|
Post by silver on Jun 23, 2013 11:05:10 GMT -5
Well, I see, now, where I stand with you. I don't understand. Would you explain what you mean? (It was simply a 'take' on your name Beingist, we often call Enigma E and so on - I just added the 'Aunt' because I thought it was cute as in cute.)
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 23, 2013 11:07:15 GMT -5
Well, I see, now, where I stand with you. I don't understand. Would you explain what you mean? (It was simply a 'take' on your name Beingist, we often call Enigma E and so on - I just added the 'Aunt' because I thought it was cute as in cute.) Never mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 11:27:13 GMT -5
well I don't know, or care, what Peter's views on PM's are
and to say: "he/she has left the forum, so its all good" absolves you from betraying a confidence?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 23, 2013 11:28:19 GMT -5
well I don't know, or care, what Peter's views on PM's are and to say: "he/she has left the forum, so its all good" absolves you from betraying a confidence? I guess you are a selective reader.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 23, 2013 12:35:01 GMT -5
not such a private message after all huh? This member left - and I knew they left for good - in both meanings. Unlike some 'key' members, this one had a level head, cordial, reasonable 'persona' - iow, I trust all would be copasetic if they were to come back and see that I shared their thoughts in this message. Even though Peter may have had some vested interest in his stance on pm's, what he said about them makes sense. You got a problem with that, farmer? I repeat ^ ^ ^. As most have said and/or agreed with the sentiment that rules don't mean a thing, incorporates even pm's. One would always hope that if/when such a decision crosses anybody's mind, that they use careful consideration and discernment in judging whether that's a positive thing and does little to no harm. If I thought it would hurt their feelings or jeopardize the relationship we have, I wouldn't post a pm on the open forum.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2013 23:48:58 GMT -5
well I don't know, or care, what Peter's views on PM's are and to say: "he/she has left the forum, so its all good" absolves you from betraying a confidence? Simple conclusion: Silver = not trustworthy
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 24, 2013 0:19:50 GMT -5
well I don't know, or care, what Peter's views on PM's are and to say: "he/she has left the forum, so its all good" absolves you from betraying a confidence? Simple conclusion: Silver = not trustworthy I'll keep that in mind.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2013 10:47:51 GMT -5
well I don't know, or care, what Peter's views on PM's are and to say: "he/she has left the forum, so its all good" absolves you from betraying a confidence? Simple conclusion: Silver = not trustworthy Do you think it's a quality common to women in general?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 10:51:19 GMT -5
Simple conclusion: Silver = not trustworthy Do you think it's a quality common to women in general? Now there's a little grenade. Silver, it still has the pin in it. Try and not pull it out.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 24, 2013 11:03:03 GMT -5
Simple conclusion: Silver = not trustworthy Do you think it's a quality common to women in general? I dunno. Forum statistics say yes.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 24, 2013 11:10:47 GMT -5
Simple conclusion: Silver = not trustworthy Do you think it's a quality common to women in general? I've already said elsewhere that I'm NOT a libber - I'm me, so that line of your and Reefs' thinking out loud doesn't bother me in the least. FYI boys.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 24, 2013 11:34:23 GMT -5
The question that crosses my mind in all of this is what about ALL (the majority, apparently) are seeming that what I did here is an affront to their sensibilities about rules or etiquette, etc. - I think you see where I'm going with all of this - rules - are not only unnecessary, but stifling to our first amendment rights - or whatever that number is - free speech? No one here seems to want any rules and play down the 'need' some others feel for small bit of decorum.
I could just have easily - and probably should have - just posted an edited version of it and not tell anybody its origin - and none would be the wiser.
So, I guess that makes me untrustworthy in Reefs' eyes - and a couple of others here. Why, after all the conflabs about someones being banned unfairly and all the talk about rules being in actuality an undesirable thing. Does this seem as hypocritical to you as it does me?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 11:50:13 GMT -5
The question that crosses my mind in all of this is what about ALL (the majority, apparently) are seeming that what I did here is an affront to their sensibilities about rules or etiquette, etc. - I think you see where I'm going with all of this - rules - are not only unnecessary, but stifling to our first amendment rights - or whatever that number is - free speech? No one here seems to want any rules and play down the 'need' some others feel for small bit of decorum. I could just have easily - and probably should have - just posted an edited version of it and not tell anybody its origin - and none would be the wiser. So, I guess that makes me untrustworthy in Reefs' eyes - and a couple of others here. Why, after all the conflabs about someones being banned unfairly and all the talk about rules being in actuality an undesirable thing. Does this seem as hypocritical to you as it does me? OK, no body cares that you posted the pm ... but it seems the OP is nothing more than two old hens gossiping behind everyone's back so what's the point?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 24, 2013 11:52:32 GMT -5
The question that crosses my mind in all of this is what about ALL (the majority, apparently) are seeming that what I did here is an affront to their sensibilities about rules or etiquette, etc. - I think you see where I'm going with all of this - rules - are not only unnecessary, but stifling to our first amendment rights - or whatever that number is - free speech? No one here seems to want any rules and play down the 'need' some others feel for small bit of decorum. I could just have easily - and probably should have - just posted an edited version of it and not tell anybody its origin - and none would be the wiser. So, I guess that makes me untrustworthy in Reefs' eyes - and a couple of others here. Why, after all the conflabs about someones being banned unfairly and all the talk about rules being in actuality an undesirable thing. Does this seem as hypocritical to you as it does me? OK, no body cares that you posted the pm ... but it seems the OP is nothing more than two old hens gossiping behind everyone's back so what's the point? With the exception of "two old hens" - how is it different from what many - if not most threads here devolve into? Btw, it was sent to me, but it was a monologue - just an expression of one person's viewpoint. *shrug* I thought it was pretty funny. I guess I'm about as funny as E & R think they are - I know that didn't come out quite the way I wanted, but yaknow what I mean. (I should've quoted OHC's siggy line - '...I'm one joke away from being funny.' love that 1.)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2013 13:07:36 GMT -5
Do you think it's a quality common to women in general? Now there's a little grenade. Silver, it still has the pin in it. Try and not pull it out.
|
|