Re: Re: please put MMS5 instructions in the group files. [FLAMING]

[Guest guest]

Oh PLEASE!!!! There was ZERO flaming in Tom's post! What on earth--now a person cannot mention the name of the person who DEVELOPED the protocol, without someone thinking it's an "implied put down"? How sensitive are we to become now? Oooohhhh, don't mention Jim's name in any context other than high praise because otherwise it's flaming him????

No--flaming is when people come on here calling MEMBERS (Jim is NOT a member) names like shills, pharma whores, jerks, etc. THAT is your duty to watch out for, not something as simple as saying "Jim Humble shows his lack of understanding". From a chemist's standpoint (Tom is a chemist, Jim is not) that is a statement of FACT. Not a flame.

Get a grip--ok? I am all for someone reigning in the bickering and fighting and name calling--if you remember I even posted asking to appoint someone if she didn't have time to do it herself. But this is bending over backwards to prove that you are watching the list.

It's perfectly fine to disagree with someone when it's done in a POLITE manner, such as Tom used. Flaming is more than an 'implied put-down'. We learn nothing unless we DISCUSS different view points, which is what that discussion was. There was nothing backhanded, or flaming, or derogatory about that post.

And here I thought we were finally going to get back to some good MMS information again. Sigh

Samala,

[Guest guest]

On 2010-08-24 8:38 AM, <gaiacita@...> wrote:

> There was ZERO flaming in Tom's post!

Exactly - in fact, I'd go so far as to say it was Bill that did the flaming.

[Guest guest]

The definition of " Flame " is whatever the moderator says it is...

The vitriol IS tiresome...

Chuck

Is Marx's tomb a communist plot?

On 8/24/2010 7:13:58 AM, Tanstaafl (tanstaafl@...) wrote:

> On 2010-08-24 4:37 AM, Remi Yemi <positivenigeria@...> wrote:

> > THANKS SIR;

> IT'S ABOUT TIME!

>

> Give me a BREAK, people... what Tom said was about as far from a 'flame'

> as you can get.

>

> > Best Regards,

> >

> > Remi

>

> > silverfox_science... I guess you didn't

> get my message. I said NO

> > FLAMING and twice you blast Jim Humble by name in this post. You could

> > have stated your case quite coherently WITHOUT using Jims name or the

> > implied " put downs " .

> >

> > I have corrected your post to how it could have been stated to

> > illustrate my point. People are leaving the group because of the

> > infighting and we are tired of it. I

> don't care how much you do or do

> > not know. Read the below and remember it because if you FLAME Jim again

> > you are gone.

> >

> > Flame in public and I come down on you in public. This is your one and

> > only warning.

> >

> > Bill

> >

> > On 8/23/2010 10:54 PM, silverfox_science wrote:

> >

> >> Hello Healinghope,

> >>

> >> The amount of water is critical. In order fo

[Guest guest]

On 2010-08-24 3:35 PM, cking001@... <cking001@...> wrote:

> The definition of " Flame " is whatever the moderator says it is...

No, the definition of flaming on internet mail lists and groups is

pretty well defined, and politely pointing out when someone is wrong,

especially when it is backed up with evidence, is NOT flaming, no matter

how bad someone wants it to be.

Of course, the moderator is free to *pretend* like something is flamage

that isn't, but calling black white doesn't make it so.

> The vitriol IS tiresome...

I agree... as are the accusations of flamage where there is none.

And its funny, actually - the vast majority of the 'vitriol' is coming

from those who simply cannot stand it when Jims statements are

questioned in any way, regardless of how polite it is done, or how much

evidence in support is provided.

I have a novel idea - as long as civility is maintained, how about

everyone just remove the chip from their shoulder, and learn how to use

their delete button if they see something they don't like.

[Guest guest]

great suggestion. Then we would need no moderators.

IN NC

From: Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@...>Subject: Re: [ ] Re: please put MMS5 instructions in the group files. [FLAMING] Date: Tuesday, August 24, 2010, 4:04 PM

I have a novel idea - as long as civility is maintained, how abouteveryone just remove the chip from their shoulder, and learn how to usetheir delete button if they see something they don't like.

[Guest guest]

No...

The point is " The moderator is in charge " no matter what reference YOU

choose,and you're stuck with it.

Surely you know of " The Golden Rule "

Come to think of it , you of all people should know about

this...

Chuck

All I ask is a chance to prove money can't make me happy.

