Rather than merely ASSERTING that "This is one of the grossest examples of patent sophistry I've ever seen", why don't you simply explain HOW it is "one of the grossest examples of patent sophistry" you have ever seen? You are a lawyer, after all, you must have the ability to explain what you see as flaws in other people's arguments.

For EV to tactfully answer a question, to sidestep a question, to give the best answer they can under the circumstances, to give a diplomatic answer (bearing in mind the reasons for their answer) is NOT lying. As a lawyer you ought to know that. You may not like that EV answer, you may think it is evasive, or whatever, but it is not a lie.

So EV give an evasive answer (if that's what you want to call it), and for that reason you expect me to conclude that all my experiences of Knowledge and Maharaji - the experience of peace, comfort, love, love of life, love of others, acceptance of myself, appreciation of life, enjoyment of life, happiness, being in touch with my heart - you expect me to conclude that I am imagining these experiences, that these are not true experiences, or that they are just coincidental to my practice of Knowledge - because EV give an evasive answer (for which I totally understand the reasons)!!! Is that what you really expect me to conclude?