Judy, I didn't go very deeply into it, because, well, Rick would know whatever you seem to know that I don't know regarding this matter. That and the fact that I am a sinner of this very kind of sinning and to the same or worst degree. I didn't delineate my own conceptions because Rick is the one who has the power to describe what a flame is. I merely bring to his attention a posting that -- even if editorially reiterative -- "abuses the spirit of our group's intent to keep things a bit more responsible." To wit: the swear words and the ad hominem attacks cited have been "actively and mindfully edited into a 'list of past offenses' for the obvious purpose of attacking the character of another poster." We've all sinned, but for Willy to single you out -- gratuitously -- is a flame in my opinion.
Others may have other issues to "see" in this scenario, but mine is the first one to pop in my mind. Come on, you folks o'light, ain't it a flame on Judy? Given that at a this time when we're trying to "begin anew" to have "community of civility" here that at the least accords each poster the dignity of having logic, truth, and kindness (sweet truth) applied to her/his presentation with the expectation that all will enjoy the benefits of these velvet constraints on our egoic artistries, why the Willytext posts? We all know, right? If you're silent, thanks for agreeing with me. If there's any aging hippies out there reading this, "Give peace a chance you hosers!" Edg --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Edg, Willytex is quoting old posts (mostly mine) > from FFL and alt.m.t. Didn't you click on the links? > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Rick, > > > > Er, after a hundred posts from folks who seemed to agree to warn > then > > penalize someone for flaming, I would think that you'd have warned > > Willy for his previous post. Now the one below seems to go way over > > the top into very obvious flaming. > > > > Are you going to do this warn-then-ban bit? > > > > Edg > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Richard J. Williams" > > <willytex@> wrote: > > > > > > jstein wrote: > > > > I'd ask Barry to provide examples to the contrary, > > > > but there wouldn't be any point. > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/143310 > > > > > > No, the above is what I actually wrote, citing Wilber, > > > and showing you to be a liar. > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/143497 > > > > > > As you know, Willytex, what I was calling Barry's fantasy > > > was *not* that Lenz had levitated. Liar that you are, you > > > omitted the context to make it seem that I had. > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/140399 > > > > > > Your team of profligate liars and racketeers lost > > > in '06 and continues to lose. > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/143504 > > > > > > Horseshit. > > > > > > Classics from the alt.m.t. Groove Yard > > > http://tinyurl.com/74d95 > > > > > > From Judy Stein to Willytex: > > > > > > Liar. > > > No, liar. > > > Wrong, liar. > > > Bite me, toots. > > > Non sequitur, liar. > > > Yes, it does, liar. > > > Willytex is a liar. > > > No, she did not, liar. > > > Yeah, it's a non sequitur. > > > As usual, Willytex is the liar. > > > Outright, deliberate falsehood. > > > Bob Dole is a liar, just like you. > > > Another right-winger bent on deception. > > > You've been lying your head off for months. > > > And that's just an outright, deliberate falsehood. > > > You snipped the context to obscure that fact, liar. > > > Boy, do you need a course in the fundamentals of logic. > > > > > > > His "opinion" about the general usage here of the > > > > term "liar" is also incorrect, in my observation. > > > > It's rare that someone is called a liar for merely > > > > expressing an opinion about someone else. If it > > > > does happen, it's likely to be because the person > > > > using the term knows that the person expressing > > > > the "opinion" has evidence that clearly documents > > > > the inaccuracy of that "opinion." > > > > > >
