Can only say right on to that Molly. My last word would be to wonder why Vam sees me in a veil? My bigotry is open, peace and goodwill lie underneath. I'd be an unlikely book-burner too. We can be both not clever enough and far too clever with words. Chris, parameters, pipe- dream LOL! The only question about my mate is whether he became unhinged before his brackets dropped off! So I lied about the last word too ...
On 18 Jan, 20:48, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »
-- 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.
