"Tristan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:52:38 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
wrote:
snip lots of good and lots of trashy unsubstantiated junk
Please watch attributions. I (Gail) did NOT write what
follows immediately:
My words are being turned into words I never said, given meaning I
didn't
mean.
No one is changing anyhting yu said, but your choice of words in most
cases is a lot to be desired. Perhaps its that aragance or vindictive
style that reverberates through your posts thats doing you in Carol.
Welcome to USENET ... whoops, already said that.
It's almost like (?) only a few select people on rec.ponds are
allowed to express an opinion without what they say being used against
them in some way.
I guess if something has credence or a remote possibility to truth
then perhaps posts or statements you make may also be view in a
different manner, CArol.
I (Gail) wrote the following:
You haven't noticed I've been attacked here for
speaking up in favor of a moderated group? You're
not the only one being attacked. So has Jan. So has
Gill. So has Derek. Etc. Etc. And what is our crime?
Speaking out in favor of rec.ponds.moderated;
expressing opinions about how a new group should
function. Reasonable opinions, I will add.
[Gail's quote ends here]
Well what you call an attack is not what others form the looks of it
anyhow view as an attack, Its more of a dissagreement with you that yu
perceive to be a personal attack....BIG BIG Difference between view
and attack. Or is it yur asking to be attacked since it has not
happened and you just crave being viloated and attacked. I do belive
that may be the problem, especially since your such an attention whore
Carol.
I can see why so few regulars dare speak up about how they
feel about a moderated group.
Maybe they are just content to get what can be gottenwith the hopes it
will put a heavy duty set of binders / restraints on yuy CArol.
I (Gail) wrote the following:
"so few regulars"?? Most of the regulars I've known
in rec.ponds have not only spoken up here but are in
process of doing the real work of trying to set up a
moderated group. Or they're here getting involved in
the discussion, even though it opens them up to attack.
[Gail's quote ends here]
No one gets attacked here or any other place unless of course they
decide like a few of your fireind to toss their dog opff the porch and
into the fight.
Then I'm told to ignore and not reply to the
trolls and the very people who told me that are replying to them every
day.
You also ignored the plea to appologize and this would not have got
to where its at now Carol.
I [Gail] wrote the following:
It's good advice. The only reason - let me repeat
that - THE ONLY REASON I've engaged some of
the people I've engaged recently on rec.ponds is
because I believe strongly that creating
rec.ponds.moderated is the way to go. I'm
interested in the process, I'm involved in the process,
and I think I have an obligation to participate in the
process publicly, as I have been, despite that it
leaves me open to unfair attacks.
[Gail's quote ends here]
I really have not seen anyhtng that would really qualify as an attack
on yopu gail......just did not happen, or on anyone else either. If it
makes yu feel left out sayt so, I believe we can somehow oblige an
attack or two without even raising much of a sweat......
I [Gail] wrote the following:
Trust me when I tell you that some of the people I've
responded to in the past several weeks I would have
totally ignored, even killfiled, if the discussion at hand
weren't about creating a new group.
[Gail's quote ends here]
And I just bet I am among those few select individuals ;-) Makes me
proud to be a memeber here! ROFLMAO
I [Gail] wrote the following:
Therefore, unless there is a good reason to respond
to trolls, or trollish posts, you shouldn't. Of if you
respond, try to stay focussed on the topic at hand,
not past ills. If you take my advice as suggesting you
should stop posting, you're just not reading what
I've written.
[Gail's quote ends here]
Carol is not capable of staying focused especially when the expected
reply does not fit in the the view of what she has or thought it would
be. If yu say red and she expected blue, its an all out accusation of
fueding with her and attacking her. LOL what a hoot CArol is. I bet
doctors would give a bunch of money to get the opportiunity to disect
her brain, and try and cypher what made her function. LOL
Assuming the group is created you mean. Personally, I'm not convinced
yet.
Oh its more than likely gong to happen, why do yu think carol is
acting as she is acting with all the resent ment of it bening created.
Read between the lines she is an unhappy camper for sure.......she
knows up front she is not capable of having her reins get shortened
up, it wold crimp her style / habits.
I can see no reason it wouldn't be created.
--
ZB....
Creating problems on USENET Since it was open to the public
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*
I strongly recommend, under rec.ponds.moderated
moderation policies, that any post submitted without
correct attributions be returned to sender. IMO
deliberately removing attributions, making it look as
though someone wrote something they did NOT write,
is the same as an attack, and attacks would not be
allowed under the most lenient of moderation policies.
If the sender wishes to correct the attributions and
resubmit the post, assuming content fits guidelines,
the post would be passed.
I would be interested in what others think of that idea.
Gail