--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Mason" <premanandpaul@> > wrote: > > > > > But perhaps Peter is correct when he > > > suggested the problem lies in the fact that the core topics about > >> TM > > > & MMY have already been dealt with, over and over again. > > > > > > WEeelllll.... > > > The stuff that has already been dealt with is often dealt with in a > > piss-poor manner. > > Peter and Paul are referring to quite a large volume of posts written > prior to your arrival. Did you go through the archives and read them all? >
A good portion of them actually. It took almost forever. Do you recall a period on this forum when I was responding to articles posted several yaers ago? > ... > > > My impression is, this turns out to be the quality of reference that > > people here use to hash > > out these points "over and over again." > > Opps. Your impression? You mean you are saying a generally wonderful > set of posts and exchanges, and/or their references, is piss-poor -- > and you have not even read them? Oh My! Those that I read, and I read a lot. > > > BTW, Wiki isn't considered the most reliable of online sources of > info, and by Wiki rules, > > NONE of the Sexy Sadie files is admissable as a reference because > it's not published > > anywhere. > > I assume Wiki would not rely on your impressions either. Since they > are um "piss-poor". True enough. Wikipedia requires some kind of citation for everything. There are quite a few guidelines for what can be said and how it must be cited and what kind of citations are acceptable. > > But your Wiki reference is instersting. Is your logic stream leading > you to conclude that if something is not published, it is unreliable? > If not, why did you bring up the Wiki reference? Just to point out that the dependence on the Sexy Sadie and other such material that is used to justify much of what is said here doesn't even rise to the level of relibability a Wikipedia entry. > > Do you know what is in your refrigerator? Or what your GF, if and when > you have one, likes? Are these things published anywhere? Is your > informatin for such matters relaible? > Is such information used to justify attacks on people and organizations? Is such used to justify the arguments made in favor of such attacks? 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/
