That's OK with me Jack. Above all else, I respect that opinions are bound
to differ.
Tom C.
From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Vigilant or Bloody Minded
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:11:36 -0800 (PST)
Well, Ok Tom, lets leave it there.
Jack
--- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jack,
>
> You've got me riled and I can't shut up.
>
> Eveidently then you're not aware of the "witch hunts" that occur on a
>
> regular basis in this country where a psychopathic social worker goes
> off on
> a crusade riding a white horse, sees crimes where there was none,
> abuses
> their power and effectively ruins tens, maybe hundreds of peoples
> lives. To
> be caught a year or more down the road and when the evidence comes
> out it
> turns out that much if not most of it was fabricated, and believed,
> and
> corroborrated by school teachers, psycologists, policeman, who not
> knowing
> how to investigate such cases simply *went along* with what the
> *expert*
> told them.
>
> What you are describing Jack is not justice.
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
>
> >From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: Vigilant or Bloody Minded
> >Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:11:29 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >Sorry for the circumstances in which a prudent action resulted in
> >"unfair" treatment of anyone, but obscure possibilities shouldn't
> >negate responsible action.
> >Look the other way, don't get involved, pontificate a magnanimous
> >selfless tolerance toward all, at a cocktail party, is a clouded
> >performance of an unrealistic view of reality.
> >
> >Jack
> >
> >--- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Jack, you never answered an earlier question.
> > >
> > > What if I did same to you based on something I heard, knew, or
> > > thought I
> > > knew?
> > >
> > > Sorry, just looking out for everyones' interests...Oh you lost
> your
> > > job?...
> > > Oh, now your new prospective employer wants a reference from your
> > > prior
> > > one?... Oh, now you have no friends?... Oh now you have no place
> to
> > > live?
> > > Oh, now when you go to court you have no income and have to rely
> on a
> > >
> > > court-appointed public-defender? Oh, now since you got a
> bottom-of
> > > -the-barrel lawyer jury selection was skewed against you? Oh, now
> > > you're in
> > > prision because of a colossal misunderstanding?
> > >
> > > Sorry Jack... I was just doing what I thought was best. Never
> mind
> > > I don't
> > > actually know all the details. Sorry your life is screwed up.
> > >
> > > Tom C.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Reply-To: [email protected]
> > > >To: [email protected]
> > > >Subject: Re: Vigilant or Bloody Minded
> > > >Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 18:47:57 -0800 (PST)
> > > >
> > > >I know and that's why it should be discussed between the owner
> and
> > > >employee, with extreme clarity, to permit the situation the air
> it
> > > >needs for the relationship to stay healthy.
> > > >If the owner is troubled by the result, his options are clear
> and he
> > > >will be acting only for himself.
> > > >
> > > >Jack
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In a message dated 1/9/2006 6:16:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > > > If I may Marnie, your reaction is exactly that I initially
> > > offered.
> > > > > What a diatribe it launched.
> > > > > Why is it so difficult for many to grasp?
> > > > > Kevin, would like to learn your decision when reached.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jack
> > > > > =======
> > > > > Well, for one thing, I wasn't agreeing with the majority,
> though
> > > I
> > > > > haven't
> > > > > finished the thread yet. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > But for me, it changed, when Kevin said he was personally
> > > involved
> > > > > even at a
> > > > > distance. That's a different kettle of fish. And I am not
> aware
> > > that
> > > > > he is
> > > > > under any "gag order" not to mention it. As a parent and a
> victim
> > > and
> > > > > a customer,
> > > > > Kevin is entitled to his reactions. And has the freedom of
> speech
> > > to
> > > > > voice
> > > > > them. And the vendor has the right to know they may have
> hired
> > > > > someone,
> > > > > unknowingly, that might turn customers off. Although the
> store
> > > owner
> > > > > may know already
> > > > > and he/she also has the right to hire whom he/she wants.
> > > Customers
> > > > > also have
> > > > > the right not to patronize his/her store.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it's because, Jack, people do get accused that later
> turn
> > > out
> > > > > to be
> > > > > innocent. And that is something to be concerned about. But I
> > > don't
> > > > > think,
> > > > > personally, it negates the above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marnie aka Doe
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >__________________________________________
> > > >Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
> > > >Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> > > >dsl.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________
> >Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
> >Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> >dsl.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
>
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
