Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 >> Inger: " Rainbow, I totally understand your pain at seeing your father suffer in the hands of incompetent doctors, but please try to not take your frustration out on who was just making a neutral observation and asking a qustsion about the subject. From what I can see, he is not at all opposing your views but actually supporting them. In the paragraph between the ones you quoted, wrote:..... " > Rainbow: > Inger, my post was addressed to Tom, not . I used 's quote to support my position. Aha, that explains it! It SEEMED as if it was directed at Tom, but since you only used 's quotes and didn't mention Tom's name in that particular post, it got very confusing. Glad to see another mystery solved. :-) > and I are, for once agreeing, and attempting to infect Tom > with TOLERANCE. > Well, Tom does have a point about being legally responsible for this list. As for trying to infect him, I have yet to see anyone change anyone else's mind on such subjects one iota, by infection or other means. >> " I too would like to see a more mutually respectful debating style. " > > I apologize Inger. As an ordained minister four letter words are not a part of my life. I didn't see you use any. It only appeared to me as if you were heatedly bringing in Jesus into a discussion with , which I thought both odd and a bit rudeish. But that's all cleared up now. :- ) > I thought that we all had agreed to disagree on these matters long ago. Sorry if I brought it up again. I'm a bit slow to comment due to very limited online time lately. My friend is going home today so I expect to have more time soon. > I have seen our conversations regarding plants and politics as a lesson in tolerance, something we all agree to need, but so slowly learn to express. As much as I would like to see some more too, I don't think it is correct to assume that " we all agree " to need it. Those who don't have it usually don't miss it at all. :-) > I haven't attempted to change anyone's mind, only hoped that some of them might open. And a thin line between the two it is. I have found it generally fruitless to persue such quests since I know that minds will open at their own pace (if at all) and if there is something or someone someone doesn't understand, life will usually put that person in a position where they will get a first-hand experience of what it would be like in the other person's shoes, so I don't really worry about anyone's mind but my own. Though it does happen that I forget. : " ) Inger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 >> Inger: " Rainbow, I totally understand your pain at seeing your father suffer in the hands of incompetent doctors, but please try to not take your frustration out on who was just making a neutral observation and asking a qustsion about the subject. From what I can see, he is not at all opposing your views but actually supporting them. In the paragraph between the ones you quoted, wrote:..... " > Rainbow: > Inger, my post was addressed to Tom, not . I used 's quote to support my position. Aha, that explains it! It SEEMED as if it was directed at Tom, but since you only used 's quotes and didn't mention Tom's name in that particular post, it got very confusing. Glad to see another mystery solved. :-) > and I are, for once agreeing, and attempting to infect Tom > with TOLERANCE. > Well, Tom does have a point about being legally responsible for this list. As for trying to infect him, I have yet to see anyone change anyone else's mind on such subjects one iota, by infection or other means. >> " I too would like to see a more mutually respectful debating style. " > > I apologize Inger. As an ordained minister four letter words are not a part of my life. I didn't see you use any. It only appeared to me as if you were heatedly bringing in Jesus into a discussion with , which I thought both odd and a bit rudeish. But that's all cleared up now. :- ) > I thought that we all had agreed to disagree on these matters long ago. Sorry if I brought it up again. I'm a bit slow to comment due to very limited online time lately. My friend is going home today so I expect to have more time soon. > I have seen our conversations regarding plants and politics as a lesson in tolerance, something we all agree to need, but so slowly learn to express. As much as I would like to see some more too, I don't think it is correct to assume that " we all agree " to need it. Those who don't have it usually don't miss it at all. :-) > I haven't attempted to change anyone's mind, only hoped that some of them might open. And a thin line between the two it is. I have found it generally fruitless to persue such quests since I know that minds will open at their own pace (if at all) and if there is something or someone someone doesn't understand, life will usually put that person in a position where they will get a first-hand experience of what it would be like in the other person's shoes, so I don't really worry about anyone's mind but my own. Though it does happen that I forget. : " ) Inger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 I am not addicted since I am not a user. Inger Re: Medical Marijuana, Bush & Co. On the other hand, if people didn't use pot, the police wouldn't have to waste economic resources catching them and arresting them. But pot users would rather disobey the law and all distract police from catching paedophiles, economic criminals, heroin- & crack- pushers and other REAL criminals. But that is the logic of addiction. Tom Administrator " Treasonous " ? HOW can it underminne the federal government economically? If the police could re-divert their resources into catching paedophiles, economic criminals, heroin- & crack-pushers and other REAL criminals instead of on filling prisons with ordinary, non- criminal people for simple possession, that's a HUGE saving right there. They could even put a tax on it, just like tobacco, and MAKE money from it. FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 I am not addicted since I am not a user. Inger Re: Medical Marijuana, Bush & Co. On the other hand, if people didn't use pot, the police wouldn't have to waste economic resources catching them and arresting them. But pot users would rather disobey the law and all distract police from catching paedophiles, economic criminals, heroin- & crack- pushers and other REAL criminals. But that is the logic of addiction. Tom Administrator " Treasonous " ? HOW can it underminne the federal government economically? If the police could re-divert their resources into catching paedophiles, economic criminals, heroin- & crack-pushers and other REAL criminals instead of on filling prisons with ordinary, non- criminal people for simple possession, that's a HUGE saving right there. They could even put a tax on it, just like tobacco, and MAKE money from it. FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.