--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > Mm-hm.  And yet, had it been just a mistake, after
> > I made my post reporting on Gratzon's book, you'd
> > think Vaj would have double-checked and then retracted
> > his claim.  *Then* it would not have been a big deal;
> > anybody can make a careless mistake like that.
> > But he didn't.  Instead he came up with all kinds of
> > crap, 
> I took it as Vaj playing with you. Knowing that if he obsuficated a
> bit, you would tend towards imploding in obsession. Barry enjoys 
> such toying also. Perhaps not the noblest of traits, but maybe they 
> are students of the behavioral sciences and love to see small 
> pieces of bait repeatedly taken and watch the predictable drama 
> unfold.

That's certainly the excuse Barry uses when he's
dug himself too deeply into a pit of lies to crawl

But it's clearly not what Vaj was doing, if you
go back and actually read his posts.

> > What we know *for sure* is that having been informed
> > of his error, Vaj first threw down a red herring of
> > Fairfield get-rich-quick schemes, then when that   
> > didn't work, attempted to stonewall and pretend that
> > there indeed were such sites but that somehow I was
> > too incompetent to find them.
> Or he was playing with you. Lots of possible interpretations here.
> You may know it "for sure" -- just as we all claim to believe our
> interpreation of things, becasue they so clearly "makes sense", it
> obviously (to us) is correct.

Yeah, but we know this for sure.  I'm reporting
what he actually *said*, you see.

> > Now, I don't know what your standards are for blatant
> > dishonesty, but the above more than meets mine, even
> > if Vaj's original claim was just a dumb mistake.
> Yes, your threshold is way way lower than mine.

I'm sorry to hear that.  Now we know you can't
be trusted either.

> > It's not like anybody here is testifying on such
> > important matters.  But Vaj *does* "testify" about
> > matters that are important to many here, quite a 
> > few of whom seem to consider him to be a font of
> > authoritative information.
> And we all take what he says, as with what anyone else says, with 
> some grains of salt, based on OUR own appraisal of their tendency 
> towards veracity. How you evealuate Vaj's tendency towards veracity 
> is really of little consequence and interest to me. And I would 
> guess most. We can and do make our own appraisals.

As it happens, though, as I just pointed out, 
many people here seem to take everything Vaj
says as gospel.

> > So it appears to me to be important to know that he
> > is willing to lie in the service of his agenda, 
> Or he sometimes plays with people, throws out some bait to see if
> the age old patterns emerge.

Yeah, not in this case.  That isn't Vaj's style,
and that wasn't what his posts on the subject
were like.

> > and
> > accordingly take other pronouncements that he makes
> > about MMY and TM and the TMO --and quite possibly
> > other things as well--with a good-sized salt shaker
> > handy.
> We all have our salt shakers. But if anything, your focus on this
> incident gives Vaj more credibiliy not less, in my view of him. It
> makes me think, "if this is the worst she an dig up on Vaj, and this
> seems so trivial, he must be pretty clean".

Oh, there's reams and reams more, they're just less
clear-cut and a lot more complicated to demonstrate.

And in any case, it's the apparently trivial lies
that are the most telling.  If a person is willing
to lie about something minor that can be so easily
checked up on, imagine what he's likely to do with
issues that are more difficult to refute.

*Casual* lying, in my experience and observation,
is a bad sign.  It means a person simply does not
put much value on telling the truth.

> > I'm happy to have it "revealed" that I am intolerant
> > of deliberate falsehood.  
> Or your perception of "deliberate falsehood". Belief doesn't
> neessarily make it (deliberate falsehood) so.

Yeah, this isn't belief; we have the evidence of
his own words, you see.

*Even if* he were just trying to get a rise out of me--
which there are excellent reasons to think was not the
case--he was still perpetrating a deliberate falsehood.

The first time around, it *could* have been a mistake--
not likely, but possible.  His *defense* was obviously
intentionally false, on its face.

Of course, he could easily come forward now, claim
he was just baiting me in his defense, and explain
that he had initially made an error--that is, if he
wanted to set the record straight.

I'm guessing he doesn't, but we'll see.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to