|
|
Relinquished Dictate
(Not)
According to Jan the groups
are now unmoderated. Judge for yourselves.
From: "Mike O'Hara" <ppplanet@a...>
Date: Tue Jun 24, 2003 9:03 pm
Subject:
New crop circle in England
This cannot be done with boards. I'm sorry.
http://cropcircleconnector.com/2003/Thornborough/Thornborough
2003.html
------o------
From: "padraighaz" <pjh@l...>
Date: Tue Jun 24, 2003 10:40 pm
Subject: Re: New crop circle in England
Agreed.
It probably also required a string and a peg so arcs of various sizes
could be quickly defined.
Regards,
PH
------o------
From: "Mike O'Hara" <ppplanet@a...>
Date: Tue Jun 24, 2003 11:37 pm
Subject: RE: New crop circle in England
What a total asshole!
------o------
From:
Steve Havas <shavas@s...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:30 am
Subject: Re: [tt-watch] RE: New crop circle in England
No doubt, that crop circle is extremely complex and would probably
require a
week of work just to peg it out, never mind making it without trampling
everything.
------o------
From: Michael L Cunningham <bogeystar@e...>
Date:
Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:56 am
Subject: Re: [tt-watch] New crop circle in England
Why couldn't you use boards?
Michael
------o------
From:
"azac12" <luc.caza@s...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 1:03 am
Subject: Re: New crop circle in England
Why don't yo ask him for his evidence, and maybe he could make a
demonstration for you or something.
------o------
From: "padraighaz" <pjh@l...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:55 am
Subject:
Re: New crop circle in England
Steve Havas <shavas@s...>
wrote:
>No doubt, that crop circle is extremely complex and would probably
require a week of work just to peg it out, never mind making it without
trampling everything.<
I don't think so. I think some basic strategies could be used to quickly
create complex patterns that wouldn't even require sophisticated pegging
or GPS mapping.
For example, I think the following might work:
1. Place peg. Flatten field out to radius 100 (the circumference is 624
ft) - this creates the main circle.
2. To create 6 appx. half circle petals which means the radius of each
petal is about 52 ft (624/6 is the diameter)
a. pick any starting point
b. Place a peg and draw the petal of radius 52 ft.
c. Go to the next peg location (3 x 52 ft along the main circumference
and use this as the next circumference).
d. Repeat until all 6 petals are drawn.
3. Next layer:
At each point where two of the layer 1 petals meet, draw an arc (radius
40 perhaps) using the peg and string to connect the outer petals.
Layer 2 is now finished.
4. Add more layers as desired using similar strategies and choosing arc
radii to suit.
No GPS is needed for this; One could easily plan this in advance to
great detail in choosing the number of petals at each layer and
pre-calculating the appropriate arc radii for each layer.
I just used numbers 100, 52, and 40 in this example as rough estimates,
but we're only talking about highschool algebra here.
Regards,
PH
------o------
From: Steve Havas <shavas@s...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:51 am
Subject: Re: [tt-watch] Re: New crop circle in England
There are hoaxes but the very large and intricate crop cirlces are not
manmade. The proof for the real ones is where the stocks are bent as if
they had grown sideways, are not broken and continue to grow after.
Hoaxers cannot duplicate that.
------o------
From:
"DrPostman" <antibellum@h...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 8:42 am
Subject:
Re: New crop circle in England
These guys can tell you how they do it. http://www.circlemakers.org/
Jamie
------o------
At this stage Nancy came in with a separate unconnected posting.
From:
"nancylieder" <zetatalk@z...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 9:00 am
Subject: June 27 Debate wi Jason Martell vs Nancy Lieder CHANGE
Lou Gentile show had to reschedule due to continuing problems getting
this new 800 number lines in. The new date is July 11th.
------o------
From: "annacide" <annacide@y...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 9:04 am
Subject: Re: June 27 Debate wi Jason Martell vs Nancy Lieder CHANGE
Which will be nearly two months after the imaginary planet x was
supposed to show up. Do you think anyone still takes you seriously?
Anna
------o------
From:
Michael L Cunningham <bogeystar@e...>
Date:
Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:45 pm
Subject: Re: [tt-watch] June 27 Debate wi Jason Martell vs Nancy Lieder
CHANGE
Why Nancy? Planet X has failed to show so why should anyone continue to
believe your failed predictions?
