Re: New here

[Guest guest]

Mona did you ever stop to consider the very real possibility Dave might have

been telling me to chill the hell out?

No. And I'm not consiering it now.

I've got to tell you though Mona

that JT's lieutenant stuff sounds kind of out there to me.

That's nice, but I've been told he is affiliated with Jack Trimpey. Not that I care; Jack has done good things for "rational" recovery. But his screeds on AA are not rational.

>>This is the kind of comment to which I referred earlier that you are want to

make concerning the people on this list.  Whether it matters to you or not

it's comments like this that do not endear you to me<<

That's too fucking bad, . Ken made a wholly unfounded accusation against LSR; on this list to liken a group to AA in any way is pretty damning indeed. Then you think I'm sending subtextual messages to an SOS member I barely even know to ask for "back-up" (backup for freakin' what? hmmm?), and then Dave Trippell announces LSR is trying to turn the list into an LSR "stable" of the sort that concerned Ken.

So lessee...I'm recruiting back-up from LSR and we are taking over lists and adding them t our "stable." What a load of overwrought, absolutely juvenile billlshit. THAT, , is what I mean about paranoia. LSR is a goddam recovery group, with zero, and I mean zero interest in taking over this or any other list. For one thing, we are a bunch of extremely independent people who can barely stay organized to support one another on our own list, much less take over anyone else's. If I told the LSRlist about this fevered ranting here, and the plot we are purportedly about, they could only be confused -- and perhaps amused.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Mona did you ever stop to consider the very real possibility Dave might have

been telling me to chill the hell out?

No. And I'm not consiering it now.

I've got to tell you though Mona

that JT's lieutenant stuff sounds kind of out there to me.

That's nice, but I've been told he is affiliated with Jack Trimpey. Not that I care; Jack has done good things for "rational" recovery. But his screeds on AA are not rational.

>>This is the kind of comment to which I referred earlier that you are want to

make concerning the people on this list.  Whether it matters to you or not

it's comments like this that do not endear you to me<<

That's too fucking bad, . Ken made a wholly unfounded accusation against LSR; on this list to liken a group to AA in any way is pretty damning indeed. Then you think I'm sending subtextual messages to an SOS member I barely even know to ask for "back-up" (backup for freakin' what? hmmm?), and then Dave Trippell announces LSR is trying to turn the list into an LSR "stable" of the sort that concerned Ken.

So lessee...I'm recruiting back-up from LSR and we are taking over lists and adding them t our "stable." What a load of overwrought, absolutely juvenile billlshit. THAT, , is what I mean about paranoia. LSR is a goddam recovery group, with zero, and I mean zero interest in taking over this or any other list. For one thing, we are a bunch of extremely independent people who can barely stay organized to support one another on our own list, much less take over anyone else's. If I told the LSRlist about this fevered ranting here, and the plot we are purportedly about, they could only be confused -- and perhaps amused.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Just what is LSR anyway?

Jan

In a message dated 8/7/01 9:03:36 PM Central Daylight Time,

davetrippel@... writes:

<< I could be wrong, but I don't think the folks here would let this list

degenerate into just another in the LSR stable. IIRC Ken had some concerns in

that direction.

DT >>

[Guest guest]

Just what is LSR anyway?

Jan

In a message dated 8/7/01 9:03:36 PM Central Daylight Time,

davetrippel@... writes:

<< I could be wrong, but I don't think the folks here would let this list

degenerate into just another in the LSR stable. IIRC Ken had some concerns in

that direction.

DT >>

[Guest guest]

Mona:

I'm confused. I assumed that this was 12-step-free, other-groups free. Your

input will definitely be missed. Good luck to you on your career and move.

Jan

PS - WHAT is LSR? Where can I find it to learn more about it?

In a message dated 8/7/01 11:45:40 PM Central Daylight Time,

MonaHolland1@... writes:

<< I'm moving out-of-state in a bit more than a week, and had planned to

unsubscribe at that time. You make that decision easier. If you like, I

will also post to the LSRlist that we are not welcome here.

