Re: Who here is chelating themselves and corresponding with the group (SS*)

[Guest guest]

Liz,

You are so valuable to science and this group.. . *You* moderate me?!. I wish

you would more clearly identify yourself in that respect? (of what is so

important and meaningful and just, to me? and others of this group, I'm

thinking) perhaps in the subject bar when you post messages? (I'd be watching

and looking for yours in particular! and whoever else of as much!) as, by an SS

(Study Subject?) or perhaps whatever you or we would like to identify ourselves

by in that respect? (Just one " S " even?) Just do it on your own of as much and

I'd understand and especially respect you so, that I don't already respect you,

but I do !

I would like that (Anyone else?) I would especially respect you so, as I now

already do more than I have ever before. (Hello?!.) Thanks for being so true as

you are.. . I wish as much for all of us and everything so meaningful (and

*just/fair/considerate* that anything could be more just, and fair, and

considerate, in making this the better world.. .

I get to see The facts for myself by as much?!. that anything else could compare

Thanks for all your sharing in that respect.

Glavic

We could put asterisks beside as much (including where we are not an SS?) for

every " child " or anyone else we are chelating and where more than three, put a

number, " # " sign to identify that you are, perhaps a professional or group

leader/care-giver in that respect? that you wouldn't also if not especially be a

*Volunteer* by doing as much.. and I suspect you'd get more of what *you* need

in that respect

I really do. Where I have failed in that respect I do wish to apologize, and

entreat you to hold me to as much (if not my words? if not so limited and

limiting otherwise) Jan, Dana, Andy, and All

I hope to see Karla's name up there soon as well (in the subject bar

accomplishing for all that we need for such an understanding? .. . but I am

somewhat satisfied by what I understand so far.. .

BWT

> >

> > Hello,

> >

> > I'm aware many here are chelating or trying to chelate another. I was

wondering who here is chelating themselves (as best they can?) and corresponding

with this group that we might better evaluate (see for ourselves?) the results

of such objectivity? (That anything could be more reasonable to be asking and

doing for as much, of understanding more for our selves? .. . (That anything

else should or would matter so much of the *justness* of as much, that there

would or could be any other, or that we should need or be part of a group or

society otherwise? that wouldn't be part of the problem?

> >

> > Glavic

> >

> > Who here is chelating themselves and corresponding with the/this group with

respect to science? (that there be any science if not such science anywhere

else? If there is, point me there?

> >

> > On The facts, that there should be any another, or we may not be about them

so much? that anything else should be the criteria of performance and success,

but I Feel there isn't? .. .

> >

> > The question still stands for my primary interest in this group

> >

> > Don't be abusive otherwise. I do ignore (somewhat extinguish? of how I

extinguish/prosecute/punish those not so reasonable, with me? for me?) others

where I feel they are not actually communicating or trying to communicate, (what

is so symbolic? of value?) that I don't recommend that for all of us here, (of

such facts if not what is so primary, if not of the evidence of what we are

doing or trying to do? more meaningfully? as justly?) but I really do

> >

> > That such a group survives and grows would be great with me, and not so much

otherwise

> >

>