Michael
------o------
From: Connie Tuggle <jasmineclouds@y...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 1:38 pm
Subject: Re: [tt-watch] June 27 Debate wi Jason Martell vs Nancy Lieder
CHANGE
Just cuz it didn't show doesn't mean it will never show. Ya know, it's
kinda like a first date: they either show up, or they don't. Have a
little faith, even if it is Nancy and her Zeta-talk rubbish. Besides,
it's only our human nature to make mistakes or say wrong things.
Connie Tuggle
------o------
At almost the same time this posting appeared
From: Tim <tedwards@w...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 2:08 pm
Subject:
[Fwd: ANTENNA ANOMALY MAY AFFECT SOHO SCIENTIFIC DATA
TRANSMISSION]
Straight from the horse's mouth!
Tim
--
NASANews@h... wrote:
> Bill Steigerwald
> Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md
> (Phone: 301/ 286-5017) June 24, 2003
>
> ESA Media Relations Office
> Paris, France
> (Phone: 33/0/15369/7155)
>
> Release: 03-214
>
> ANTENNA ANOMALY MAY AFFECT SOHO SCIENTIFIC DATA TRANSMISSION
>
> The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft expects to
experience a blackout in the transmission of its scientific data this
week. It is estimated the blackout may last two to three weeks.
>
> Engineers are predicting this problem after detecting a malfunction in
the pointing mechanism of the satellite's high-gain antenna (HGA), which
is used to transmit the large amounts of data from SOHO's scientific
observations to Earth.
>
> The SOHO spacecraft is operating as safely as before the problem
occurred. Its low gain antenna, which does not need to be pointed in a
specific direction, will be used to control SOHO, monitoring spacecraft
and instrument health and safety.
>
> The anomaly in the HGA was recently discovered when engineers detected
a discrepancy between the commanded and measured antenna position. In
normal conditions, the antenna must be able to move along two axes,
vertical and horizontal. The horizontal movement is no longer taking
place properly. The problem is probably due to a malfunction in the
motor or gear assembly that steers the antenna.
>
> SOHO is located 1.5 million kilometers (one million miles) from Earth.
It orbits around the First Lagrangian point, where the combined gravity
of the Earth and the sun keep SOHO in an orbit locked to the sun-Earth
line. To transmit data, the SOHO HGA must rotate to have Earth in its
field of view.
>
> If the problem is not solved, the Earth will be left outside the HGA
beam on a periodic basis, with similar blackouts occurring every three
months. European Space Agency (ESA) and NASA engineers are assessing
several options to recover the situation, or minimize the scientific
data loss.
>
> SOHO is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA to
study the sun, from its deep core to the outer corona, and the solar
wind. It was launched in December 1995 on an Atlas IIAS/Centaur rocket.
Besides watching the sun, SOHO has become the most prolific discoverer
of comets in astronomical history. As of May 2003, more than 620 comets
have been found by SOHO.
>
> For information about NASA and Space Science on the Internet, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov
>
> -end-
------o------
From: "DrPostman" <antibellum@h...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 4:24 pm
Subject: Re: [Fwd: ANTENNA ANOMALY MAY AFFECT SOHO SCIENTIFIC DATA
TRANSMISSION]
--- In tt-watch@yahoogroups.com, Tim <tedwards@w...> wrote:
> Straight from the horse's mouth! Tim<
And the Jackasses Mouth will, in desperation, use this as more
"evidence" that someone is trying to keep the few remaining Planet X
believers from buying a lie.
Jamie
------o------
From: "Jan" <anybody@a...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 4:45 pm
Subject: Re: [tt-watch] [Fwd: ANTENNA ANOMALY MAY AFFECT SOHO SCIENTIFIC
DATA TRANSMISSION]
"DrPostman" wrote:
And the Jackasses Mouth will, in desperation, use this as more
"evidence" that someone is trying to keep the few remaining Planet X
believers from buying a lie.<
May I remind everybody about what I wrote in the TT Moderation posting:
"Instead, if a poster abuses this privilege, he or she will lose the
posting privilege and/or be banned without further warning. The other TT
lists are already operating in this mode."
The above expression is a
clear example of such abuse, and will not be tolerated.
[Nothing wrong with that Dr P was out of line calling Nancy a
Jackass, but then Jan spoils it....]
I am not impressed by how the "debunkers" have taken liberty of the fact
that TT Watch now runs unmoderated.
[I
am not impressed.... But
as Jan is already proving with this post the lists are still under "his"
moderation.]