>>

[Guest guest]

Mona:

I'm confused. I assumed that this was 12-step-free, other-groups free. Your

input will definitely be missed. Good luck to you on your career and move.

Jan

PS - WHAT is LSR? Where can I find it to learn more about it?

In a message dated 8/7/01 11:45:40 PM Central Daylight Time,

MonaHolland1@... writes:

<< I'm moving out-of-state in a bit more than a week, and had planned to

unsubscribe at that time. You make that decision easier. If you like, I

will also post to the LSRlist that we are not welcome here.

>>

[Guest guest]

Mona:

I'm confused. I assumed that this was 12-step-free, other-groups free. Your

input will definitely be missed. Good luck to you on your career and move.

Jan

PS - WHAT is LSR? Where can I find it to learn more about it?

In a message dated 8/7/01 11:45:40 PM Central Daylight Time,

MonaHolland1@... writes:

<< I'm moving out-of-state in a bit more than a week, and had planned to

unsubscribe at that time. You make that decision easier. If you like, I

will also post to the LSRlist that we are not welcome here.

>>

[Guest guest]

Another such what Mona? You made what I took to be a strange comment and I

commented on that. You seem to be forgetting here that the initial comment

that initiated my response was from you, and it had the distinct tone of

someone who felt she could use back up here. Which I still think sounded

odd coming from you.

Re: New here

In a message dated 8/7/01 9:03:27 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

davetrippel@... writes:

I could be wrong, but I don't think the folks here would let this list

degenerate into just another in the LSR stable. IIRC Ken had some concerns

in that direction.

Excuse me? " Another " such? WTF are you talking about? Are we unwelcome

here?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Another such what Mona? You made what I took to be a strange comment and I

commented on that. You seem to be forgetting here that the initial comment

that initiated my response was from you, and it had the distinct tone of

someone who felt she could use back up here. Which I still think sounded

odd coming from you.

Re: New here

In a message dated 8/7/01 9:03:27 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

davetrippel@... writes:

I could be wrong, but I don't think the folks here would let this list

degenerate into just another in the LSR stable. IIRC Ken had some concerns

in that direction.

Excuse me? " Another " such? WTF are you talking about? Are we unwelcome

here?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Another such what Mona? You made what I took to be a strange comment and I

commented on that. You seem to be forgetting here that the initial comment

that initiated my response was from you, and it had the distinct tone of

someone who felt she could use back up here. Which I still think sounded

odd coming from you.

Re: New here

In a message dated 8/7/01 9:03:27 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

davetrippel@... writes:

I could be wrong, but I don't think the folks here would let this list

degenerate into just another in the LSR stable. IIRC Ken had some concerns

in that direction.

Excuse me? " Another " such? WTF are you talking about? Are we unwelcome

here?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Re: New here

In a message dated 8/7/01 11:21:13 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

arroyoh@... writes:

Another such what Mona? You made what I took to be a strange comment and I

commented on that. You seem to be forgetting here that the initial comment

that initiated my response was from you, and it had the distinct tone of

someone who felt she could use back up here. Which I still think sounded

odd coming from you.

-----------

M:

, the paranoia some on this list exhibit where AA is concerned

apparently spills over into other areas of recovery politics. I have little

patience and no time for that.

---------

H:

I noticed you seem to have little patience with pretty much anything that

doesn't interest you such as the subject of the particular individual Pete

and another were discussing recently.

---------

M:

If my mere welcome of an SOS member -- whom I really don't know that well,

and who I believe may not understand how different this list is from whence

he comes --

------------

H:

This is your explanation now and I accept it as such. Doesn't change that I

took it the way I did initially and commented on it that way because that is

the way I read it and frankly still do (read on it's own) given the lack of

explanation in your initial message.

