--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <boo_lives@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > <snip> > > > Barry's talking about the entirely logical case > > > Lawson made for requiring TM teachers not to be > > > seen consorting with the competition, something > > > that is pretty standard in any large organization. > > > Barry, of course, cannot address that argument. > > > > > > but that's really the > > > > stance they're taking. They're *defending* the > > > > people who think they have the right to control > > > > other people's lives. > > > > > > Organizations have the right to require that their > > > official representatives not behave publicly in a > > > manner that the organization feels puts the > > > organization in a bad light, yes indeed. > > > > > First, the policy applies to everyone - active teachers, non > > active teachers, sidhas, anyone who wants to be in the dome or > > generally not on the tmo's black list. > > Right. Did I suggest otherwise? > > You actually think someone who became a tm > > teacher 30 yrs ago, hasn't taught in 20 yrs and never will > > represent tmo again must follow tmorules as to what they can > > read, who can go see lecture or receive darshan from? > > I do believe the phrase I used was "official > representatives" (see the last paragraph you > quote above). Did you miss that? > > Don't know why this is so all-fired hard to > understand; it isn't rocket science. Lawson and > I are NOT DEFENDING these policies as applied to > anybody but OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TMO. > It seems to me that since the policy is not specific to official representatives of the TMO, then you would condemn it, and at such time that they change the policy to your position then you would support it.
It's as if Bush bombs the entire middle east and you respond by saying, well I support the action taken to the extent that there were legitimate terrorists somewhere in the mountains of pakistan who deserved it. Instead I would condemn the action taken and acknowledge that since the action wasn't specifically directed at those terrorists, the actual motivation for the bombing was probably something different and not use anti-terrorism as a legitimizing factor for a basically misguided action.