On 8/24/2010 4:04:21 PM, Tanstaafl (tanstaafl@...) wrote:

> On 2010-08-24 3:35 PM, cking001@... <cking001@...>

> wrote:

> > The definition of " Flame " is whatever the moderator says it is...

>

> No, the definition of flaming on internet mail lists and groups is

> pretty well defined, and politely pointing out when someone is wrong,

> especially when it is backed up with evidence, is NOT flaming, no matter

> how bad someone wants it to be.

>

> Of course, the moderator is free to *pretend* like something is flamage

> that isn't, but calling black white doesn't make it so.

>

> > The vitriol IS tiresome...

>

> I agree... as are the accusations of flamage where there is none.

>

> And its funny, actually - the vast majority of the 'vitriol' is coming

> from those who simply cannot stand it when Jims statements are

> questioned in any way, regardless of how polite it is done, or how much

> evidence in support is provided.

>

> I have a novel idea - as long as civility is maintained, how about

> everyone just remove the chip from their shoulder, and learn how to use

> their delete button if they see something they don't like.

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

On 2010-08-24 4:41 PM, cking001@... <cking001@...> wrote:

> No...

> The point is " The moderator is in charge " no matter what reference

> YOU choose,and you're stuck with it.

Not at all. While it is irrelevant to the point at hand, is the

moderator, not Bill - he was simply given guest moderator privileges

(probably having second thoughts about it now).

If wishes to declare black to be white, I'll politely inform her

she is wrong, and while she can ban me, she can declare that I'm flaming

her all she wants, it won't make it so.

> Surely you know of " The Golden Rule "

>

> Come to think of it , you of all people should know about

> this...

Not sure why you seem to think 'I of all people should know about it' -

I don't have much gold (a little, but not much), but while I am familiar

with it, I just don't subscribe to it...

No matter how much gold someone has, declaring black to be white will

never make it so, though there will certainly be no end of 'yes-men'

(worshipers) that will be more than happy to not only sing the praises

of the new black-is-white paradigm, but will also be ready and willing

to crucify anyone who might dare to contradict their gold-master.

[Guest guest]

<sigh>

>Not at all. While it is irrelevant to the point at hand, is the

>moderator, not Bill - he was simply given guest moderator privileges

moderator ,guest moderator = rule maker...

Golden Rule, He who has the gold,makes the rules...

Whether " flaming " is defined by you, wiki, or the moderator in charge,

guess who trumps on the list.

Chuck

I saw a woman wearing a sweat shirt with " Guess " on it.

So I said " Implants? "

On 8/24/2010 5:15:11 PM, Tanstaafl (tanstaafl@...) wrote:

>On 2010-08-24 4:41 PM, cking001@... <cking001@...> wrote:

>> No...

>> The point is " The moderator is in charge " no matter what reference

>> YOU choose,and you're stuck with it.

>

>Not at all. While it is irrelevant to the point at hand, is the

>moderator, not Bill - he was simply given guest moderator privileges

>(probably having second thoughts about it now).

>

>If wishes to declare black to be white, I'll politely inform her

>she is wrong, and while she can ban me, she can declare that I'm flaming

>her all she wants, it won't make it so.

>

>> Surely you know of " The Golden Rule "

>>

>> Come to think of it , you of all people should know about

>> this...

>

>Not sure why you seem to think 'I of all people should know about it' -

>I don't have much gold (a little, but not much), but while I am familiar

>with it, I just don't subscribe to it...

>

>No matter how much gold someone has, declaring black to be white will

>never make it so, though there will certainly be no end of 'yes-men'

>(worshipers) that will be more than happy to not only sing the praises

>of the new black-is-white paradigm, but will also be ready and willing

>to crucify anyone who might dare to contradict their gold-master.

>

[Guest guest]

AT THIS RATE EVEN THE MODERATORS AND THE LIST OWNERS WILL GET 'FLAMED' - LET'S CONTINUE THIS WAY THEN! Best Regards,Remi From: Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@...> Sent: Wed, August 25, 2010 12:45:09 PMSubject: Re: [ ] Re: please put MMS5 instructions in the group files. [FLAMING]

On 2010-08-24 6:13 PM, cking001@... <cking001@...> wrote:

> Golden Rule, He who has the gold,makes the rules...

I understand the rule, as evidenced by my last paragraph in that post...

> Whether "flaming" is defined by you, wiki, or the moderator in charge,

> guess who trumps on the list.

It is verbicide - and more importantly the lack of people willing to

challenge those committing it - that has destroyed our Constitutional

Republic, by twisting the meanings of the words in it (the

Constitution). Sorry, I don't stand for it.