Good! No more reason for complaint then, eh?
T
>the point is trevor that cris was right and I am redeemed
>
>L
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Trevor Joyce <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: 12 June 2004 20:10
>Subject: Re: city on the hill
>
>
>>Lawrence:
>>
>>And the point is?
>>
>>
>>Trevor
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: cris cheek <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Date: 12 June 2004 18:58
>>>Subject: Re: city on the hill
>>>
>>>Yes, Tim
>>>
>>>I have to support cris here
>>>
>>>I accused Richard of "race hatred and rambling self-loathing and personal
>>>abuse"
>>>
>>>(and then I got muddled. I'm not sure if I was accusing Richard of
>>>defecating in the list or exposing himself)
>>>
>>>As you can see I only said
>>>
>>>"race hatred and rambling self-loathing and personal abuse"
>>>
>>>so there was nothing cris could do about personal abuse even if he had
>>>wanted to because all I had complained about was
>>>
>>>"race hatred and rambling self-loathing and personal abuse"
>>>
>>>and then I tried to clarify
>>>
>>>but all I said was ""the last time Mr Dillon made a personal attack, you
>>>said - i do not quote
>>>exactly - that they would not be tolerated further. he has now made
>another.
>>>what is the point of saying behaviour won't be tolerated if you are going
>to
>>>recommend toleration when it is repeated?"
>>>
>>>you see? racism, racism, racism, nothing about personal attacks
>>>
>>> His more recent post was claimed to be
>>>>racist; that was Lawrence's charge.
>>>
>>>anyway, not to worry; I am sure we can all get a poem out of it; that's
>the
>>>main thing. Let the exchange of views continue!
>>>
>>>
>>>L
>>
>>
>>--
>>------------------------------------------------------
>>http://www.soundeye.org/trevorjoyce
>>
--
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.soundeye.org/trevorjoyce
|