the shield of privacy

[Guest guest]

>..... no I'm not going to comment, it's too easy ;-)

 

What's too easy?

 

>>You have never administered condoms to anyone anywhere?

>

>No, that is not my job.

 

So is the allegation that you passed out condoms while you were in India

and were paid to do so false? And is the rumour that you were paid to

consult people on 'family planning' false? Also, is suggesting the

disease-reducing benefits of condoms and sometimes handing them to people

part of the job of the staff you work with?

 

>End of game.

 

What game?

 

Your servant, Sita dd PS- I don't know how it happened but I made a mistake

when I wrote Jatukarnya Prabhu that "We are not planning on doing nothing

to Madhusudani." I thought I had written "We are not planning on doing

anything" to you. Honest mistake.

[Guest guest]

>

> So the GHQers are shielded from issues of character if they do something in

private, but God forbid anyone would openly express themselves in public.

Then character is a big issue. Oh, I forgot, these is Kali Yuga, the Age of

Quarrel and HYPOCRISY.

>

 

 

It does seem kind of odd we are not meant to discuss the private views of

certain leading devotees on COM, yet we can hash out all the intimate details

in the lives of women who we label as feminists.

 

Boy, if only we had women sanyassis on COM, then we'd really have alot to talk

about!

[Guest guest]

On 11 Dec 1998, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

> Boy, if only we had women sanyassis on COM, then we'd really have alot to

talk

> about!

 

 

Be careful what you wish for, it may come true.

 

 

;-)

[Guest guest]

>> So the GHQers are shielded from issues of character if they do something in

>private, but God forbid anyone would openly express themselves in public.

>Then character is a big issue. Oh, I forgot, these is Kali Yuga, the Age of

>Quarrel and HYPOCRISY.

 

>It does seem kind of odd we are not meant to discuss the private views of

>certain leading devotees on COM, yet we can hash out all the intimate details

>in the lives of women who we label as feminists.

>

>Boy, if only we had women sanyassis on COM, then we'd really have alot to talk

>about!

 

Geez, I don't know how to make my views any more public than I've been doing?

 

Would you like even more graphic details?

 

Ys. JMd

[Guest guest]

COM: Madhusudani Radha (dd) JPS (Mill Valley - USA) wrote:

 

> [Text 1925179 from COM]

>

> Sita wrote:

>

> >(My husband is tied up)

>

> ..... no I'm not going to comment, it's too easy ;-)

 

LOL, really.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Your servant, Sita dd PS- I don't know how it happened but I made a mistake

> when I wrote Jatukarnya Prabhu that "We are not planning on doing nothing

> to Madhusudani." I thought I had written "We are not planning on doing

> anything" to you. Honest mistake.

 

As we hope many of the things you now write will seem to you from the vantage

point of old age. Know in advance that you are forgiven.

[Guest guest]

>

> >It does seem kind of odd we are not meant to discuss the private views of

certain leading devotees on COM, yet we can hash out all the intimate

detailsin the lives of women who we label as feminists.

> >

 

>

> Geez, I don't know how to make my views any more public than I've been

doing?

>

>

 

 

The issue is one of attempted character assasination. It appears curious that

to attack some is politically correct, while to consider making an insinuation

about another is maya.

 

Presenting our point of view is fine by me as long as we don't feel the need

to slander another when they don't agree. Let the philosophy stand on its own

two feet.

 

 

Sthita-dhi