[FairfieldLife] Sal, I find your position inconsistent

2006-05-25 Thread shempmcgurk



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 If they were having sex with underage women, they should have been 
 sucking in the subtle energy of a state prison.


Agreed, Sal (and I wrote a further comment on this in an earlier 
post today).

But I would remind you that the charges you cite against Muktananda 
are heresay and, although numerous, were never either brought up in 
a court of law or proven in a court of law. All we have is the word 
of the women who told us AFTER the fact of what they said happened. 
Muktananda neve had the chance to defend himself.

I would remind you that this is the same degree of proof that 
there was against the allegations against Bill Clinton: the word of 
the women he allegedly raped or sexually assaulted or took advantage 
of (took advantage of: a person in a high position having sexual 
affairs with an underling or person of lesser power). 

And, like Muktananda, there were numerous allegations against Bill 
Clinton.

And, like Muktananda, several of the charges were that the victims 
were underlings or people in less powerful positions than the 
perpetrator.

However, unlike Muktananda, Bill Clinton got the chance to defend 
himself against the allegations against him.

And, unlike Muktananda, Bill Clinton WAS found to be responsible for 
at least one of the incidents (Monica Lewinsky) and, indeed, 
admitted as much (only because of irrefutable proof -- the blue 
dress; he originally denied it) and is was disbarred from the State 
Bar of Arkansas (not for the sex but for the lying about it), paid a 
heft fine to the court, if I remember correctly, and may have been 
found guilty of perjury (I can't remember exactly).

So, Sal, you were quick to defend Clinton with MORE evidence against 
him and an admission of guilty but equally quick to denounce 
Muktananda with less evidence against him, no admission of guilt and 
without Muktananda ever having the chance to defend himself.

Your positions seem inconsistent to me.









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Religion and spirituality
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  











Re: [FairfieldLife] Sal, I find your position inconsistent

2006-05-25 Thread Sal Sunshine
That's why I said if Shemp--if it had been proven, i.e. in court--not based on here-say.  That's inconsistent?

Re: your comments about Clinton I have no answer, didn't we just go over this topic? You seem to be simply obsessed with the man.  Give it up, Shemp, he's been out of office 6 *years.*

Sal


On May 25, 2006, at 2:40 PM, shempmcgurk wrote:

But I would remind you that the charges you cite against Muktananda 
are here-say and, although numerous, were never either brought up in 
a court of law or proven in a court of law.  All we have is the word 
of the women who told us AFTER the fact of what they said happened.  
Muktananda neve had the chance to defend himself.