"Megan Thomas - Personal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 07/10/2001 06:00:02 PM
To: Dave G Piehl/USA/Pillsbury@Pillsbury, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Stonewall DFL candidate screenings: qualifications &
promises
Megan wrote:
If Mr. Piehl were really interested in a simple explanation of the process
he would have contacted the Caucus directly. Instead he posted a ranting
question on a public forum that has already debated the issue ad nauseum
knowing that others on the list would use it as an opportunity to attack the
Caucus. The purpose of his hostile question was not to seek information but
rather to try and draw out a response that he could then pick apart and try
to use against both the Caucus and candidates he opposes. That and it is a
diversionary tactic.
***Tell me Megan, how it is that you don't even know me, yet you "know" so much
about my motivation?? Lacking any specific knowlege, you have assumed
motivations that are not valid. Questions were generated after reading your
posts, and others, on this forum, so it makes sense to pose the questions in the
same forum. I did check the Stonewall website, and didn't find anything about
the process. Perhaps if you would spend more time answering questions and less
time avoiding them, fewer would be generated and you could lose the paranoia and
conspiracy theories. Maybe it is more effective to post a link to the Stonewall
website rather than your favorite links for mental health issues. The idea of
some sort of vast conspiracy to discredit the process is an interesting new
conspiracy theory - it wouldn't make a lot of sense for me to do something like
that, though, because I support approximatly 75% of the candidates endorsed by
Stonewall DFL, but then, that fact takes the fun out of your paranoia and
victimization, doesn't it? It happens that there are a few candidates that have
been endorsed for no reason apparent to me, (possibly in error, as far as I am
concerned), and that is why I wondered what process is utilized, which I haven't
obscured. Your reaction and commentary have, in my opinion, harmed Stonewall
DFL's credibility. I have contemplated getting involved with Stonewall, as I
know there are other members who are very conscientious and responsible, but if
your venomous attitude is any indication, Stonewall DFL is rather unattractive
at the moment.
______________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message is private and confidential
information which may also be subject to the attorney-client privilege and work
product doctrine. This information is intended only for the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or
copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message
in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of
the message. Thank you.
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
