Sorry, Jonathan, but you are SO MUCH not getting it
Re: You're not thinking (period), Jim -- Jonathan	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by: Jim ® 02/02/2005, 13:13:46 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

Re-read John's post, why don't you.  He's apologizing for being a whistle blower.  Indeed, "whistle blower" has a certain implicit honour to it but everything John says militates against it.  As far as he's concerned -- if you take him at face value -- it was unthinkably low for him to ever write about Rawat, oh sorry, Maharaji, in the first place, let alone leak those documents.  I agree that a principled whistleblower deserves respect and admiration.  Why?  Because of the risks they assume, before and after they expose injustice.  John was a whistleblower.  Now, I hesitate to say what he is but, sorry, "whistleblower" doesn't top the list. Modified by Jim at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 13:14:59

Previous

Recommend Current page

Next

Replies to this message

And besides that... --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 13:21:49 ) ( 327 bytes ) +1 Re: And besides that... --- Jonathan ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 13:48:22 ) ( 895 bytes ) +1 I'm getting really sick of this polarization accusation. --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 14:00:20 ) ( 138 bytes ) +2 My 2c fwiw --- Thorin ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 14:25:32 ) ( 1323 bytes ) +3 No way --- Jim ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 14:28:51 ) ( 264 bytes ) +1 Obviously a ring fence is required --- Thorin ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 14:37:07 ) ( 766 bytes ) +1 I agree about all but the money --- Jim ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 14:51:58 ) ( 2064 bytes ) +1 Good points Jim --- Thorin ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 15:15:34 ) ( 681 bytes ) +1 Good points, T --- Jonathan ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 15:35:02 ) ( 892 bytes ) Re: My 2c fwiw --- Jonathan ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 14:37:16 ) ( 844 bytes ) I don't think so... --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 15:07:40 ) ( 1240 bytes ) I Thought I Was Being Original --- Jonathan ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 14:26:41 ) ( 324 bytes ) But, Jim but YOU are SO MUCH not getting it, RE: MORALITY! --- Jonathan ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 13:33:55 ) ( 1313 bytes ) +2 Jonathan, you're responsible for this stupid argument -- stop it --- Jim ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 14:04:22 ) ( 516 bytes ) +1 Jim, you're the one responsible for most stupidity on this forum, so stop it --- Jonathan ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 14:17:27 ) ( 812 bytes ) +1 Okay, I've got it --- Jim ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 14:21:14 ) ( 88 bytes ) +1 Re: Okay, I've got it X 2 --- Jonathan ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 14:53:11 ) ( 518 bytes ) Jonathan, there are two women... --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 14:06:30 ) ( 265 bytes )