-----------

M:

On what subjects do I supposedly require back-up? I was unaware that I was

regarded as some outre faction around around here. Yup, we are all going to

be highly effective in fighting the XA Goliath with eating our own.

------------

Exactly my point and why I found the comment so odd coming from you. I view

you as strong individual and not particularly needing any backup.

----------

I'm moving out-of-state in a bit more than a week, and had planned to

unsubscribe at that time. You make that decision easier. If you like, I

will also post to the LSRlist that we are not welcome here.

-----------

You can do what you like and no doubt you will but just remember posting

often in a negative context about this list and threatening to leave many

times, and only just recently explaining why, do not tend to endear you to

me at least. Can't speak for anyone else.

[Guest guest]

Re: New here

In a message dated 8/7/01 11:21:13 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

arroyoh@... writes:

Another such what Mona? You made what I took to be a strange comment and I

commented on that. You seem to be forgetting here that the initial comment

that initiated my response was from you, and it had the distinct tone of

someone who felt she could use back up here. Which I still think sounded

odd coming from you.

-----------

M:

, the paranoia some on this list exhibit where AA is concerned

apparently spills over into other areas of recovery politics. I have little

patience and no time for that.

---------

H:

I noticed you seem to have little patience with pretty much anything that

doesn't interest you such as the subject of the particular individual Pete

and another were discussing recently.

---------

M:

If my mere welcome of an SOS member -- whom I really don't know that well,

and who I believe may not understand how different this list is from whence

he comes --

------------

H:

This is your explanation now and I accept it as such. Doesn't change that I

took it the way I did initially and commented on it that way because that is

the way I read it and frankly still do (read on it's own) given the lack of

explanation in your initial message.

-----------

M:

On what subjects do I supposedly require back-up? I was unaware that I was

regarded as some outre faction around around here. Yup, we are all going to

be highly effective in fighting the XA Goliath with eating our own.

------------

Exactly my point and why I found the comment so odd coming from you. I view

you as strong individual and not particularly needing any backup.

----------

I'm moving out-of-state in a bit more than a week, and had planned to

unsubscribe at that time. You make that decision easier. If you like, I

will also post to the LSRlist that we are not welcome here.

-----------

You can do what you like and no doubt you will but just remember posting

often in a negative context about this list and threatening to leave many

times, and only just recently explaining why, do not tend to endear you to

me at least. Can't speak for anyone else.

[Guest guest]

Re: New here

In a message dated 8/7/01 11:21:13 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

arroyoh@... writes:

Another such what Mona? You made what I took to be a strange comment and I

commented on that. You seem to be forgetting here that the initial comment

that initiated my response was from you, and it had the distinct tone of

someone who felt she could use back up here. Which I still think sounded

odd coming from you.

-----------

M:

, the paranoia some on this list exhibit where AA is concerned

apparently spills over into other areas of recovery politics. I have little

patience and no time for that.

---------

H:

I noticed you seem to have little patience with pretty much anything that

doesn't interest you such as the subject of the particular individual Pete

and another were discussing recently.

---------

M:

If my mere welcome of an SOS member -- whom I really don't know that well,

and who I believe may not understand how different this list is from whence

he comes --

------------

H:

This is your explanation now and I accept it as such. Doesn't change that I

took it the way I did initially and commented on it that way because that is

the way I read it and frankly still do (read on it's own) given the lack of

explanation in your initial message.

-----------

M:

On what subjects do I supposedly require back-up? I was unaware that I was

regarded as some outre faction around around here. Yup, we are all going to

be highly effective in fighting the XA Goliath with eating our own.

------------

Exactly my point and why I found the comment so odd coming from you. I view

you as strong individual and not particularly needing any backup.

----------

I'm moving out-of-state in a bit more than a week, and had planned to

unsubscribe at that time. You make that decision easier. If you like, I

will also post to the LSRlist that we are not welcome here.

