My use of " repugnance " pertained to the " advisory," the post and its content, not the person.
We agree, we disagree, we do have some nice catholics, some very agreeable atheists, some very fine muslims in past, some great scientists, mystics ... all with an above average intelligence. Unfortunately, from your behaviour and posts, I cannot say the same for you ! I may also caution you, from sensing your limitations and current frame of mind, that the more you'll open your mouth, the more you'll embarrass yourself ... when the overarching fact is that it need not be so. You'd have got the latter truth, had you listened to what Molly has to say in almost every alternate post of hers ! On Jan 18, 2:18 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm shocked! Another mean person that just has it out for you, molly, > and group? How do you put up with this horrible persecution? > I mean jeez!! How dare we expect to disagree with you or have reality > based opinions! Maybe you can find some nice catholic witch-burners > and muslim bomb runners to agree with! > > Maybe someday molly will tell you to not call people repugnant, but by > the time she responds the two of you will have decided that the idea > of you calling someone is repugnant and that was what you were trying > to describe... > > On Jan 17, 11:17 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ah, again, your unsolicited and repugnant advisory, Gabs ? ! I > > suppose Ian's advisory is to address ideas or posts, not person. > > > Gabs, those informed of your history here know that you've had it with > > almost everyone here. I let you know another secret : you add almost > > nothing to ideas being discussed here. > > > On Jan 18, 3:57 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Deal, if you start adding a short footnote to each of your articles > > > that you intend to use the produced material for other purposes > > > elsewhere, too. We should think for the newbes, too. > > > > On 17 Jan., 21:28, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I agree. Lighten up! > > > > > On Jan 17, 1:47 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Sorry, Slip, but I still don't get it. This is a discussion group. If > > > > > you post a comment and, especially, if you open a thread with it, it's > > > > > going to be discussed. > > > > > > Threads here frequently meander and I don't think most of us are > > > > > overly concerned about thread purity wards. If you post something for > > > > > "reasons ... which you didn't care to share at this time" then I > > > > > suppose you're going to have to reckon with (mis)interpretations. > > > > > > If Twirlip is the person who you perceive as stalking and harassing > > > > > you, then you're tending to oversensitivity ... in my opinion. > > > > > > Let's all lighten up a bit here, people ... > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > On 17 Jan., 20:35, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Mr. Fran; > > > > > > Whether it was posted privately or as public notice it still has > > > > > > nothing to do with anyone else. There was no need for people to > > > > > > comment on what they know nothing about nor what is perceived to be > > > > > > none of their business. > > > > > > > Molly had not problem with it, and you seem to have understood and > > > > > > had > > > > > > not taken any time to offer unwarranted comment. As you stated "I > > > > > > understand perfectly that you are not threatening Molly, rather > > > > > > withdrawing a permission previously given. That's fine." > > > > > > > The real problem is not the OP but that others for some reason want > > > > > > to > > > > > > interpret it differently and take it as an attack on Molly and then > > > > > > attack me. I have my reasons for issuing the statement which I > > > > > > don't > > > > > > care to share at this time. The thread has descended into chaos and > > > > > > now I'm being stalked and harassed by someone who wanted to be left > > > > > > alone. > > > > > > > The OP did not violate any laws or guidelines and neither does > > > > > > removing one's posts. A Public Notice is very common for legal > > > > > > statements and can be found in many newspapers and other media as > > > > > > public record. It does not warrant the public to post commentary in > > > > > > agreement or disagreement to the private legal matter. > > > > > > > I removed it and hope the issue sinks into the abyss, I will pursue > > > > > > other channels of communication with Molly over this matter. Thanks > > > > > > > On Jan 17, 1:00 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 17, 11:03 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Look Allan, you don't know what you are talking about nor is > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > interpretations of the thread post correct. > > > > > > > > > > Did you read any sentence that said Molly wronged me? Did > > > > > > > > > you read > > > > > > > > > any portion that implied a lawsuit? > > > > > > > > > > It was a request for Molly to discontinue using my M E posts > > > > > > > > > on her > > > > > > > > > blog, not a lawsuit. > > > > > > > > > > Molly understood it perfectly and in her First reply stated: > > > > > > > > > Slip at one time gave me permission to use his comments from > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > group on my blog. now he is asking me not to use them. No > > > > > > > > > problem. > > > > > > > > > As a courtesy, I do not use material on my blog without > > > > > > > > > permission, > > > > > > > > > although the fair use copyright laws (as we have discussed > > > > > > > > > previously > > > > > > > > > in this group) are applicable. <molly > > > > > > > > > > SEE?? Can you READ? "now he is asking me not to use them"? > > > > > > > > > > If you don't know what you are talking about your should mind > > > > > > > > > your own > > > > > > > > > business. > > > > > > > > What the f**k? > > > > > > > > Slip, what are you trying to do here? First you start a thread, > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > all your posts, including the initiating one, disappear. Well, I'm > > > > > > > going to comment anyway - to you. > > > > > > > > I understand perfectly that you are not threatening Molly, rather > > > > > > > withdrawing a permission previously given. That's fine. What > > > > > > > strikes > > > > > > > me as being possibly disingenuous is the fact that you chose to do > > > > > > > this with an open thread and not - which, it seems to me, would > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > been quite sufficient - with an e-mail to Molly directly. > > > > > > > > For this reason, I seem to get a faint whiff of shit stirring > > > > > > > somewhere. But then I may just be imagining things ... > > > > > > > > Francis- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