It is absolutely not
necessary to get into lengthy debates about how crop circles are made
every time info about a crop circle is posted, nor is it necessary to
comment each and every posting here.
[Lengthy debates? apart from about two I've printed them all,
some list. However it is Mike O'Hara and Steve Havas they're debating,
and winning I might add.]
The fact that Planet X did not show as predicted in May does not mean
that the possibility of a 10th planet has been ruled out once and for
all, nor does it explain some of the Earth changes that can be observed
around us.
If Nancy wants to discuss with Jason Martell on the Lou Gentile show, I
believe many will find it interesting to hear how such a debate turns
out.
There is no need for Michael or anybody else to immediately make
negative
comments to such information.
[Did anyone see any negative comments. Surely they were questions
regarding the no show of PX. Nancy is advertising her radio appearance
after all concerning afore mentioned planet. But notice how Jan see's
these questions as negative and none valid.]
More abuse of posting privileges, and some posters will find such
privileges
removed.
[A threat. The lists are supposed to be now unmoderated. Yet he's
openly threatening members he considers a threat.]
Regards,
Jan
------o------
From:
"padraighaz" <pjh@l...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 6:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Fwd: ANTENNA and tt-watch moderation comments
--- In tt-watch@yahoogroups.com, "Jan" <anybody@a...> wrote:
The above expression is a clear example of such abuse, and will not be
tolerated.<
I agree. DrPostman should offer an apology.
> I am not impressed by how the "debunkers" have taken liberty of the
fact that TT Watch now runs unmoderated.<
What about M O'Hara calling me an "a**hole?" I'm not impressed with his
behaviour either. I assume your silence on this is because you didn't
see it.
>It is absolutely not necessary to get into lengthy debates about how
crop circles are made every time info about a crop circle is posted, nor
is it necessary to comment each and every posting here.<
This I don't understand. I responded to a crop-circle posting where the
assertion was that that since simple tools couldn't produce the result,
that the complexity implied alien involvement.
Since I demonstrated that the complexity argument was weak, and that
simple tools could easily generate the complex images, the response was
appropriate.
Are you now saying that since the crop-circle argument has been
responded to, that it is inappropriate for members to post crop-circle
announcements in the future? If you are concerned about lengthy debates,
then what's the point in members posting more examples of crop-circles
when their significance has been discredited? I think the proponents
deserve the right to challenge my responses.
On the otherhand, if all you want is a forum where exotic claims and
extraordinary assertions can be posted without being challanged, then
why allow any discussion at all? Why not be honest about it and state
clearly that
you will not tolerate any challanges or discussion that questions any
claims, implied or otherwise?
The unmoderated forum generated healthy debate with the exception of one
member from each side of the fence getting a little overheated.
There's an unrestricted exchange of ideas and comments. The tt-watch
proponents seem capable of handling themselves without requiring a
moderator to force (or threaten to force) the "debunkers" to fight with
one hand tied behind their backs.
It's as if you're afraid of letting them participate in a fair
discussion. If I was one of them, I'd be very irritated at the referee
weighing in on my side in my fight.
Just some thoughts.
Regards,
PH
------o------
From: "angelisle2003" <angelisle2003@y...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 6:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Fwd: ANTENNA ANOMALY MAY AFFECT SOHO SCIENTIFIC DATA
TRANSMISSION]
So what catagory does this fall into, Jan?
From: "Mike O'Hara" <ppplanet@a...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:37 am
Subject: RE: New crop circle in England
<In responce to Padraighaz>
Mike O. wrote:
What a total asshole!
----------------------
Doesn't that constitute attacking the messenger rather than the message,
along the lines of personal and abusive attacks, or are we seeing yet
more "democratic" moderation under the banner of a selective dictate? Is
this therefore not "abuse"?
Granted the "debunkers are more verbal but I don't see anything even
remotely or as strong as Mike O's remarks. Yet here you are still
deciding what everyone should and should not discuss. I thought the
groups were unmoderated? If they want to comment, by threatening, you
are still effectively moderating, but I notice, only those considered
outside the tt-hierarchy. Besides it was the tt-believers, by their
challenging remarks that continued the threads. All the debunkers did
were point out that man made crop circles can be created with a certain
ingenuity and not impossible. Therefore just a possibility. They did not
say anyone had to believe them.
