RE: OT: Good-bye! (very, very long)

[Guest guest]

I feel as if I’m intruding in a private conversation. Oh, that that this

were a chat room and you could take it to a private channel. I find it

befuddling that speaking about “JC” in such a manner is any less an offense

than what “JC” supposedly did to reveal a personal communiqué. He, “JC”

isn’t here now to defend himself, is he? This is becoming quite

uncomfortable.

-Sharon, NH

Deut 11:14 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will

have plenty to eat.

JC was bringing up the name Schwartz and

wondering about it in terms of Judaism. This wasn't the first time

either. To bring up pigs in his post after making more inquiries as to

his Hebrewness seems to me more possibly veiled weirdness. I won't even

go there. I only wanted to make the connection.

Gene, you are a fine man whom I am glad to know in the limited context

that I know you.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 9/6/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Yeah JC, if one is a sick puppy maybe they will smile. Bon voyage!

Deanna,

How many times are you going to resurrect this fight? Everyone agrees

that the post shouldn't have been made, so it would be nice if people

would stop responding to it. You're fighting with someone who isn't

even on this list.

I referred someone to this list a few days ago, and they showed up for

the first time today to see the 50 messages in this thread and weren't

impressed. I think the resolution has been made here: 1) should

not have published info from a private exchange; 2) no one on the list

should take either's side about what happened in private, which we do

not know. There's nothing more to say. It would be nice if this

thread were over by tomorrow.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I referred someone to this list a few days ago, and they showed up for

>the first time today to see the 50 messages in this thread and weren't

>impressed. I think the resolution has been made here: 1) should

>not have published info from a private exchange; 2) no one on the list

>should take either's side about what happened in private, which we do

>not know. There's nothing more to say. It would be nice if this

>thread were over by tomorrow.

I second -- and third, and fourth, and fifth -- that. I would've referred

someone to this list tonight but I didn't because of this odious

noise. Everything that needs to be said has been said. I want to come

back tomorrow and find that this discussion is over. If it's not, I'll

take measures to make sure it is within ten minutes after I get up.

-

[Guest guest]

>Deanna,

>

>How many times are you going to resurrect this fight? Everyone agrees

>that the post shouldn't have been made, so it would be nice if people

>would stop responding to it. You're fighting with someone who isn't

>even on this list.

>

>

He can and probably is reading the list.

>I referred someone to this list a few days ago, and they showed up for

>the first time today to see the 50 messages in this thread and weren't

>impressed. I think the resolution has been made here: 1) should

>not have published info from a private exchange; 2) no one on the list

>should take either's side about what happened in private, which we do

>not know. There's nothing more to say. It would be nice if this

>thread were over by tomorrow.

>

Fine.

[Guest guest]

On 9/6/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Yeah JC, if one is a sick puppy maybe they will smile. Bon voyage!

" Deanna,

How many times are you going to resurrect this fight? Everyone agrees

that the post shouldn't have been made, so it would be nice if people

would stop responding to it. You're fighting with someone who isn't

even on this list.

I referred someone to this list a few days ago, and they showed up for

the first time today to see the 50 messages in this thread and weren't

impressed. I think the resolution has been made here: 1) should

not have published info from a private exchange; 2) no one on the list

should take either's side about what happened in private, which we do

not know. There's nothing more to say. It would be nice if this

thread were over by tomorrow. "

Ok - now I " ve had enough to drink that I'm dangerously close to showing that

'hair trigger' temper.

Should I post the entire contents of the posts for all to see? Yes - One can

read his entire post (did you even read it, Chris?), and get some notion

about his character, and what unsolicited emails from him might be like. (I

AM SHOUTING NOW. THE FACT THAT HE IS NOT HERE IS HIS CHOICE. IT IS

IRRELEVANT. I SUSPECT HE IS READING ANYHOW0

I should not in any conceivable sense be defending myself, and the

presumption of innocence in these email exchanges should be mine. I have

nothing to hide in any of them.

[Guest guest]

On 9/6/05, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> Ok - now I " ve had enough to drink that I'm dangerously close to showing

> that 'hair trigger' temper.

That's weird because, aside from my original post which may have been

ambiguous or even suggestive that I was taking JC's side, I don't

think I've been doing so at all.

> Should I post the entire contents of the posts for all to see? Yes - One

> can

> read his entire post (did you even read it, Chris?),

Yes, I read it.

> and get some notion

> about his character, and what unsolicited emails from him might be like. (I

> AM SHOUTING NOW. THE FACT THAT HE IS NOT HERE IS HIS CHOICE. IT IS

> IRRELEVANT. I SUSPECT HE IS READING ANYHOW0

I understand that he's not here by his own choice. My point was that

to drag out the substance is to lengthen a thread of personal trash

that doesn't belong on the list. Deanna was throwing insults at JC in

that post (I'm not commenting on whether or not they were deserved),

and not contributing to the only justified substance of the thread,

which is clarifying the points that have already been made, that JC

was wrong for publishing info on your personal exchange without

permission, and that it would be wrong to take yours or his side in

regards to the personal exchange.

