--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > <snip> > > Timestamps, of course, may or may not tell the > > whole story about who started a rumor when. > > There *are* other means of communication than > > via public postings to the Web. > > So you're still claiming that John started the > rumor, the same one that was posted earlier > here?
How could I "still claim" this when I never claimed it to begin with? I'm pointing out, of course, that the timestamps don't prove anything either way about who started the rumor. <snip> > > > It seems to me that in both of those cases what > > > is going on is a person who 1) has an agenda, > > > and 2) is willing to forward or start rumors > > > that *further* that agenda, without bothering > > > to verify their validity. > > > > Actually I also checked the Fairfield papers > > before I posted. > > I notice that you didn't choose to deal with > either point 1 or 2. Actually I went on to deal with "point 1," as you know, because you commented on it. Point 2 is now pretty much > a given in your case, since you chose to start > a rumor about John Knapp without verifying its > validity, something that would have taken less > than ten seconds. Gee, you're having reading comprehension problems today, Barry. The timestamps don't prove anything either way, as I already pointed out. Yes, I chose to *speculate*--again, on the basis of long experience with Knapp--that it was he who had started the rumor. <snip> > > You certainly could say I have an agenda where > > John Knapp is concerned: to let those who have > > never had any experience with him know (as > > Barry does as well) that they shouldn't take > > anything he says at face value. > > Funny, but that's your agenda with Vaj, and > with me, with Paul Mason, and with numerous > other people you've encountered on FFL, and > previously, on a.m.t. > > Hmmmm. What do they all have in common? They've > all criticized TM and/or Maharishi. > > Unc > > P.S. The last paragraph is a setup for you to > rush in and say, "They're all LIARS or <insert > derogatory statement here>...I've 'proved' it > numerous times," thus 'proving'my point about > *your* agenda. Well, no, that doesn't prove your point at all, of course. See below. > You don't like what these people say, and so > you attempt to influence others to disregard > what they say. That *is* your modus operandi; > you're a one-trick pony. Well, no, actually my "modus operandi" is to *demonstrate* that the TM critics who are consistently dishonest--like yourself, Vaj, and Knapp--can't be trusted. (And of course I have plenty of other "tricks," such as, for example, rational argument, a "trick" that doesn't seem to be in your repertory at all.) > You may have convinced yourself that your > agenda is against "liars" and "intellectually > dishonest" people, Judy, but I don't think > you've fooled many others. (Barry's appeal-to-consensus mantra again: when he's having trouble making his point, he conjures up a vast chorus agreeing with him.) The problem with this fantasy, Barry, is that it doesn't account for the fact that I *don't* question the honesty of the vast majority of TM critics here.
