--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > Assuming you are addressing my point above, > > > > > > Hmm. What other point might he be addressing, > > > I wonder? > > > > I was extending Shemp the courtesy of realizing he might be making a > > general observation. People do that -- not commenting on a specific point. I notice that some, particularly you, often mistakenly > > assume a post is about your points, when the post is realy a general observation, or perhaps a response to another posters point. And you flare out in your usual flaming style. > > I'm sure you can locate and cite some examples, right? > > > In this case, I specifically was being diplomatic, becasue I didn't wand to come across like I have a huge stick up my ass, like you appear to often. > > Actually, since Shemp's post *directly* addressed > your claim, I believe you were doing your usual > passive-aggressive thing, suggesting that his > comment was somehow *not* really responsive to your > point, and that that was the reason you weren't sure > he was addressing it. It was a nasty little dig, not > an act of diplomacy.
No, I consciously thought and re-wrote that post to qualify it "if you were addressing my post". I once questioned a post of sal's assuming she was addressing a specific point of mine and I was wrong, and she said, paraphrasing "don't be silly, I was making a general point". That stuck in my mind. Rory and I used to have off-line correspondence and once he commented on some point of a post assuming it was he being pointed to, and I cautioned him "Not all posts are about YOU." We both laughed. That incident also stuck in my mind. But only you would make a huge issue over a six word innocuous qualification "if you were addressing my post". I appreciate your psychobabble analysis a stranger. Perhaps fertile ground to look at your possible areas of projection. > > > > "Fortier was also asked to participate in the deadly scheme, yet > > > he refused to be a part of it. He didn't alert the police of the > > > plot because he didn't believe Nichols and McVeigh would actually > > > follow through with their plans, Newsday reported. It was a > > > mistake that cost 168 lives." > > > > While this implies he was just mum, it is not definitive that he was > > not also interogated by the police -- but not covered by the short > > story -- and it was on THAT withholding of information that he was > > convicted. > > The biggest problem you have with your attempts at > analysis is your inability to grasp aspects of > proportionality with regard to likelihood. Oh good. I glad thats only my biggest problem. That means al my other problems are smaller. Yipppeee!!! > > The reason I question this is that the law as some imply (just being > > mum) quickly gets into very wierd territory. If one hears some old > > babbling off-meds street person make some odd threat while one is > > rushing to work, and you brush it off, and the event does happen, > > then you could be liable for perhaps 12 years in prison? It jsut > > seems to draconian. > > Indeed. But it's usually fairly easy to make a > distinction between what a babbling off-meds street > person says and what two apparently fully rational > people say about their detailed plans for a bombing > that's likely to kill many people. > > Proportionality again. The above situation is parallel -- though exaggerated -- to the one cited. It raises a valid point. Where is the line drawn IF (yet to be established) the law only requires mumness not interogation. > > We all could be liable. We all have had advanced knowledge of great > > disasters pending upon the US. (And and the UK). We have assumed the > > warnings are not credible, even though they come from a man we all > > have greatly respcted, honored, and given great trust. And we have > the > > knowledge to prevent it. What happens if they come true. Will we > have > > cellblock FFL in Leavenworth? > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
