Comment below: **
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> > wrote: > <snip> > > Maybe I'm guilty of damning with faint praise. > > Allow me to give you a quick rundown, Rick, of why > that was such an incredibly offensive post, since > you seem puzzled that I didn't receive it well. > > First, you appear to think it's rare that I allow > my "inner child" to make a post here. > > If that's what you believe, as I've had occasion to > point out before, you simply haven't been paying > attention. > > And you go on in your response to Lurk to suggest > that I'll do so only if *others* lovingly choose > to make it "safe" for me. > > For your information, my "inner child" has always > felt entirely secure to come out whenever she had > something she wanted to say, despite the often > threatening environment. > > Then you presumed to ask my "critics" to go easy > on me because I'm purportedly so emotionally > "wounded." > > It's hard to imagine anything more insultingly, > overtly condescending. > > Finally, and worst of all, you made your judgment > of me crystal clear: *I'm* the one here who "speaks > harshly"--apparently, as far as you're concerned, > without any provocation other than that of what you > assume to be my "emotional wounds." > > You did not even pretend to acknowledge my view of > the situation--which is more than amply documented > in the traffic--that I've been the *target* of > gratuitously "harsh speech" since before I even > arrived here. When I "speak harshly," in the vast > majority of cases, it's in *response* to that speech; > I rarely initiate it. > > (And again, for your information, I'm not so > insecure as to be "wounded" by harsh speech; I'm > just astonished that it's tolerated in a > purportedly "spiritual" forum.) > > But you persist in your view that I am the sinner, > not the sinned against, as if that were such a > well-established fact that you don't need even to > pay lip service to my perspective. > > And then you proceeded to assure me that you were > not being either condescending or judgmental. > > Whatever you told yourself your intentions were in > making that post, and whatever merit your point has > in general terms, if you're unable to recognize the > thinly veiled hostility toward me in the way you > worded it, you're very sadly deficient in self- > knowledge. > > I have always found overtly expressed hostility, > even when it's gratuitous, far less repellent and > contemptible than this kind of smarmy faux > compassion. > > My "harsh speech" in this response does not come > from "emotional wounds." I have them, just like > everyone else, as you point out. But they simply > don't manifest in this kind of environment; it > isn't what they're sensitive to. They're smarter > than that, so to speak. > > This speech comes from a place in me that has > always held fairness, honesty, and sincerity as > the highest values. I was raised with those > values; they were how my parents treated me, and > I was taught that I should stand up for those > values, for others as well as myself, whenever I > saw them being trashed. > > Goodness knows I have my faults, but I do my > level best to live up to that teaching, at least. > And that's what I'm doing in this post. > **end** Judy, there's no way that Rick doesn't hold "fairness, honesty, and sincerity" as dearly as you. That is my view of him, at least. It perplexes me that you have such conviction that he is so shallow and hypocritical and you believe that the record abundantly supports that view. In my review it doesn't.
