--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
> > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > I think it's good every so often to remember who 
> > > > *paid* for his E-ticket ride.  Where do you think 
> > > > the money came from for his robes and crown, much 
> > > > less his weight in gold?  From all the TBs who 
> > > > donated to projects along the way that they'd 
> > > > convinced themselves were really going to happen.
> > > 
> > > For the record, the money didn't go to him personally
> > > but to fund his research; essentially, it was the TMO
> > > giving money to the TMO.
> > 
> > So he did NOT get his weight in gold.
> > 
> > In other words, the whole scale stunt was just a way to 
reapportion 
> > funds WITHIN the TMO from one department to another...
> 
> Funny, I don't recall saying anything about
> reapportioning funds from one department to
> another.  You made that up.
> 
> > If this is what you are saying then the whole publicity stunt 
was, 
> > at worst, dishonest in its portrayal, at best, fraudulent.
> 
> Oh, please.  The TMO would have funded his
> research in any case.  They just decided to
> hand out the money in a way that would give
> them some publicity.  Nothing the least bit
> fraudulent about it.  The press release said
> what the money was to be used for.
> 
> And publicity stunts are by definition 
> "dishonest."  This was a good one, imaginative
> and quite successful.



Let me understand this, Judy.

You most certainly seem to be saying that the "giving Tony Nader his 
weight in gold" was:

1) a good publicity stunt; and

2) "imaginative"; and

3) "quite successful?

I will cede to you that, yes, #2 is correct that it WAS imaginative.

But I suggest to you and the others readers on this forum that if 
you do actually ascribe to both #1 and #3 that you are either:

1) deluded;

2) quite possibly brainwashed by a cult; or

3) in denial.


Are you sure you don't want to retract your statement above?



> 
> No kidding, folks, the criticism here is 
> verging on the pathological.




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to