-----------

You can do what you like and no doubt you will but just remember posting

often in a negative context about this list and threatening to leave many

times, and only just recently explaining why, do not tend to endear you to

me at least. Can't speak for anyone else.

[Guest guest]

hey, I like Mona's posts... and I didn't interpret her comments as you did

hector... just my 2 cents worth, but I'll be sad to see Mona go.

lisak

Re: New here

>

>

> In a message dated 8/7/01 11:21:13 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> arroyoh@... writes:

>

> Another such what Mona? You made what I took to be a strange comment and

I

> commented on that. You seem to be forgetting here that the initial

comment

> that initiated my response was from you, and it had the distinct tone of

> someone who felt she could use back up here. Which I still think sounded

> odd coming from you.

>

> -----------

> M:

> , the paranoia some on this list exhibit where AA is concerned

> apparently spills over into other areas of recovery politics. I have

little

> patience and no time for that.

>

> ---------

> H:

> I noticed you seem to have little patience with pretty much anything that

> doesn't interest you such as the subject of the particular individual Pete

> and another were discussing recently.

>

> ---------

> M:

> If my mere welcome of an SOS member -- whom I really don't know that well,

> and who I believe may not understand how different this list is from

whence

> he comes --

> ------------

> H:

> This is your explanation now and I accept it as such. Doesn't change that

I

> took it the way I did initially and commented on it that way because that

is

> the way I read it and frankly still do (read on it's own) given the lack

of

> explanation in your initial message.

>

> -----------

> M:

> On what subjects do I supposedly require back-up? I was unaware that I

was

> regarded as some outre faction around around here. Yup, we are all going

to

> be highly effective in fighting the XA Goliath with eating our own.

> ------------

>

> Exactly my point and why I found the comment so odd coming from you. I

view

> you as strong individual and not particularly needing any backup.

>

> ----------

>

> I'm moving out-of-state in a bit more than a week, and had planned to

> unsubscribe at that time. You make that decision easier. If you like, I

> will also post to the LSRlist that we are not welcome here.

>

> -----------

>

> You can do what you like and no doubt you will but just remember posting

> often in a negative context about this list and threatening to leave many

> times, and only just recently explaining why, do not tend to endear you to

> me at least. Can't speak for anyone else.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

hey, I like Mona's posts... and I didn't interpret her comments as you did

hector... just my 2 cents worth, but I'll be sad to see Mona go.

lisak

Re: New here

>

>

> In a message dated 8/7/01 11:21:13 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> arroyoh@... writes:

>

> Another such what Mona? You made what I took to be a strange comment and

I

> commented on that. You seem to be forgetting here that the initial

comment

> that initiated my response was from you, and it had the distinct tone of

> someone who felt she could use back up here. Which I still think sounded

> odd coming from you.

>

> -----------

> M:

> , the paranoia some on this list exhibit where AA is concerned

> apparently spills over into other areas of recovery politics. I have

little

> patience and no time for that.

>

> ---------

> H:

> I noticed you seem to have little patience with pretty much anything that

> doesn't interest you such as the subject of the particular individual Pete

> and another were discussing recently.

>

> ---------

> M:

> If my mere welcome of an SOS member -- whom I really don't know that well,

> and who I believe may not understand how different this list is from

whence

> he comes --

> ------------

> H:

> This is your explanation now and I accept it as such. Doesn't change that

I

> took it the way I did initially and commented on it that way because that

is

> the way I read it and frankly still do (read on it's own) given the lack

of

> explanation in your initial message.

>

> -----------

> M:

> On what subjects do I supposedly require back-up? I was unaware that I

was

> regarded as some outre faction around around here. Yup, we are all going

to

> be highly effective in fighting the XA Goliath with eating our own.

> ------------

>

> Exactly my point and why I found the comment so odd coming from you. I

view

> you as strong individual and not particularly needing any backup.

>

> ----------

>

> I'm moving out-of-state in a bit more than a week, and had planned to

> unsubscribe at that time. You make that decision easier. If you like, I

> will also post to the LSRlist that we are not welcome here.

