--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > As you know, zarzari, Robin himself corrected the post > > around four hours later, after I'd called his attention > > to the four incorrectly attributed quotes from your > > exchange with Barry (#299915). > > No, I didn't know. I had been out of town for a few days then. > The wrong post, the wrong attributions are still there, still > in place. > > > I should probably have > > referred Lawson to the corrected version, > > Exactly, that's what you should have done. Then I wouldn't have > come back. People will not read all references. It is what people > see, that sticks to their minds. The wrong attributions will > stick, as people see them. > > > but since > > the part of Robin's post I wanted him to read didn't > > contain any of the misattributed quotes and didn't have > > anything to do with what you and Barry had been > > discussing, it never occurred to me. > > I am aware of that. But this wrong text is still online, > will be seen prior to scrolling, without people checking > it out. As you pointed to the post, I have every right to > point out the mistakes.
Of course you do. My question is whether it makes any sense for you to spend all this time and effort when nobody would be likely to even notice the misattributions otherwise. > > > Btw. how reliable would a post be, that contains so > > > many mistakes? > > > > Everybody makes attribution mistakes now and then, you > > included, zarzari. > > But these were grave. It was all topsy turvy, all attributions > to me were wrong They weren't all that grave. But my point is that a post with a few misattributed quotes doesn't call the entire post in question, especially when what Robin wrote in that post had nothing to do with your exchange with Barry from which the quotes came. > he drew his personal conclusions about me from these quotes > mainly. He did not. He knew you were biased against him *at least* from when you called his integrity in question in this post to me: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299094 And that would obviously have been confirmed by what you wrote about him after that, leading up to this: "From the very first reading of RWC I got this impression, and expressed it to somebody here. Whatever I read, hear about the whole case confirms my opinion. According to occam's razor, it is more likely he had a mental disturbance, which is known to have similar symptoms than enlightened states, than a fall from a real enlightened state...." (blahblahblah) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299819 "From the very first reading of RWC..." > He got everything wrong, and that was only references from > the close past, not even a week ago. He got all four attributions from your exchange with Barry wrong, not "everything." He accidentally switched the first attribution around and simply mechanically continued with what appeared to be the sequence. He wasn't commenting on those quotes; he wasn't paying attention to who said what because it *wasn't relevant to what he was telling Vaj*. > How could his remembrance and interpretation of events in > the distant past, decades away, be accurate or reliable in > any sense? From a time in which he was allegedly delusional? This doesn't make any sense. Because he got attributions wrong in one post, we should doubt everything he's said about his past?? Get real. > Your interpretation of Maharishi -through his eyes - cannot > be accurate and reliable. Of course it can. I don't *know* that it is, but I have no reason to think what Robin said wasn't accurate. Whatever I added of my own is obviously just guesswork, because I have no firsthand knowledge of any of it. > > Robin was almost exclusively responding to remarks from > > Vaj in that post, and Vaj himself had not been addressing > > anything in your exchange with Barry (in which you were > > speculating about Robin's mental health). > > > > > > He's responding to a post from Vaj. > > > > > > > > You'll need to scroll down a bit, to where Robin writes, > > > > "Maharishi summoned me to Seelisberg..." > > > > If Lawson had scrolled down to that point and read just the > > self-contained section that had to do with what he and I > > were discussing, he would have scrolled right past the first > > three mistakenly attributed quotes and stopped reading before > > the last one. He would have had no reason even to look at > > the misattributed quotes from your exchange with Barry; and > > they could hardly have been less relevant to our discussion > > in any case. > > It's not about this discussion. It is that something wrong > is there and being linked to. Period. Oh, boo-hoo. That's a risk you run on a forum like this, that somebody's going to get something wrong and attribute to you something you never said, or attribute something you said to someone else. Live with it. I've had it happen to me, and I don't freak out about it. > > I don't know why you want to call attention to the four > > mistaken attributions when you are explicitly telling folks > > not to look at them, but that's your affair. I seriously > > doubt anyone but Lawson and I went back to look at that post > > in the first place. > > Right. It's my affair if I am being misrepresented online to > set this straight. I should not rely on others, Mrs. Corrector > to do that for me. I'm just pointing out that you have ended up calling attention--loudly and repeatedly--to what you supposedly don't want people to read. > Posts being sent in the past are being looked upon as being > more authentic in a strange way, and they are being pointed to, > as if they contain some secret clue or revelation. This is some kind of weird fantasy of your own, zarzari. > But as it turns out, they could just as easily be wrong and > fictitious. And then your whole building of logic will > collapse. So could just about anything anyone, including you, writes here. You're really sounding like a raving paranoid, zarzari.
