Re: Lily

[pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)]

rpugh@arcadia.win-uk.net (Raymond Pugh) writes:
>Older and wiser people than KaTe have been led astray by
>fraudsters.  Are you saying that if your wife/girlfriend/sister got
>involved with someone of a dubious nature you'd just say "she's a big
>girl" and turn your back on her?

Kate is none of those things to me, nor in any other way my intimate
friend.

That being the case, I have no business having more than perhaps a
faint disapproval of her association with someone who hasn't even
been demonstrated to have any negative effect on her.

>					We may have no influence
>over what KaTe does with her life, but we still have a right to be
>concerned about someone we care about.

If you claim to care about Kate as much as you would a wife/sister/etc
*without knowing her personally*, you would do better to be concerned
about yourself.  NO ONE I'm aware of on this forum knows Kate that
way, and only a few have actually even met her in person.

>Whether Lily is a bad influence is open to debate, but the
>possibility that she *may* be a bad influence should concern
>anyone who cares about KaTe.

Obviously some people have made up their minds to more than simply
"she *may* be a bad influence".  It was primarily in that direction
that my comments were directed.  If someone were to post with something
appearing to be *proof* that Kate was being duped by some fraud (say,
on the level of the Maharishi & the Beatles), I'd be concerned enough
to say "someone should try to point this out to her".  But it would
still not be MY place to point it out, nor would it be MY place to
get on any moral high horses about it.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
          When you're swimmin in a creek, and an eel bites your cheek,
                               That's a Moray...