>

> -----------

>

> You can do what you like and no doubt you will but just remember posting

> often in a negative context about this list and threatening to leave many

> times, and only just recently explaining why, do not tend to endear you to

> me at least. Can't speak for anyone else.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

hey, I like Mona's posts... and I didn't interpret her comments as you did

hector... just my 2 cents worth, but I'll be sad to see Mona go.

lisak

Re: New here

>

>

> In a message dated 8/7/01 11:21:13 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> arroyoh@... writes:

>

> Another such what Mona? You made what I took to be a strange comment and

I

> commented on that. You seem to be forgetting here that the initial

comment

> that initiated my response was from you, and it had the distinct tone of

> someone who felt she could use back up here. Which I still think sounded

> odd coming from you.

>

> -----------

> M:

> , the paranoia some on this list exhibit where AA is concerned

> apparently spills over into other areas of recovery politics. I have

little

> patience and no time for that.

>

> ---------

> H:

> I noticed you seem to have little patience with pretty much anything that

> doesn't interest you such as the subject of the particular individual Pete

> and another were discussing recently.

>

> ---------

> M:

> If my mere welcome of an SOS member -- whom I really don't know that well,

> and who I believe may not understand how different this list is from

whence

> he comes --

> ------------

> H:

> This is your explanation now and I accept it as such. Doesn't change that

I

> took it the way I did initially and commented on it that way because that

is

> the way I read it and frankly still do (read on it's own) given the lack

of

> explanation in your initial message.

>

> -----------

> M:

> On what subjects do I supposedly require back-up? I was unaware that I

was

> regarded as some outre faction around around here. Yup, we are all going

to

> be highly effective in fighting the XA Goliath with eating our own.

> ------------

>

> Exactly my point and why I found the comment so odd coming from you. I

view

> you as strong individual and not particularly needing any backup.

>

> ----------

>

> I'm moving out-of-state in a bit more than a week, and had planned to

> unsubscribe at that time. You make that decision easier. If you like, I

> will also post to the LSRlist that we are not welcome here.

>

> -----------

>

> You can do what you like and no doubt you will but just remember posting

> often in a negative context about this list and threatening to leave many

> times, and only just recently explaining why, do not tend to endear you to

> me at least. Can't speak for anyone else.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Constant threads about the ostensibly evil

> cyber-machinations of Jim Shirk, or whatever-his-name is, do

not

> interest me, and if that is to be the substance of this list, you

would not

> want me here -- I'd just be spewing frustration and disgust at the

absurdity

> of such a focus.

Well not entirely absurd, but in any case, these seem to be de facto

resolved. I think I like you here better now that you no longer feel

theneed tohelp the latte on his way.

P.

[Guest guest]

Re: New here

In a message dated 8/7/01 11:56:44 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

arroyoh@... writes:

You can do what you like and no doubt you will but just remember posting

often in a negative context about this list and threatening to leave many

times, and only just recently explaining why, do not tend to endear you to

me at least. Can't speak for anyone else.

-------------

M:

Endearing myself to you is not, as I'm sure you must know, a concern of

mine.

Nor have I threatened to leave many times; it is only in the last day or

two

I have said that that is my intention -- a natural time to do that will be

when I disassemble this computer and move out-of-state, and acquire a

different email address.

------------

H:

You're right I do know it's not your concern it's evident in some of the

comments you've made about this list. A quick check and I emphasize a

" quick check " indicates the first time you talked about leaving the list was

almost a month ago Mona.

-----------

M:

Constant threads about the ostensibly evil

cyber-machinations of Jim Shirk, or whatever-his-name is, do not

interest me, and if that is to be the substance of this list, you would not

want me here -- I'd just be spewing frustration and disgust at the absurdity

of such a focus.

