Judy to Share about her criticism of my criticism of
Susan:

LOL.

I'm sure Susan is grateful for your oh-so-insightful
analysis. It's entirely understandable why you would
want to defend the idea that it's perfectly OK to
talk about someone behind their back, as it were.

I could be wrong, but I think most people feel that
the ethical thing to do is to assume a person who is
not posting is also not reading, and that they would
appreciate the chance to respond to criticism.

I seriously doubt Robin has been banned from FFL.
Perhaps Alex could tell us. Such a friendly
suggestion, Share.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote:
>
> Share to Judy about her criticism of Susan: Judy I don't think your criticism 
> of Susan is valid because for all anyone knows, Robin is not around only in 
> the sense that he currently is not posting. However, for all we know, he may 
> be around in the sense that he reads FFL posts. In either case, it is his 
> choice. Additionally your criticism is valid only if Robin is unwillingly not 
> around to defend himself and if Susan knows about this. Is he incapacitated 
> in some way? Has he been banned from FFL? And do you know for a fact that 
> Susan knows either for a fact? In that case, your criticism would be valid. 
> And worth respecting. 
> 
> Judy to Susan: now you're badmouthing him when he's not around to defend 
> himself. That is not a behavior for which I have much respect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: authfriend <authfriend@...>
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 4:02 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Repealing TM's  Anti-Saint Policies
>  
> 
> 
>   
> Susan, I can only repeat: You did not know what Robin
> was about, because the MIU biggies did not want you to
> know what he was about. You even let yourself be
> convinced that he wasn't devoted to Maharishi and his
> teaching, when that simply was not the case.
> 
> You went along with what *they* told you even though
> they were "protecting" you in the way you yourself have
> been eloquently objecting to recently. 
> 
> Robin was sui generis and should not be used as an
> "example" in this context. That would be a travesty,
> for the reasons I've outlined. There are plenty of
> others you could have used as examples instead.
> 
> You made it clear while Robin was here that you didn't
> trust him because you had trouble following what he
> wrote, and now you're badmouthing him when he's not
> around to defend himself. That is not a behavior for
> which I have much respect.


Reply via email to