As in the past, dueling positions with a class act is stimulating. I extend my hand.
Jack --- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