---------

H:

Mona it's ridiculous to even attempt to indicate that the these people or

subjects are the main focus of what " anyone " posts here. They are a

temporary nuisance. That's all.

---------

M:

I remain angry and perplexed at the hostility Ken has exhibited toward LSR,

and that is now coming from others.

---------

H:

I don't see that Ken exhibited hostility towards LSR. And to a certain

extent I don't see where you believe others are displaying the same level of

hostility (whatever that is) towards LSR. What I'm saying I'm directing at

'you' not at LSR. There are some issues that I would like clarification on

about LSR but I'll wait until we both get this out of our systems.

---------

M:

What did any person in our group ever

say or do to merit such neurotic and, frankly, paranoid suspicions? That

the

majority of us (my guess here) would rather be dead than go to an AA meeting

isn't good enough for you?

---------

H:

What paranoid suspicions would those be Mona? That's a serious question

because I honestly don't know to what you're referring here.

---------

M:

Is it, at the end of the day, that we are asbtinence-based?

----------

H:

Why would that have any effect on anything? Mona do you understand what it

means to be on a 12 step free list that has as a list owner a sometime OA

member? The people on this list are very tolerant of alternate views

whether or not you believe it.

[Guest guest]

> M:

> Constant threads about the ostensibly evil

> cyber-machinations of Jim Shirk, or whatever-his-name is, do not

> interest me, and if that is to be the substance of this list, you would

not

> want me here -- I'd just be spewing frustration and disgust at the

absurdity

> of such a focus.

>

> ---------

> H:

>

> Mona it's ridiculous to even attempt to indicate that the these people or

> subjects are the main focus of what " anyone " posts here. They are a

> temporary nuisance. That's all.

Have you done a " quick check " to see how often Jim Shirk's name is

mentioned... he seems to be a focus of a fair number of regular posters to

this list. People who, IMO, are what I call AA conspiracy theorists. That's

shown up on the NY judicial ruling... people indicating that it's all some

diabolical plot by AA to twist the previous religion rulings to AA's

advantage.

>

> ---------

> M:

> I remain angry and perplexed at the hostility Ken has exhibited toward

LSR,

> and that is now coming from others.

>

> ---------

> H:

> I don't see that Ken exhibited hostility towards LSR. And to a certain

> extent I don't see where you believe others are displaying the same level

of

> hostility (whatever that is) towards LSR. What I'm saying I'm directing

at

> 'you' not at LSR. There are some issues that I would like clarification

on

> about LSR but I'll wait until we both get this out of our systems.

>

As to it's being an abstinence group, I believe he has indicated hostility

toward LSR. Another " quick check, " back to his 'resignation' post, will

spell that out clearly enough, IMO.

> ---------

> M:

> What did any person in our group ever

> say or do to merit such neurotic and, frankly, paranoid suspicions? That

> the

> majority of us (my guess here) would rather be dead than go to an AA

meeting

> isn't good enough for you?

>

> ---------

> H:

> What paranoid suspicions would those be Mona? That's a serious question

> because I honestly don't know to what you're referring here.

See my comments above.

>

> ---------

> M:

> Is it, at the end of the day, that we are asbtinence-based?

>

> ----------

> H:

> Why would that have any effect on anything? Mona do you understand what

it

> means to be on a 12 step free list that has as a list owner a sometime OA

> member? The people on this list are very tolerant of alternate views

> whether or not you believe it.

Including LSRers being likened by Ken, in essence, to a " secular " version of

AA evangelists? I know not everybody holds that view, but I doubt Ken is the

only one.

Steve

[Guest guest]

> M:

> Constant threads about the ostensibly evil

> cyber-machinations of Jim Shirk, or whatever-his-name is, do not

> interest me, and if that is to be the substance of this list, you would

not

> want me here -- I'd just be spewing frustration and disgust at the

absurdity

> of such a focus.

>

> ---------

> H:

>

> Mona it's ridiculous to even attempt to indicate that the these people or

> subjects are the main focus of what " anyone " posts here. They are a

> temporary nuisance. That's all.

