I think this entire discussion would have been received a lot better,
and been more useful and productive if, instead of commenting on the
identity of the speaker, it had started by discussing the content of
the e-mail.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Susan Maneck <smaneck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >I never said or even insinuated that this person was a Covenant
breaker.
> >
>
> > I never said that you did. Perhaps at some point we can start talking
about
> > what I did say:
>
> Kent,
>
> Then your suggesting that I threw out the comment about Covenant
> breakers to stop discussion makes absolutely no sense.
>
> > > If we are going to treat people this way when they write what they
consider
> > to be an inspirational letter, we are not very good Baha'is.
>
> The person who wrote this letter did not consider it inspirational.
> Why would an ex-Bahai who has repudiated Baha'u'llah post an
> inspirational letter to our list? And whether this person is Starr who
> also calls herself Tahirih or Umm Yasmin, she is an ex-Baha'i. No
> sincere Baha'i would assume the identity of an ex-Bahai as this person
> did when she took the name Umm Yasmin in her second post.
>
>
> >
> > Let me see, what was it that was "Best beloved of all things"? I
forget.
>
> I am seeing with my own eyes, Kent, that's how I spotted this. It
> seems to me you are closing yours entirely. In the Baha'i Teachings
> justice is not blind.
>
> Susan
>
>
>
|
