there was dishonesty on Robin's part
> > with regard to Vaj, and am in agreement with Curtis'
> > suggestion that Robin offer an apology to Vaj.
>
> Now you have to explain where you believe the dishonesty
> lay for which Robin should apologize to Vaj, given the
> above, because you've gutted your initial reasons.
Okay, not that my opinion counts for anything, but I think there should
be some acknowledgement from Robin to Vaj as to the veracity of his
claims. I don't feel Robin was quite as high minded as you give him
credit for below.
> > You may feel differently. But if I have understood some of
> > your recent comments correctly, you do not discount the
> > possibility that Vaj met Robin on many ocassions and
> > participated in his seminars.
> >
> > Look at the record on Robin's comm ents in this regard.
> > He strenously denies that this was a possibility.
>
> Since I'm not in a position to know for sure, I can't
> rule anything out.
>
> But if I had to make a decision, I'd go with Robin's version
> in a nanosecond. I don't find Vaj's accounts at all
> convincing just on their face; plus which, I've found Vaj to
> be dishonest on so many different occasions about so many
> different topics that I don't trust anything he says,
> particularly when he has an obvious agenda to discredit
> somebody. And I'm far from the only one here who feels
> that way.
>
> On the other hand, I've found Robin to be *painfully*
> honest, taking full responsibility and accountability for
> everything he's done and said, including all the negative
> stuff. I've never seen him willfully distort anything
> anyone here has said, as I've seen Vaj do all too often.
> And of course Robin has now also taken responsibility for
> the Clintonesque-ness of his denial that he struck his
> students, his justification for which seems to me also
> to be honest.
>
> I'm far from the only one here who finds Robin credible.
>
> Vaj has not taken responsibility for his constantly
> changing accounts of what he claims to know about Robin
> striking his students. If you read my post to Curtis,
> I quote a number of them. The final version, made here
> following Robin's confession, cites the original version
> of Vaj's accusation under the heading of "not true." IOW,
> Vaj told an untrue version of the story but has never
> acknowledged it.
>
> Finally, and this is purely personal opinion, Vaj's
> attacks on Robin have been scurrilous and malicious.
> Robin's attacks on Vaj have been neither. They've
> been powerful and up front. Everyone who has read
> them knows why Robin distrusts and dislikes Vaj.
>
> Nobody knows why Vaj loathes Robin.
>
> The problem I have with you, Steve, is that you don't
> do your homework and take a stab at analyzing the
> basis for differences of opinion, checking the
> accuracy and consistency of the claims, or taking
> motivation into account. You let others do all the work
> for you and then just pick whichever of the resulting
> viewpoints seems most appealing at the moment.
Yes, perhaps I do this. On the other hand I may not have the necessary
time or motivation to be more thorough in forming my opinions on some
of these issues. But I do thank you for pointing out some of the
inconsistencies in forming this particular opinion.