Have you done a " quick check " to see how often Jim Shirk's name is

mentioned... he seems to be a focus of a fair number of regular posters to

this list. People who, IMO, are what I call AA conspiracy theorists. That's

shown up on the NY judicial ruling... people indicating that it's all some

diabolical plot by AA to twist the previous religion rulings to AA's

advantage.

>

> ---------

> M:

> I remain angry and perplexed at the hostility Ken has exhibited toward

LSR,

> and that is now coming from others.

>

> ---------

> H:

> I don't see that Ken exhibited hostility towards LSR. And to a certain

> extent I don't see where you believe others are displaying the same level

of

> hostility (whatever that is) towards LSR. What I'm saying I'm directing

at

> 'you' not at LSR. There are some issues that I would like clarification

on

> about LSR but I'll wait until we both get this out of our systems.

>

As to it's being an abstinence group, I believe he has indicated hostility

toward LSR. Another " quick check, " back to his 'resignation' post, will

spell that out clearly enough, IMO.

> ---------

> M:

> What did any person in our group ever

> say or do to merit such neurotic and, frankly, paranoid suspicions? That

> the

> majority of us (my guess here) would rather be dead than go to an AA

meeting

> isn't good enough for you?

>

> ---------

> H:

> What paranoid suspicions would those be Mona? That's a serious question

> because I honestly don't know to what you're referring here.

See my comments above.

>

> ---------

> M:

> Is it, at the end of the day, that we are asbtinence-based?

>

> ----------

> H:

> Why would that have any effect on anything? Mona do you understand what

it

> means to be on a 12 step free list that has as a list owner a sometime OA

> member? The people on this list are very tolerant of alternate views

> whether or not you believe it.

Including LSRers being likened by Ken, in essence, to a " secular " version of

AA evangelists? I know not everybody holds that view, but I doubt Ken is the

only one.

Steve

[Guest guest]

Re: New here

>What paranoid suspicions would those be Mona? That's a serious question

> because I honestly don't know to what you're referring here.

--------

See Dave Trippell's post in which he posits that some sort of LSR takeover

is

afoot, i,e, that " We " want to make this list another " LSR stable. " I mean,

I

get that Dave is one of Jack Tirmpey's lieutenants, and in their mind AA has

almost Satanic powers to effect Evil, but now LSR is also somehow plotting

to

take over...a freakin' egroup list? And we've got a stable of such lists?

This is petty-minded insanity.

-------

H:

Mona did you ever stop to consider the very real possibility Dave might have

been telling me to chill the hell out? I've got to tell you though Mona

that JT's lieutenant stuff sounds kind of out there to me.

-------

M:

Add to all of this bizarre paranoia Ken's parting shot that we in

LSR are " among the worst " sort who are nothing but AA without God, and I

think I well see that this list is largely constituted of ... " unusual "

people.

-------

H:

This is the kind of comment to which I referred earlier that you are want to

make concerning the people on this list. Whether it matters to you or not

it's comments like this that do not endear you to me.

-------

M:

But I'm not going to do so in an atmosphere of paranoia and lunacy.

--------

H:

Yet another such comment. Might I remind you Mona that you're the one

talking about JT's Lieutenant as though he actually has them?

[Guest guest]

Re: New here

>What paranoid suspicions would those be Mona? That's a serious question

> because I honestly don't know to what you're referring here.

--------

See Dave Trippell's post in which he posits that some sort of LSR takeover

is

afoot, i,e, that " We " want to make this list another " LSR stable. " I mean,

I

get that Dave is one of Jack Tirmpey's lieutenants, and in their mind AA has

almost Satanic powers to effect Evil, but now LSR is also somehow plotting

to

take over...a freakin' egroup list? And we've got a stable of such lists?

This is petty-minded insanity.

