On Dec 7, 8:41 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2011 21:19:37 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 6, 11:25=A0am, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >> On 6 Dec 2011 09:45:55 -0500, Pamela Brown
> >> wrote:
>
> First, note that Pamela attacks Barb:
>
> >> >I am a bit disappointed that you seem to be taking a personal turn in
> >> >your posts with me at all. =A0I thought we were doing better last week.
> >> >Maybe moving in a new direction.
>
I am stating a fact. How is doing that an "attack"? Barb and I had been chatting about band a few weeks ago. A congenial comraderie is my preference. At the very least, we should be able to agree-to-disagree and move on, don't you think?
> Now Barb replies:
>
> >> Actually, I have hoped so many times, Pamela, but alas, it never seems
> >> to move forward. One of your posts seems to be moving a new direction,
> >> the next is back to the same old poop. I said what I think., what I
> >> see, what I experience. Just when I think there seems to be a real
> >> change, you go back to the personal smears. Tired of it, just a waste
> >> of time. All I can do is call them as I see them at the time. It can
> >> change, but do you really want it to, or is it just more game playing?
> >> It's difficult for anyone to tell.
>
> >Why another post complaining about me? What can I possibly have done to
> >be worthy of such attention?
>
> Pamela plays the victim, when she attacked Barb first!(1)
False. I stated the fact that Barb had used me as a topic.
>
> >I hope we can start to move forward and focus on issues instead. What do
> >you say?
>
> We have all tried, Pamela, and in return gotten attacked in your
> posts.(2)
False. My preference is to discuss issues. When will that begin?
>
> Really want to move on? Don't post any more attacks on people who
> don't believe Judyth.(3)
False. Stating a fact hardly constitutes an *attack*. However, heightening rhetoric might, don't you think?
>
> If you do make more such posts, it's a clear sign you don't *want* to
> move on.(4)
False. If I define the current scenario and request a change, I do want to move on.
>
> We'll keep pounding you as long as you keep attacking.
>
Translation: any reply to you or Barb is an *attack*?
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
> On 7 Dec 2011 21:19:37 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 6, 11:25=A0am, Barb Junkkarinen
> >> On 6 Dec 2011 09:45:55 -0500, Pamela Brown
> >> wrote:
>
> First, note that Pamela attacks Barb:
>
> >> >I am a bit disappointed that you seem to be taking a personal turn in
> >> >your posts with me at all. =A0I thought we were doing better last week.
> >> >Maybe moving in a new direction.
>
I am stating a fact. How is doing that an "attack"? Barb and I had been chatting about band a few weeks ago. A congenial comraderie is my preference. At the very least, we should be able to agree-to-disagree and move on, don't you think?
> Now Barb replies:
>
> >> Actually, I have hoped so many times, Pamela, but alas, it never seems
> >> to move forward. One of your posts seems to be moving a new direction,
> >> the next is back to the same old poop. I said what I think., what I
> >> see, what I experience. Just when I think there seems to be a real
> >> change, you go back to the personal smears. Tired of it, just a waste
> >> of time. All I can do is call them as I see them at the time. It can
> >> change, but do you really want it to, or is it just more game playing?
> >> It's difficult for anyone to tell.
>
> >Why another post complaining about me? What can I possibly have done to
> >be worthy of such attention?
>
> Pamela plays the victim, when she attacked Barb first!(1)
False. I stated the fact that Barb had used me as a topic.
>
> >I hope we can start to move forward and focus on issues instead. What do
> >you say?
>
> We have all tried, Pamela, and in return gotten attacked in your
> posts.(2)
False. My preference is to discuss issues. When will that begin?
>
> Really want to move on? Don't post any more attacks on people who
> don't believe Judyth.(3)
False. Stating a fact hardly constitutes an *attack*. However, heightening rhetoric might, don't you think?
>
> If you do make more such posts, it's a clear sign you don't *want* to
> move on.(4)
False. If I define the current scenario and request a change, I do want to move on.
>
> We'll keep pounding you as long as you keep attacking.
>
Translation: any reply to you or Barb is an *attack*?
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment