NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 21:21:00 -0600
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Diane Richardson)
Subject: Re: Claire sez: "There is no expell/declare
order extant at this time"
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 03:20:25 GMT
References: <hI6cnYVb8aJrjKKjXTWc3A@comcast.com> <4e670fed.0302040150.447cdabe
@posting.google.com> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
<email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <7acb5afd.0302051635.2009
email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
<firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
<email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
On 8 Feb 2003 13:33:28 -0800, Warrior <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, "Fluffygirl"
>>All it is, is that I'm not supposed to speak up when people post
>>things about me.
>No. What it (my point) means is that Claire avoids dealing with my
Just as you've avoided dealing with my direct questions. You have
a long history of doing just that, and you know it.
>How on Earth can she take that to mean she's "not
>supposed to speak up when people post things about" her? I have
>asked her questions. And that means she's not supposed to speak up?
I have asked you questions which you go to great lengths to avoid
answering. If you demand "proof," it's a simple as digging up those
posts in which you defend Gerry Armstrong's goO SqAd follies page.
Are you claiming that you have a right to avoid answering questions
but that Claire has no such right? That certainly appears to be what
you are saying here.
I would characterize it as very, very hypocritical on your part.