-------

H:

Mona did you ever stop to consider the very real possibility Dave might have

been telling me to chill the hell out? I've got to tell you though Mona

that JT's lieutenant stuff sounds kind of out there to me.

-------

M:

Add to all of this bizarre paranoia Ken's parting shot that we in

LSR are " among the worst " sort who are nothing but AA without God, and I

think I well see that this list is largely constituted of ... " unusual "

people.

-------

H:

This is the kind of comment to which I referred earlier that you are want to

make concerning the people on this list. Whether it matters to you or not

it's comments like this that do not endear you to me.

-------

M:

But I'm not going to do so in an atmosphere of paranoia and lunacy.

--------

H:

Yet another such comment. Might I remind you Mona that you're the one

talking about JT's Lieutenant as though he actually has them?

[Guest guest]

Re: New here

>What paranoid suspicions would those be Mona? That's a serious question

> because I honestly don't know to what you're referring here.

--------

See Dave Trippell's post in which he posits that some sort of LSR takeover

is

afoot, i,e, that " We " want to make this list another " LSR stable. " I mean,

I

get that Dave is one of Jack Tirmpey's lieutenants, and in their mind AA has

almost Satanic powers to effect Evil, but now LSR is also somehow plotting

to

take over...a freakin' egroup list? And we've got a stable of such lists?

This is petty-minded insanity.

-------

H:

Mona did you ever stop to consider the very real possibility Dave might have

been telling me to chill the hell out? I've got to tell you though Mona

that JT's lieutenant stuff sounds kind of out there to me.

-------

M:

Add to all of this bizarre paranoia Ken's parting shot that we in

LSR are " among the worst " sort who are nothing but AA without God, and I

think I well see that this list is largely constituted of ... " unusual "

people.

-------

H:

This is the kind of comment to which I referred earlier that you are want to

make concerning the people on this list. Whether it matters to you or not

it's comments like this that do not endear you to me.

-------

M:

But I'm not going to do so in an atmosphere of paranoia and lunacy.

--------

H:

Yet another such comment. Might I remind you Mona that you're the one

talking about JT's Lieutenant as though he actually has them?

[Guest guest]

-----Original Message-----

From: MonaHolland1@...

In a message dated 8/8/01 12:44:25 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

arroyoh@... writes:

A quick check and I emphasize a

" quick check " indicates the first time you talked about leaving the list was

almost a month ago Mona.

-------

M:

What post? I don't recall ever posting that I was going to leave the list.

The only thing I can fathom you mean is my saying something about not liking

it here with Diener posts swamping my mailbox. I don't think I was alone in

that.

------

H:

Another quick check turned up these Mona:

" For every who leaves (and she actually said it was

not because of l'affaire Deiner) how many others already effectively have

left? I know at least one semi-regular who did, and have been on the verge

of doing so myself. "

" However, if people on this list are so sensitive to message volume that

they would

impose arbitrary limits, I''ll take a hike. "

And for the record I already know I'm going to take hell for this exchange

with alot of the regulars here whether or not you believe it Mona.

---------

[Guest guest]

-----Original Message-----

From: MonaHolland1@...

In a message dated 8/8/01 12:44:25 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

arroyoh@... writes:

A quick check and I emphasize a

" quick check " indicates the first time you talked about leaving the list was

almost a month ago Mona.

-------

M:

What post? I don't recall ever posting that I was going to leave the list.

The only thing I can fathom you mean is my saying something about not liking

it here with Diener posts swamping my mailbox. I don't think I was alone in

that.

------

H:

Another quick check turned up these Mona:

" For every who leaves (and she actually said it was

not because of l'affaire Deiner) how many others already effectively have

left? I know at least one semi-regular who did, and have been on the verge

of doing so myself. "

" However, if people on this list are so sensitive to message volume that

they would

impose arbitrary limits, I''ll take a hike. "

And for the record I already know I'm going to take hell for this exchange

with alot of the regulars here whether or not you believe it Mona.

---------