Re: POLITICS - OT unfair actions

[Guest guest]

> >> Deanna,

> >>What's not nice, Deanna, IMO, is attempting to manipulate people

> >>emotionally to alleviate one's own sense of boredom. Unforunately, I

> >>seem to be falling for it now. Over-n-out.

> >> B.

> >>

> >I do believe you are violating the terms of service. You are

> >quite incorrect in your assessment of me, and I have brought up

> >environmental issues and the rocket fuel information a year ago at

> >least. If you broadcast information from another PRIVATE list to this

> >one again, I will report it. Talk about manipulation!

>

> I highly doubt would give a hoot about someone on one list

> characterizing another's comments on a related list, to which

members of the

> first list are openly invited to join. Really, *anyone* can join

nt_politics

> and read the archives to see what we all said. I never for a moment

consider

> my comments on that list (or most any other for that matter) as being

> private. There's only one list I'm on that is fairly private in that

> potential members have to meet a certain criteria to be allowed to

join, and

> the criteria would eliminate most of the population.

>

>

>

>

> Suze Fisher

Well, you can look at 's guidelines yourself. But as chapter

leaders, you reflect on the WAPF organization. 's suggestion

was an out of line personal attack, and all because I was questioning

whether or not I would renew my WAPF membership. How do comments like

these support WAPF? Many chapter leaders do post here, btw.

http://www.westonaprice.org/localchapters/locallist.html

The response I received from you and my own chapter leader were

extremely positive and helpful. And not only that, much fruitful

discussion has resulted from my original inquiry.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> Re: POLITICS - OT unfair actions

>

>

>

>

>

>> >> Deanna,

>> >>What's not nice, Deanna, IMO, is attempting to manipulate people

>> >>emotionally to alleviate one's own sense of boredom. Unforunately, I

>> >>seem to be falling for it now. Over-n-out.

>> >> B.

>> >>

>> >I do believe you are violating the terms of service. You are

>> >quite incorrect in your assessment of me, and I have brought up

>> >environmental issues and the rocket fuel information a year ago at

>> >least. If you broadcast information from another PRIVATE list to this

>> >one again, I will report it. Talk about manipulation!

>>

>> I highly doubt would give a hoot about someone on one list

>> characterizing another's comments on a related list, to which

>members of the

>> first list are openly invited to join. Really, *anyone* can join

>nt_politics

>> and read the archives to see what we all said. I never for a moment

>consider

>> my comments on that list (or most any other for that matter) as being

>> private. There's only one list I'm on that is fairly private in that

>> potential members have to meet a certain criteria to be allowed to

>join, and

>> the criteria would eliminate most of the population.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Suze Fisher

>

>Well, you can look at 's guidelines yourself. But as chapter

>leaders, you reflect on the WAPF organization. 's suggestion

>was an out of line personal attack, and all because I was questioning

>whether or not I would renew my WAPF membership. How do comments like

>these support WAPF? Many chapter leaders do post here, btw.

Well, I sure hope that every word I ever utter doesn't automatically reflect

on the WAPF. But if we are to look at everything chapter leaders say as

reflecting on the WAPF (and I think that's an unreasonable expectation to

begin with) then we must logically judge the WAPF on the *totality* - the

*aggregate* - of their comments. If a chapter leader spends months or years

posting hundreds of emails containing helpful suggestions, recipes, etc. to

an email group such as this, and posts *one* or *two* emails that are of an

unflattering nature (or a personal attack) then, the negative comment is

unfortunate, but certainly doesn't outweigh the other 499 (or whatever

number) of a helpful and positive nature. So, if all that we chapter leaders

say reflects on the WAPF, I'd say we're doing a darn good job

in_the_aggregate.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> >> >> Deanna,

> >> >>What's not nice, Deanna, IMO, is attempting to manipulate people

> >> >>emotionally to alleviate one's own sense of boredom.

Unforunately, I

> >> >>seem to be falling for it now. Over-n-out.

> >> >> B.

> >> >>

> >> >I do believe you are violating the terms of service. You are

> >> >quite incorrect in your assessment of me, and I have brought up

> >> >environmental issues and the rocket fuel information a year ago at

> >> >least. If you broadcast information from another PRIVATE list

to this

> >> >one again, I will report it. Talk about manipulation!

> >>

> >> I highly doubt would give a hoot about someone on one list

> >> characterizing another's comments on a related list, to which

> >members of the

> >> first list are openly invited to join. Really, *anyone* can join

> >nt_politics

> >> and read the archives to see what we all said. I never for a moment

> >consider

> >> my comments on that list (or most any other for that matter) as being

> >> private. There's only one list I'm on that is fairly private in that

> >> potential members have to meet a certain criteria to be allowed to

> >join, and

> >> the criteria would eliminate most of the population.

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> Suze Fisher

> >

> >Well, you can look at 's guidelines yourself. But as chapter

> >leaders, you reflect on the WAPF organization. 's suggestion

> >was an out of line personal attack, and all because I was questioning

> >whether or not I would renew my WAPF membership. How do comments like

> >these support WAPF? Many chapter leaders do post here, btw.

>

> Well, I sure hope that every word I ever utter doesn't automatically

reflect

> on the WAPF. But if we are to look at everything chapter leaders say as

> reflecting on the WAPF (and I think that's an unreasonable

expectation to

> begin with) then we must logically judge the WAPF on the *totality*

- the

> *aggregate* - of their comments. If a chapter leader spends months

or years

> posting hundreds of emails containing helpful suggestions, recipes,

etc. to

> an email group such as this, and posts *one* or *two* emails that

are of an

> unflattering nature (or a personal attack) then, the negative comment is

> unfortunate, but certainly doesn't outweigh the other 499 (or whatever

> number) of a helpful and positive nature. So, if all that we chapter

leaders

> say reflects on the WAPF, I'd say we're doing a darn good job

> in_the_aggregate.

Suze,

For the record, this was my original response, a couple posts above:

" Re-read

the WAPF website if you've somehow forgotten their purpose and

objectives. Please do address this with your local chapter leader as

well. Maybe Suze--or I--will grant you a temporary membership on WAPF

Chapterleaders (for a peek of the activities there) if you approach it

right. heh. "

Thank you,

B.