sometimes. Well, that what some of you think.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray
Sent: Sunday, 19 March 2000 5:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] For Your Eyes Only
I didn't see a personal attack, Karen
I heartily agree with Rod on this. Laurie has proved his (I'm
punting, too, here) credentials over and over on this list. At the
very least, as we're moving on past Karen Crooke, let's not allow
her to claim any scalps.
And any reading of Laurie's postings would see that, although
OTECTED]
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] For Your Eyes Only
Whatever the reality of Karen Crook (aka the "coronaqueen") I think
your last comment is the most important one, Jack. This is a
significant distraction from the real issues and should be treated as
such (simply by ignoring it)
My votes are:
1) Trudy continues doing a great job
2) Bring Laurie back
3) We don't allow flaming
4) We vote if Trudy wants to remove someone from the list
Does any of that make sense?
Yes. A big issue is that we shouldn't put Trudy in the position of
having to carry the can for all
PROTECTED]
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:41:41 +1100
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] For Your Eyes Only (WHOOPS)
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I heartily agree with Rod on this. Laurie has proved his (I'm
punting, too, here) credentials over and over on this list. At
on, 20 Mar 2000 09:41:41 +1100
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] For Your Eyes Only (WHOOPS)
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I heartily agree with Rod on this. Laurie has proved his (I'm
punting, too, here) credentials over and over on this list. At the
very least, as we're moving on past Ka
Here, after considerable research, is the truth about "Karen Crook".
In actual fact "she" is a senior functionary in the Prime Minister's
department specialising in infiltrating and disrupting lists and other
organisations which pay too much attention to government policy and action.
"She"...or
Whatever the reality of Karen Crook (aka the "coronaqueen") I think
your last comment is the most important one, Jack. This is a
significant distraction from the real issues and should be treated as
such (simply by ignoring it).
If there is anything useful to be taken from her posts it is,
You people are so wrong - and you think I am!!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rod Hagen
Sent: Sunday, 19 March 2000 5:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] For Your Eyes Only
I might add that my own "t
: [recoznet2] For Your Eyes Only
Here, after considerable research, is the truth about "Karen Crook".
In actual fact "she" is a senior functionary in the Prime Minister's
department specialising in infiltrating and disrupting lists and other
organisations which pay too much att
]]On Behalf Of Jack Ellis
Sent: Sunday, 19 March 2000 4:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [recoznet2] For Your Eyes Only
Here, after considerable research, is the truth about "Karen Crook".
In actual fact "she" is a senior functionary in the Prime Minister's
department speciali
Title: Re: [recoznet2] For Your Eyes Only
(WHOOPS)
I wrote:
Whatever the case, lets just get
on with everyone!
Whoops! This is NOT what I meant to say! Getting on with
everyone is NOT a good idea. It breeds a foolish and useless
complacency about issues that really matter! What I meant to
say
I didn't see a personal attack, Karen.
Jack painted a scenario because you left everyone wondering. You haven't
been exactly honest with us, have you?
You have defended the police without telling us you weren't a
disinterested bystander. You have refused to acknowledge that the police
sometimes
13 matches
Mail list logo