As for Nancy... I notice it is alright for certain members, (like you
and QueenVee) to denounce her predictions making whatever remarks they
feel necessary, but everyone else must refrain from doing the same. What
does that actually say to everyone about democracy and dictate? But then
I notice you never did say anything about being unbiased or fair in your
original posting.
(Also note this is not a personal attack on the messenger but rather the
message based on observation of behaviour so far, but by all means feel
free to excersise your moderator privlages and prove a point.)
------o------
From: "Jan" <anybody@a...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 9:03 pm
Subject: Re: [tt-watch] ANTENNA and tt-watch moderation comments
"padraighaz" wrote:
What about M O'Hara calling me an "a**hole?" I'm not impressed with his
behavior either. I assume your silence on this is because you didn't see
it.<
Mike O'Hara has been a long time contributor to the TT lists, and this
is the first time I've seen him using such an expression. I can
understand that he can get upset over all the unnecessary argument over
every single posting here, but I hope he will be more careful in
choosing his wording in the future.
[So that excuses Mike O while everyone else gets a threat of a
ban.]
> This I don't understand. I responded to a crop-circle posting where
the assertion was that since simple tools couldn't produce the result,
that the complexity implied alien involvement.<
Mike didn't mentioned or imply alien involvement, only that it could not
be made with boards. Your comment with reference to peg and string was
clearly sarcastic, and taken as such.
> Since I demonstrated that the complexity argument was weak, and that
simple tools could easily generate the complex images, the response was
appropriate.<
I did not see anything demonstrated at all, only the usual argumentative
responses.
[Padraighaz explained how such circles could be created by human
hands and this to Jan does not constitute a demonstration, but rather an
argument? Again his opinion.]
> Are you now saying that since the crop-circle argument has been
responded to, that it is inappropriate for members to post crop-circle
announcements in the future?<
Crop-circle announcements; definitely not. Arguments about boards, peg
and string; yes.
[Ooops that's a dictate and no way unbiased. In other words post
it and get banned.]
> If you are concerned about lengthy debates, then what's the point in
members posting more examples of crop-circles when their significance
has been discredited?<
I have seen no such discrediting, and I believe most people here find
cropcircles fascinating. New crop circles are definitely of interest,
repeated debates about their origin not.
[Crop circles fascinating but origins are not, once again "his"
opinion. (Scores out of ten democracy wise not very good so far.)]
> I think the proponents deserve the right to challenge my responses. On
the otherhand, if all you want is a forum where exotic claims and
extraordinary assertions can be posted without being challanged, then
why allow any discussion at all?<
There was no exotic claim except "cannot be made with boards". Any
intelligent and decent debate is welcome, but I am personally getting
sick and tired of the so called discussions which is nothing but
negative, often circular arguments.
[He's sick and tired..... Better and better.]
> Why not be honest about it and state clearly that you will not
tolerate any challanges or discussion that questions any claims, implied
or otherwise?<
We have stated clearly the premises of this list, and that those that do
not comply will lose their posting privilege.
[No "you" have not "we".]
<snip>
> There's an unrestricted exchange of ideas and comments.<
Where some only contribute negative comments. Why?
<snip>
Regards,
Jan
------o------
From: "padraighaz" <pjh@l...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 11:23 pm
Subject: Re: ANTENNA and tt-watch moderation comments
--- In tt-watch@yahoogroups.com, "Jan" <anybody@a...> wrote:
Mike didn't mentioned or imply alien involvement, only that it could
not be made with boards. Your comment with reference to peg and string
was
clearly sarcastic, and taken as such.<
Oh come now. To read sarcasm into my email, but to be blind to the
implications of crop-circle advocates is unfair. While you claim no
implication of alien involvement, later in your email you conceed that
there was an exotic claim in Mike's letter, and in the context of
crop-circles that rapidly points the finger at aliens.
In any event...
> I did not see anything demonstrated at all, only the usual
argumentative responses.<
Well, if any response to one of your friends is going to be labelled as
"argumentative" then this is trivially true.
As I said, ***I explicitly demonstrated *** how to generate complex
patterns using strings to define arcs and how to place them. This was a
substantive response.
> Crop-circle announcements; definitely not. Arguments about boards, peg
and string; yes.<
Even when they can adequately refute the assertion that simple
technology like boards cannot create particular crop-circles?
This is extraordinarily unfair and biased.
> I have seen no such discrediting, and I believe most people here find
crop circles fascinating. New crop circles are definitely of interest,
repeated debates about their origin not.<
How about letting the members decide for themselves? If they're not
interested in hearing reasonable explanations as to their origin, they
don't have to respond or comment.
