Judy, given that others sometimes read posts but don't write posts, it is reasonable to question your assertion that Robin is not around to defend himself. Especially since, as you say, people would appreciate the chance to respond to criticism. Surely if * they * are so concerned about criticism, then * they * would at least archive on their name occasionally to see if there is any!
Your criticism of Susan remains invalid because you have not proven that Robin is not around to defend himself. ________________________________ From: authfriend <authfri...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 10:01 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Repealing TM's Anti-Saint Policies --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Judy, you said 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. > My question to Judy remains: do we know for a fact that Robin > does not read FFL posts? And my answer to Share remains: We do not NEED to know that for a fact. If we're ethical, we simply make that assumption and refrain from badmouthing a person who is not posting unless or until the person shows up. Your elaborate rationalizations are not to the point and do not reflect well on you. Obviously there is a wide range of how people connect with FFL known both directly and indirectly. Directly includes: some post regularly; some post sporadically; some take long breaks from posting. Indirectly: when they return, some announce that they've been reading posts but not replying for one reason or another; some announce that they've not been reading posts for one reason or another; some say nothing about this. > > The ethical issues in all this are that you accused Susan of doing something > which you do not prove is happening because you do not prove that Robin is > not around to defend himself. And you have twisted two points that I made. > > > If indeed Robin would appreciate the chance to respond to criticism, as you > suggest below, then surely he WOULD be reading FFL, or at least occasionally > archiving on his name if he was concerned about possible criticisms of him. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: authfriend <authfriend@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 9:17 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Repealing TM's Anti-Saint Policies > > > >  > 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. >
