I would like to see this thread finished, as opening a thread to discuss a member is truly not in the spirit of what this group is about - to rationally discuss ideas. I am really not interested in who likes me or who would like to burn my books, and I suspect that everyone here who writes, and many of us do, are here for the same reasons. Suggesting otherwise is only adding to the atmosphere where thugs are allowed to fling insults and assaults that has run rampant over the weekend. There are those of us who do tire of the crap and the inevitable silence may ensue because we were uncaring enough to foster respect. Chris has sent the parameters. Let's enjoy the peace.
On Jan 18, 11:38 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > Neil, I refer to her as Donna, from her previous identity here. She's > very fine by me except when she goes snide, in an attempt to put > another down. > > As it happens, I am not much tickled by slapstick any more ! I do > appreciate humour in writing, such as Fran favours us with, OM's > dramatic expressions, or yours on the flow when not seeming to be a > vale of confusion or veiled bigotry. > > Needless to say, I value my relationships with others here. Sometimes, > just sometimes, I do reciprocate on behalf of one, quite as I would on > behalf of a friend in a street brawl ! > > Right now, I am in the process of taking punitive action against > service providers who have proven less than competent. The businesses > I had hoped to kick start by New Year are now delayed. > > On Jan 18, 9:54 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I would miss Gabby Vam, perhaps like waking on that mid-week morning > > when the bruising didn't hurt after the weekend mauling. But no, not > > really, as her sting is often very relevant to our own smugness. > > Perhaps you should pass these 'benefactors' on to me, old friend, for > > the sake of your own fidelity of course, rather than the expansion of > > my bank account! I'd laugh if my sides weren't already hurting from > > the laughter than is the only sensible response to this thread. > > Mollybroganenterprises is not my cup of tea, but I respect the effort > > of putting any books together. There is a market, though we'd have to > > return to an open fire to get any benefit here and don't have the kind > > of friends one could invite to a book burning, other than as an art > > statement for some greater good. Molly is free to use anything of > > mine, as I couldn't bear the vanity of believing any of it so special > > as to merit moral assertion to copyright. And Molly just tends to be > > OK by me, even if she is equipped as well as most of us in what passes > > for a street-brawl in here. I doubt Gabby is motivated by spleen > > (rather the opposite), but wouldn't care much anyway as she makes me > > smile. If we are not careful, the rest will be silence ... > > > On 18 Jan, 14:04, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Fiddler, this is trolling, pure and simple, and that's something our > > > posting > > > guidelines don't allow here. We're here for the honest exchange of ideas, > > > and this is clearly spelled out. Personal attacks add zero value to > > > legitimate discourse. The mods here don't hover over the keyboard, waiting > > > to delete "objectionable" posts, but if you continue in this vein, you > > > will > > > be placed back on moderation. > > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:18 AM, 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]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > > > .com> > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
-- 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.
