|
In Reply to: Re: Did you read the posts? posted by Jules on August 29, 2004 at 20:07:11:
Jules:
You are right, I wasn't talking to you. Why would I? Who the hell am I talking to? I take it as a rhetorical question because I am not sure you are really interested. You of all people should know that a post is for everybody who reads it, and that's why you came here, answering and shooting with both barrels.
I am sorry you can't take my opinion. It reflects my impressions after reading the boards for some time. My ending states my hope for those who are preaching the save the children message, that they are not the same who want to protect criminals. If that is what offended you, then rest in peace because the post was not about you. Did you want a disclaimer saying something like "This comment excludes Jules"? As you said well, I don't know you and know hardly anything about you. That's why that post didn't include any names but a general truism, that if you fail to see I don't know how to help you in that regard. In any case, it was only my opinion, which you are free to oppose and have done so going to a very personal way and even going to other subjects: "hypocrisy of those who demand details, names and specifics from others and yet make their demands as “another participant” or “optimist” makes me gag". For your information, my post didn't have any demands. Why the rhetoric? Why is the post threatening to you that you feel the need to get personal? That alone may be a good reason to keep our names unknown.
Here is the quote that triggered my thoughts on that direction. Know that you are forcing me to write it. I don't know who Laz is and beyond that, I think he/she is right on with what's written. I am not even saying or suggesting that Laz's parents are in the group or not, or that he/she is playing both sides. None of that would be true. The quote is what made me realize that many people who are not in the cult anymore may have relatives, parents, siblings, uncles and aunts, etc. whom they love and want to protect. It was this realization what prompted me to post.
Was my post in the wrong place? Perhaps but that is another issue right now.
<quote>
"from Laz - Sunday, April 07, 2002
accessed 326 times
.....
As for our parents who were in the group or still may be tied to the group, they do not have that many options available to them."
<end of quote>
As you can see, contrary to your suspicions, I did not have you in mind when I wrote that. For that matter, I didn't have anybody in particular in mind at the time.
What I know is that many are still trying to figure out what their role in the cult is and was as part of their life. Many of them still have a good part of them in cult traditions, activities, ideas and sneakiness.
Like you said, I know little about you and what you do beyond what you have written and I have read. So, what do I know? Nothing. Why would I write about you?
For what I understand most SGAs care about their parents and other relatives either in or out of the cult and it would be blind to think that those feelings are wrong. By the same token, I also understand why they see FGAs as some form of abusers but I also think it is blind to lump all FGAs in the same category.
For your information, you, or SGAs as a group, are not the only ones preaching the save the children message. Many FGs are also. That is also an impression that comes from many posts.
In your answer, you are intent to make things personal. It may be a personal thing to you but my post was not.
Not only that, I believe it is of great importance to be aware that there is place for such questions in a general manner. The world is full of snake oil sellers. Don't we know it! Knowing that you are not should be empowering to you, and I notice it is. Just don't take it as a license to lump people together into groups to suit your views. Read your post and from the first line you accuse as if I had conferred with others to plot against you or that I have an agenda against you.