> There was no exotic claim except "cannot be made with boards". <
Agreed. And precisely because it was exotic, it merited attention and
consideration and debate.
>Any intelligent and decent debate is welcome, but I am personally
getting sick and tired of the so called discussions which is nothing but
negative, often circular arguments.<
What was negative and circular concerning my proposed mechanism which
demonstrated how using string and boards one could easily recreate the
crop-circle pattern?
The thread was:
1. A claim that you can't create a certain crop-circle with boards.
2. I agreed and said that one also needed a string and a peg.
3. I was called an a**hole.
4. I posted a simple method which **demonstrated** how
it could be done.
5. You jump in with warnings about debunkers abusing the list.
Where's the circular argument? Where is the unintelligent debate on my
part?
> We have stated clearly the premises of this list, and that those that
do not comply will lose their posting privilege.<
And part of that self-stated mandate is 'discussion.'
Unfortunately, you seem to want to intervene when I raise plausible
counter-arguments. I'd be furious with you if you were a skeptic and
tried to treat my opponent in a discussion this way. There's a large
measure of intellectual dishonesty in pretending that one is
participating in a free discussion but then you rely on the 'moderator'
to bail you out by threatening to, or actually, blocking responses. The
fact that the skeptics are the only ones raising issues with this kind
of underhanded behaviour is beginning to reflect on your moderatorship
and the integrity of the TT believers in this group.
I can understand that it is your group, and that the believers have a
right to whatever opinions they want. But, I think it is unethical, and
extremely destructive in an intellectual sense, to claim openness to
discussions, but then intentionally (or otherwise) undermine the ability
to have such a discussion.
> Where some only contribute negative comments. Why?<
Why? The issue is that you claim to be a moderator of a forum for
discussions. But, you intervene to hinder one side so as to protect the
other and impose or threaten arbitrary restictions on the side that
questions exotic claims and interpretations.
Regars,
PH
------o------
From: "Jan" <anybody@a...>
Date: Wed Jun 25, 2003 9:06 pm
Subject: List Operation & Behavior (Was: ANTENNA ANOMALY etc.)
Brian,
Mike O'Hara has been a long time contributor to the TT lists, and this
is the first time I've seen him using such an expression. I can
understand however that he can get upset over all the unnecessary
argument over every single posting here.
This list is not Usenet like sci.astro, where everybody may post
whatever they like and there is no way to do anything about it (except
for the few tightly controlled, moderated groups). The TT lists are
focused on the possible existence of a 10th planet or Planet X, Earth
changes and the possibility of a pole shift, alien presence, survival
skills etc.
Even though the ZetaTalk prediction for a Planet X passing and pole
shift in May 2003 has been proven wrong, it does not mean that the
general likelihood of any of these phenomena has decreased. The work of Sitchin,
Velikovsky, Hapgood et al still stands, and the unexplained
mysteries of our planet are still as unexplained as before the failed
prediction. (And no, yet another thread trying to discredit their work
will not be responded to.)
When the lists were partially moderated, we always allowed postings to
correct if there were factual errors in the postings, e.g. questionable
imaging, claimed rotation slowing etc. Posters like Michael L Cunningham
learned the hard way what was tolerated and not. Unfortunately, he seems
to revert to the old pre-moderation format as well.
I do not know or understand the intent of all the "debunkers" or
protesters here. I do know however that we will take the necessary
measures to avoid the lists to become as cluttered with garbage as
sci.astro and other Usenet groups. If you want to stay here, I would
suggest you avoid all your personal attacks as last time you were a
member of this list, and try to stick with the premise of the list
instead.
Regards,
Jan
PS. I would also recommend a small investment in a spell checker.
[Not this remark, never has Jan recommended a spell checker to
anyone even though there are many who obviously don't use them including
Nancy.]
------o------
From: "angelisle2003" <angelisle2003@y...>
Date: Thu Jun 26, 2003 11:54 am
Subject: Re: List Operation & Behavior (Was: ANTENNA ANOMALY etc.)
--- In tt-watch@yahoogroups.com, "Jan" <anybody@a...> wrote:
Brian, Mike O'Hara has
been a long time contributor to the TT lists, and
this is the first time I've seen him using such an expression. I can
understand however that he can get upset over all the unnecessary
argument over every single posting here.<
So Mike's involvement within the tt-hierarchy has nothing to do with it
either I suppose? (I seem to remember Sol was a long time contributor
too, yet it didn't stop Nancy or the majority of the TT-Inc from destroy
his character.) I think they call it selective viewing, basically seeing
and interpreting whatever you want based on personal bias. (Oh and
Mike's blooper is not the first time BTW.)
