"authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

> 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.

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

And yet you have taken the bait (non-existant as you seem to think it is).
> Yeah, but we know this for sure.  I'm reporting
> what he actually *said*, you see.

No, you are reporting your interpretation of what he said. 

> > > 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.

Wow, I am now thrown in to pit with all the other "liars" and total
scoundrels, just because I have a different standard than you for
trivial vs substantial things to worry about. Oh, please don't report
me to the "Thought Police" oh kind and worthy Commissaress.

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

HAHAHA. I don't think even Vaj takes everthing hes says as Gospel.
Any hands? Who among us takes everything Vaj says as Gospel? (And if
you do, I have a wonderful little seminar on making millions in 3
weeks, that I invite you to attend.)

> > > So it appears to me to be important to know that he
> > > is willing to lie in the service of his agenda, 

And  what is his agenda?


> > > 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.

Thats what is so fascinating. You actually beleive you can absolutely
impute his motive from words words. We have words that he uttered
(trivial, IMO) falsehoods. We do not have words that PROVE his
motives. His motives are  your interpretation of what he said. 

> *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.

No, you are reporting your interpretation of what he said. 

> 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.

Come on down Vaj! 

------------------------ 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