Re: So what do you say? Did Andries resolve anything?
Re: So what do you say? Did Andries resolve anything? -- Jim	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by: Andries ® 02/25/2005, 01:13:13 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

Jim, I admit that I have problems coming to conclusions where other people do not have this problem. But this is a consequence of my involvement of SSB. I was so certain that he was okay and it alls seemed so logical. How can I ever trust myself after being so wrong? I have read dozens of books that I believed 100% from cover to cover. So now I have problems with coming to a conclusion with certainty. I really do not have a feeling of superiority here about my viewpoints or my background. In many cases behavior can be explained without assumming sinister motives to a person. This is the case with me and to some extent also with Maharaji. I prefer a non-sinister explanation if this is reasonably possible. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Robert J. Hanlon Andries Related link: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_J._Hanlon Modified by Andries at Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 02:08:15

Previous

Recommend Current page

Next

Replies to this message

Interesting post Andries --- dant ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 03:15:56 ) ( 1786 bytes ) +2 Dant, a most excellent post , thanks NT (no text) --- Jethro ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 03:27:18 ) ( 0 bytes ) Re: Interesting post Andries --- Yvon F. ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 23:48:34 ) ( 836 bytes ) For rawat "sinister" evidence, read the -trainings- transcripts. (no text) --- bill ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 11:21:37 ) ( 0 bytes ) Andries, Andries, ANDRIES!!!! --- Jim ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 13:27:16 ) ( 3554 bytes ) +1 Andries, the arguement does not rest on "malice" and "sinister... --- bill ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 17:37:47 ) ( 1314 bytes )