|
In Reply to: Resolving this posted by Coordinator on August 30, 2004 at 02:17:20:
I intend to answer Jules letter. She is not the only one who is interested in protecting her parents. If it had been her who I was talking about I would have mentioned her name.
That doesn't change the fact that some people, SGAs and FGAs, may be interested in protecting the identities of loved ones who they suspect or know of being some type of abuser.
Is not that a valid point of discussion?
It's not a matter of pointing fingers but of looking at our own motivations of why we do things. If people want to avoid certain issues by sweeping them under the rug, that's fine with me, but how is that helping?
I am sorry that this is a touchy thing for Jules and others. It would be for me if I had family members still involved in the cult.
Maybe that means we shouldn't talk about that. Is this the point you are trying to make? Mentioning the new rule about names is confusing to me, do you mean that this post would be left alone if other name would have been used? That post was not attacking any body. Read Jules answer and see who is making it personal.
