Response to SUING DR. RUTLEDGE (NOT!)

[Guest guest]

: As a bystander who usually lurks. Let me say that I never read from

anyone's email the last couple of days that you were actually suing Dr. I

read out of the email that (tongue in cheek) that you would sue Dr. R. I

never for one minute got from the email that you were suing the good doc.

Can you guys please settle your differences by private email. This really

is not the place to settle your disagreements. As you can see, it leaves

door open for misinterpretations and more anger and flame throwing. Thanks

guys. I know both of you have contributed so much to the group and it would

be really nice if it could continue without the misinterpretations of 3rd.

parties.

" For anyone to take that kind of speculative nonsense, though,

> and translate it to " fact " that I am suing Dr. Rutledge

> is the WORST kind of fishwife rumor-mongering STUPIDITY

> I think I have ever seen. To repeat it in chat as fact was

> just plain obscene. "

[Guest guest]

If you'll read the first part of the post, there you'll find

that it was about someone (unknown) who had read the

original email (that you read as tongue-in-cheek). From that,

this person had gone on to spread it around in a public chat that I

was suing Dr. Rutledge.

That was the point -- anonymous unfounded rumor mongering.

Can't very well have a private email with an unknown person.

Kind regards,

> : As a bystander who usually lurks. Let me say that I never

read from

> anyone's email the last couple of days that you were actually suing

Dr. I

> read out of the email that (tongue in cheek) that you would sue Dr.

R. I

> never for one minute got from the email that you were suing the

good

doc.

> Can you guys please settle your differences by private email. This

really

> is not the place to settle your disagreements. As you can see, it

leaves

> door open for misinterpretations and more anger and flame throwing.

Thanks

> guys. I know both of you have contributed so much to the group and

it would

> be really nice if it could continue without the misinterpretations

of 3rd.

> parties.

>

> " For anyone to take that kind of speculative nonsense, though,

> > and translate it to " fact " that I am suing Dr. Rutledge

> > is the WORST kind of fishwife rumor-mongering STUPIDITY

> > I think I have ever seen. To repeat it in chat as fact was

> > just plain obscene. "

[Guest guest]

If you'll read the first part of the post, there you'll find

that it was about someone (unknown) who had read the

original email (that you read as tongue-in-cheek). From that,

this person had gone on to spread it around in a public chat that I

was suing Dr. Rutledge.

That was the point -- anonymous unfounded rumor mongering.

Can't very well have a private email with an unknown person.

Kind regards,

> : As a bystander who usually lurks. Let me say that I never

read from

> anyone's email the last couple of days that you were actually suing

Dr. I

> read out of the email that (tongue in cheek) that you would sue Dr.

R. I

> never for one minute got from the email that you were suing the

good

doc.

> Can you guys please settle your differences by private email. This

really

> is not the place to settle your disagreements. As you can see, it

leaves

> door open for misinterpretations and more anger and flame throwing.

Thanks

> guys. I know both of you have contributed so much to the group and

it would

> be really nice if it could continue without the misinterpretations

of 3rd.

> parties.

>

> " For anyone to take that kind of speculative nonsense, though,

> > and translate it to " fact " that I am suing Dr. Rutledge

> > is the WORST kind of fishwife rumor-mongering STUPIDITY

> > I think I have ever seen. To repeat it in chat as fact was

> > just plain obscene. "