> I should not in any conceivable sense be defending myself, and the

> presumption of innocence in these email exchanges should be mine. I have

> nothing to hide in any of them.

Who is presuming otherwise? I'm not going to presume anything about

what happened in the personal exchanges because they are *none of my

business*. The only person who has clearly done anything wrong here

is JC, and he did that wrong onlist, which is why we can judge that.

What happened in private could indict either of you or neither of you,

but it isn't the list's business.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 9/6/05, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> I think that your reasoning, for the most part is pretty good, but where it

> fails is that by assuming this position of neutrality as far as what

> 'really' happened, I am put on the defensive. I didn't post to the list. He

> did. And he said some mightily offensive stuff, I think. And I'm not the

> only one. Given those things, and the fact that whatever happened, happened

> offlist, perhaps the benefit of the doubt should shift in my favor. Would

> you like me to email you the whole exchange (given that any semblance of

> email etiquette has been violated?) You state that no one will ever know - I

> again state - I have no problems with sharing any of it with anyone. Though

> I would prefer JC to do it.

Gene,

I hear you. There is no doubt I would have defended myself if I had

been in your position. I'm not faulting you for that. I think you have

and I think you have made it very clear how inappropriate it was. My

comments were really addressed to Wanita and why that was so.

Otherwise I would have never entered this discussion.

For what its worth, I haven't taken a side on the personal substance.

I think that would be unfair to *both* of you. I don't know enough to

do so. I don't want to know. I don't have the time or inclination to

search it out. It is none of my business and I don't want it to be.

I'm willing to give you both the benefit of the doubt, but that

doesn't change the fact that I think was wrong in doing what he

did. I'm on your side regarding the impropiety. I'm on neither side

regarding the personal substance nor am I automatically assuming that

you were to blame. This is one time where I want to be agnostic, LOL!

So I apologize if anything I said put you on the defensive. That was

not my intention.

--

" Twenty years ago I was an extreme right-wing

Republican, a young and lone 'Neanderthal'

(as the liberals used to call us) who believed,

as one friend pungently put it, that 'Senator

Taft had sold out to the socialists. Today,

I am most likely to be called an extreme leftist,

since I favor immediate withdrawal from

Vietnam, denounce U.S. imperialism, advocate

Black Power and have just joined the new

Peace and Freedom Party. And yet my basic

political views have not changed by a single

iota in these two decades! "

Murray Rothbard

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I have never seen shit on TV during the day, and I know it at least

>isn't allowed on prime time.

South Park did an episode in which they had a shit counter and used the

word as often as they could. It wasn't bleeped once and it's been rerun

many times. The standards are stiffer for broadcast TV, but at least up

until Janet 's so-called wardrobe malfunction, language was

gradually becoming less of a big deal, at least for shows airing from 10pm

on. Not sure about 9pm, but 8pm definitely was more strictly

monitored. Now who knows.

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Obviously y'all haven't seen Deadwood...

LOL! That's the difference between pay TV and broadcast, though. Premium

channels can get away with a lot, though I'm not sure they'll ever air

something like " The Brown Bunny " .

-

[Guest guest]

.....GEEZ...give it a rest!!!!

I know I'm here to learn how to eat more healthy....I don't know about you

guys..... check out our group statement !!! ...and quit with this #* & %

already....PLEASE?!!!!???!!!??? This ain't what this group is all about, is it?

Please stop already....who gives a rats a** anyways.....lets talk about HEALTH

OK?!

--

--

Steve (wow....some of you really need a hobby....maybe you're just not eating

right... ;-)

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message archive

with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

Steve-

>....GEEZ...give it a rest!!!!

>

>I know I'm here to learn how to eat more healthy....I don't know about you

>guys..... check out our group statement !!! ...and quit with this #* & %

>already....PLEASE?!!!!???!!!??? This ain't what this group is all about,

>is it?

>

>Please stop already....who gives a rats a** anyways.....lets talk about

>HEALTH OK?!

You're coming a bit late to the party. Last night I told everyone to stop

talking about it by morning, and so far, that edict has held.

-

[Guest guest]

These off-topic police always amuse me...what does 'OT' mean, if not - NOT ABOUT

NUTRITION?! I mean, if you don't want to read stuff that isn't about nutrition,

how about not reading posts labeled 'OT'.

Satan

> Steve-

>

> >....GEEZ...give it a rest!!!!

> >

> >I know I'm here to learn how to eat more healthy....I don't know about you

> >guys..... check out our group statement !!! ...and quit with this #* & %

> >already....PLEASE?!!!!???!!!??? This ain't what this group is all about,

> >is it?

> >

> >Please stop already....who gives a rats a** anyways.....lets talk about

> >HEALTH OK?!

>

> You're coming a bit late to the party. Last night I told everyone to stop

> talking about it by morning, and so far, that edict has held.

>

>

>

>

> -