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 > > > > Â > 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.
