--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: (snip) > We are talking about about cultish methods of issue avoidance > like Nabby's "I never saw anything like it so you must be > lying" or Judy's "I wouldn't be annoyed that someone tried > to rip me off $50,000 for something that couldn't happen > because I don't have $50,000".
Ooooo, that wasn't very smart of you, salyavin. Did you really think I wouldn't call you on this deliberate misrepresentation? As you know, I didn't cite my bank account as a reason for not reacting to the Vedaland pitch (had I been there). And if you attempt to dispute this, I'll quote your question and my actual response to it (you really should not put your own paraphrases in quote marks, by the way--that's dodgy in and of itself). The reason I gave for why I wouldn't have reacted was (as you know): "It simply wouldn't have been a big blip on my radar screen. Just more silly TMO blah-blah-blah, tune it out. Vedaland was a ridiculous notion to start with even when Henning was still in full cry....I would have paid too little attention to the blah-blah-blah even to notice that it was dishonest." I mean, I can understand why you wouldn't *want* to quote this as a "cultish method of issue avoidance." It would make you look *really* dumb. But what you quoted instead demonstrates your own dishonesty. You are learning well from Barry. Now you need to learn what he never has: You can't get away with pulling that kind of misrepresentation here, and it has a very negative effect on your credibility. If you're willing to be dishonest about something that's so easily proven false, you're likely to be even more willing to be dishonest about something that's more difficult to document.
