Dottie's response and my reply (was: Pet Shop Puppies)

Description of your first forum.

Dottie's response and my reply (was: Pet Shop Puppies)

Post by Whansa » Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:07:04



As I normally do when replying to board messages, I checked off the "sent copy
to message sender via e-mail box" when responding to this thread. For those of
you who missed my post, here it is:

Quote:
 Dottie writes:
>  apparently simply for bringing
> >:up the topic of hoarding, even in jest.  

> Oh PLEASE.... I have been reading this thread since the beginning (I was one
of
> the first people to respond to the original poster) and since I know NONE of
> the principals here, I have stayed out if it... until now.  

> Dottie, you have made it CLEAR that you dislike Nancy, and have so for some
> time.  I remember when I read your post about hoarders and went to the
website.
> I found it a particulary pernicious thing to say.  To PRETEND this was said
"in
> jest" without animosity or rancor is simply, and very CLEARLY, an untruth.  

> I do not know Nancy, Lisa, John or any of the others on the board.  But, it
> seems to me, if I had to choose who was at least being HONEST about their
> motives, I would choose any of them over you.

> (And... by the way... John's behavior may be "atypical"... but, it is not
> "untypical", as "untypical" is not a word.)

> Sheila

I recieved the following in my mailbox today:

sheila, do me a favor?  mind your own business.  and
please respond to the group, not to me personally.  you
do know how newsgroups work, don't you?

oh, yeah.  if you want to be a hall monitor, i suggest
that you start off in grade school somewhere and then
work your way up.

i repeat: do not send me another e-mail.

please?

sheeeesh.
dottie

My response:  
1.  What is written here is open to the public.  I am part of the public.
Therefore, it is my business.
2.  I always send a copy via e-mail to the poster as a matter of courtesy.
Never let it be said that people do not know when I have said something about
them.
3.  When you list your supposed "motives", especially when  they are so clearly
disingenuous, you open the door to questions/comments about your motives,
attitudes and intentions.  This isn't "playing hall monitor", this is
responding to what you have put forth.  If you don't want to have your
behaviors commented upon, perhaps you should not put them out there to be
commented upon.

Sheila

 
 
 

Dottie's response and my reply (was: Pet Shop Puppies)

Post by Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffi » Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:31:17


Just curious did the temper of his her its post and email actually surprise
you?
I have it nicely killfiled now so as not to be tempted to prod it anymore (I
really do believe one should be kind to animals even including trolls most
of the time)
Nancy

Quote:
> As I normally do when replying to board messages, I checked off the "sent
copy
> to message sender via e-mail box" when responding to this thread. For
those of
> you who missed my post, here it is:
>  Dottie writes:
> >  apparently simply for bringing
> > >:up the topic of hoarding, even in jest.

> > Oh PLEASE.... I have been reading this thread since the beginning (I was
one
> of
> > the first people to respond to the original poster) and since I know
NONE of
> > the principals here, I have stayed out if it... until now.

> > Dottie, you have made it CLEAR that you dislike Nancy, and have so for
some
> > time.  I remember when I read your post about hoarders and went to the
> website.
> > I found it a particulary pernicious thing to say.  To PRETEND this was
said
> "in
> > jest" without animosity or rancor is simply, and very CLEARLY, an
untruth.

> > I do not know Nancy, Lisa, John or any of the others on the board.  But,
it
> > seems to me, if I had to choose who was at least being HONEST about
their
> > motives, I would choose any of them over you.

> > (And... by the way... John's behavior may be "atypical"... but, it is
not
> > "untypical", as "untypical" is not a word.)

> > Sheila

> I recieved the following in my mailbox today:

> sheila, do me a favor?  mind your own business.  and
> please respond to the group, not to me personally.  you
> do know how newsgroups work, don't you?

> oh, yeah.  if you want to be a hall monitor, i suggest
> that you start off in grade school somewhere and then
> work your way up.

> i repeat: do not send me another e-mail.

> please?

> sheeeesh.
> dottie

> My response:
> 1.  What is written here is open to the public.  I am part of the public.
> Therefore, it is my business.
> 2.  I always send a copy via e-mail to the poster as a matter of courtesy.
> Never let it be said that people do not know when I have said something
about
> them.
> 3.  When you list your supposed "motives", especially when  they are so
clearly
> disingenuous, you open the door to questions/comments about your motives,
> attitudes and intentions.  This isn't "playing hall monitor", this is
> responding to what you have put forth.  If you don't want to have your
> behaviors commented upon, perhaps you should not put them out there to be
> commented upon.

> Sheila