Re: Ira's issues/and from other list

[Guest guest]

First, I think that Adrienne's posting makes it clear that these

defamations have come to an abrupt halt, and I am grateful for

that. (Until the next time.)

At or about 19:52, 12/08/02 (my clock), Dale made the following

statement:

=========Start of Material Being Replied to========

>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

>

>

>Issue Number One

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>

>At or about 09:51, 09/08/02 (my clock), Dale made the following

>statement:

>=========Start of Material Being Replied to========

> >Ok Ira; so much for poetic endeavor on my part the words I used will

> >work but it's not worth the time to get into that. The fact is now

> that

> >you've explained yourself it may be better deserving of an answer of

> >which I would have presumed you would conclude upon your own

> gestation.

> >>>>>>>>>>>==End of Quoted Material==<<<<<<<<<<<

>

>I request an explanation of what the learned gentleman was attempting to

>say.

>

>If he will be so kind as to rephrase, I'll be happy to respond.

>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>Issue Number Two;

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>On another list and in a different context, the listowner described the

>emails that they receive. It reminded me of the situation here, so I

>thought I'd share his comments.

>

>If you see yourself here, you might take heed.

>

> >Approximately one in every couple of thousand is totally

> >obnoxious and vulgar. They will write and the email will be

> >loaded with curse words, and derogatory statements; you name it,

> >they write it. They rudely demand to be removed from the list

> >when all it takes to be removed is about 10 seconds with a quick

> >click to the website.

> >

> >It no longer bothers us, it did at first, but you get used to

> >it. You begin to see the spirit behind it and eventually feel

> >more compassion than anger. They are often hurting very deeply

> >themselves and only know how to lash out as they have been

> >lashed out against.

>

>To get back to our world, I have been called the following on the

>Gallstones list:

>

> " I find you to be wormwood to this group "

>

> " I find you to be a satan "

>

> " . . . must be twisted, diluted "

> (I shared this curse with someone else, who has since dropped

>off this list.)

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>

>Ok, Ira, I will explain;

>

>You are presumably a very intelligent individual who has all the

>capacity to

>come back to this group with various useful replies, but makes notes

>that

>lack the common sense reasoning that is expected from a person of your

>caliber. The word gestation, which I would have expected you to

>look up, would imply as to your brain's capacity to come to a

>conclusion.

>2. The conception and development of a plan or an idea in the mind.

>

>Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,

>Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic

>version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further

>reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the

>Copyright

>Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

The new meaning of the word gestation, unmodified, is not appropriate to

your sentence, nor is it used in that way.

>But it would appear that instead of doing this you much prefer vanity as

>your standard argumentive attitude (this gentleman) rather than

>considering

>the main body of the message that I sent in reply, and by which I tried

>to

>accept the error of my poetic attempt.

I cannot reply to a sentence that cannot be understood. Sorry, but

that's a fact.

>This just proves your real intent is

>to be purely argumentive and as regards your unabridged dictionary it is

>apparently of a sort that doesn't carry all explanations for a word's

>use in

>syntax.

>

>So, now we know the true gestation, don't we?

Your use of the English language is not standard at all, I'm sorry to

say. The previous sentence is weird and not understandable to anyone who

reads and writes in our society. You cannot just pull a word out of a

dictionary and use it to mean what you misunderstood it to mean.

>It would appear that instead

>of dealing with things forthright you would much prefer finding a means

>by

>which to argue just for argument's sake. As an example, just your reply

>regarding the eating of raw vegetables and going on about potatoes. The

>fact

>that you knew what would or would not happen with their consumption with

>out

>being cooked showed your knowledge, but you did this, not in a way to

>help,

>only to show

>your own vanity.

Perhaps to show the shallowness and lack of basis of some of the

posters. Now I have nothing against ignorance, but I must step in when

people are giving health advice based on pure ignorance. I once heard a

very harsh statement, which i hesitate to use, but one might consider

it: " Stupidity is a privilege; don't abuse it. "

>When you came to this group it was somewhat questionable as to just what

>was

>your intent, there was an appearance of a sincere desire to learn. I

>wasn't

>writing a whole lot at that time but was watching what was being said by

>you

>in reply to many of those who had attempted to show you kindness,

I'd be interested in knowing what your dictionary has to say about THAT

word.

>even in

>their ignorance, about the processes of the liver and gallbladder. You

>would

>simply seek to shoot them down instead of seeking to find genteel words

>to

>correct them in their misunderstanding of things. You have demonstrated

>your

>ability to find conflicting information to something's but never tended

>to

>follow through with follow-up information of which was requested from

>you.

>For examples see the information regarding aspartame and amalgams in the

>archives. You know, I'm still waiting for that address I asked you to

>give

>to the group so that others would know what website it was from which

>you

>got that aspartame information,

You're right. I looked for it but could not locate it a second

time. Sorry about that. But do you deny the claims that i quoted? If

so, on what basis?

>even though I personally know its locations

>because it was an agenda oriented site of the soft drink industry. I

>just

>wanted to see if you would show enough conviction in your belief to

>provide

>it so others could make their own decision based on more substantive

>information regarding the use of that poison.

Poison is a very strong word. If you're referring to methanol. then

you've imbibed far more of it than you would have by drinking beverages

containing aspartame.

>I stated before that you are like wormwood and it still applies today.

>You

>could prove to be a benefit to the group but instead you seek the

>agitative,

>bitter, and vain course of a satan. Then when someone makes a statement

>about your

>attitude you really make a stink and start crying out for someone else

>to do

>something as if it is liable.

Back to your dictionary, my friend. Lucky you're not in a 7th-grade

English class. You'd have to repeat it at least once more.

In any event, your libel consisted of a damaging defamation of me.

>I would suggest you really look up the legal

>definition of the word and its use in law before writhing to someone

>making

>intimidating remarks. Oh, and that is another thing, writing to someone

>of

>this group to their personal address is certainly indicative of just one

>other part of your dispositive nature, it is rude, and is lacking in

>proper

>netiquette for this group, or any other group for that matter, without

>the

>person giving you

>permission to do so.

Preposterous and absolutely wrong. This shows your unfamiliarity with

the way the overwhelming majority of internet lists work. I would be

shocked, but nothing you write really shocks me anymore. It is standard

procedure on many if not all lists, when responding to someone's post,

also to send the response to the original poster. This is particularly

effective for people who receive the digest.

>So, instead of vainly seeking to belittle me, or anyone else, for the

>use of

>syntax and be

>scrappy, I think you would have done much better by replying with a

>thanks

>or no thanks to the main body of the message from which you sniped your

>ignominious request.

Thanks for what? No thanks for what?

If someone says that the sky is blue, the last thing we need is to

prolong a meaningless discussion.

>Now as regards some other issues regarding your being called names and

>in

>particular by me. I called you a satan and wormwood, someone else has

>the

>twisted part, but it appears that you don't have an understanding of

>just

>what the words I wrote really mean. I'm just a bit curious as to how

>much

>you understand regarding the meaning of the use of those words. So, do

>you

>even know what the word satan means? Do you understand what wormwood is

>and

>why you might be referred to as being like wormwood?

I understand that this is not the way to influence people. Anyone else

would have tuned you out long ago. Not to mention that these attacks are

against list policy.

Can you honestly say that that was what you intended when you wrote this

piece of sentence? Can you look at yourself in the mirror and aver such

a thing?

>The word satan means resister. In Hebrew textual understanding of the

>name

>this would be someone resisting a purpose of men (1Sa 29:4; 2Sa 19:21,

>22;

>1Ki 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25). In this case the purpose of this group is for

>education but you have turned it in to your own field of mental parlay.

>You

>belittle the people that have tried to help you and therefore are like a

>satan to this group's purpose.

Really. For your information the word " satan " is used in a totally

different way in the English language. I'll give you an example from a

recent news story (about a homicide bomber in Israel):

>Arin's interview should be posted on the walls of buildings, in

>universities, schools, even nursery schools that feed Palestinian

>girls and boys the lies encouraging them toward suicide. It should be

>read by every Muslim mother as a warning to her children of the

>cowards who seduce children to an early death.

>The Israeli defense minister sensed remorse in Arin. " You start the

>meeting sitting across from a satanic killing machine and then she

>tells you her life story and smiles and cries, and you remember that

>this is a 20- year-old-girl, " he says.

This article, " When a suicide bomber fails, " came from townhall.com:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/suzannefields/sf20020701.shtml

That, sir, is what is meant by referring to someone in English as satan:

an extremely evil being. Is that at all clear to you?

>Wormwood is a compliment, but you really missed the point here in that

>wormwood, although bitter, is also very helpful for good health. You

>just

>have a problem in dealing with people on a level that would endear them

>to

>you. You are, as the saying goes, too smart for your own good and tend

>to

>demand from others what you will not provide yourself. It may behoove

>you

>to reconsider just what it is you're writing to the people on this group

>and

>try to see what you are really saying.

>

>There is a saying that goes " I know you think you understand the words

>you

>heard me say, however, the words you heard me speak were not necessarily

>what I meant " .

>

>Dale

Read over the posting about the nasty things that people write and what

actually motivates them.

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

IRA L. JACOBSON

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

mailto:laser@...