> This list is not Usenet like sci.astro, where everybody may post
whatever they like and there is no way to do anything about it (except
for the few tightly controlled, moderated groups). The TT lists are
focused on the possible existence of a 10th planet or Planet X, Earth
changes and the possibility of a pole shift, alien presence, survival
skills etc.<
As the membership cannot even review what was edited, or your reasons
for moderation and banning I guess they'll never know what was allowed
and what was not, so that statement is once again based on your
judgement, but for which everyone must take your word as they did and do
with Nancy.
> Even though the ZetaTalk prediction for a Planet X passing and pole
shift in May 2003 has been proven wrong, it does not mean that the
general likelihood of any of these phenomena has decreased. The work of
Sitchin, Velikovsky, Hapgood et al still stands, and the unexplained
mysteries of our planet are still as unexplained as before the failed
prediction. (And no, yet another thread trying to discredit their work
will not be responded to.)<
Despite your personal feelings that I attack the messenger and not the
message I have never degraded anyone's belief in anything. I have always
supported TT in its "original" form as it served whatever purpose and
still does. If nothing else a place where like minded individuals can
gather and talk, but somewhere "open" debate should be allowed. How else
can we learn about new concepts if we shut out the rest of the world?
> When the lists were partially moderated, we always allowed postings to
correct if there were factual errors in the postings, e.g. questionable
imaging, claimed rotation slowing etc. Posters like Michael L Cunningham
learned the hard way what was tolerated and not. Unfortunately, he seems
to revert to the old pre-moderation format as well.<
Jan you're talking to me, Brian. I know you remember. We've crossed
swords and you've made my postings "disappear." You can make all the
excuses you want for the "viewing public" but I know what I wrote so can
judge the fairness of your moderation and I've talked to many, many more
who you've done the same with. You also put me on a permanent ban
without ever telling anyone within the membership what it was I was
supposed to have done, except some rubbish about attacking the messenger
instead of the message. What you really didn't like was anyone
questioning you or Nancy and those who did were quickly weeded out, so
you made it personal Jan, with many people.
> I do not know or understand the intent of all the "debunkers" or
protesters here. I do know however that we will take the necessary
measures to avoid the lists to become as cluttered with garbage as
sci.astro and other Usenet groups. If you want to stay here, I would
suggest you avoid all your personal attacks as last time you were a
member of this list, and try to stick with the premise of the list
instead.<
Personal attacks? Show me one example from the archives where I attacked
any member of these groups? They're all still there. You keep stating
this as if its fact, so prove it. Show me up to the "viewing public" as
the dastardly swine I really am. But you won't though will you. Everyone
must take your word for it and bugger the TRUTH. (Which is what all this
is about really.) Although I can quote many instances where you and the
INC have attacked and abused on a personal level, they're in the
archives and on my web site for all to see.
Despite what you think this is not a personal issue. Stand down as sole
moderator and I'll discuss the same with anyone who issues a dictate
calling it a democracy. I can't help it if you're the only one available
who's pulling the strings. You're problem is you see everything as
personal which was my original argument and why you should never have
been allowed to come over from the INC as tt-moderator after the rigged
"vote call" and I was never alone in that sentiment. But hey, don't let
that stop you. If you want to see this as personal then that's "YOUR"
opinion and my point exactly.
> PS. I would also recommend a small investment in a spell checker.<
I wrote it on the fly direct from the web site, so no spell checker,
well if its good enough for Nancy its good enough for me.
It's been nice chewing the fat after all this time, but enough said
already or I'll probably find myself banned again on this new "unmoderated"
group.
Brian (Angel Isle)
[Referring back to the spell
checker Jan is obviously having a personal dig something he's just
accused me of.]
------o------
Unmoderated? I thought it was too good to be true. Why one could
mistakenly think the tt-groups were his own personal property the way
he's behaving. (Me, me, me, me and me too.) Wonder what would happen if
Nancy was to dare and openly challenge his authority, might she face a
ban too? I doubt it.
So what do you think? Free and open discussion or
closed-minded dictate? You be the ultimate judge. (Anyone care to bet
how long before the banning begins?)
Next
|
