--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], iranitea <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], iranitea <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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.
First of all - it wasn't like this. I was genuine in my answer, I didn't take anything back, but I felt the respect I expressed. Second, where did he show this? In which post? How? > 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? > > > > > >
