--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Again, iranitea, you have the *wrong post* in mind.
> > >
> > > So you declare - wrongly.
> >
> > No, dear, I'm correcting *you*. You are way, way off track,
> > into the wild blue yonder.
> >
> > > As we are talking of Robins reaction on the 27 Dec,
> >
> > *I* was talking of his courteous reply to your challenge
> > to his integrity that he made on December 19, and your
> > positive response on December 20. He made that courteous
> > response *even though he knew you were prejudiced against
> > him* because of your hostile (yes, it was hostile) post
> > to him of December 16. And he *saw through* your seemingly
> > friendly response on December 20, as you went on to
> > demonstrate in your exchange with Barry a few days later
> > when you started talking about his mental health. Not a
> > thing "mysterious" about it.
> >
> > Robin to Judy, December 19, 2011 (#299118):
> >
> > "I am grateful to you for having understood me so well in my
> > ambivalent attitude towards Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. It is a
> > real consolation to know that someone at least on FFL has
> > grasped the contradiction of my experience of MMY as
> > accurately as you have. This means a lot to me.
> >
> > "So that, when I came to this part of your post, I rejoiced
> > in the fact that there was a human being who followed
> > everything I have written about Maharishi and was therefore
> > able to explain to zarzari_786 the paradox which had so
> > perturbed and discomfited him. The paradox which, evidently,
> > he felt constituted proof of my insincerity."
>
> So what? There is no seeing through either.
I'm pointing out that he was very well aware of your
hostility ("proof of my insincerity").
> My post on the 16 is what he was referring to,
Right, and what you had been saying to me in our
exchange.
> and he obviously felt concerned about - big deal.
> It's simply a defense to something I had raised.
I have no idea what that means.
> My later respectful, and grateful post of the 20th did
> explicitly not take any of that back, as you seem to
> indicate.
Never suggested it did. I'm referring to the false
friendliness and respect that was designed to disarm
him. It didn't work. He knew it was a crock. You had
no intention of engaging with him; you were just
going to pronounce judgment on his mental health, as
you did a few days later in your discussion with
Barry.
If you have any doubts, read it again. Judy, I really can't know what is going
on in your head.
>
>
> > > when I had written already my post on 26 December, the one
> > > with the borderline that made you all upset. What's the
> > > necessity of bringing in some posts of December 20? Where
> > > is his act of 'seeing through me', when he needed to wait
> > > until December 27, when things were clear? Judy, you are
> > > getting old, you don't make sense at all.
> >
> > Yeah, I'm not the one making all the mistakes, iranitea.
> > How old are you, by the way?
> >
>
