Larry N Moore

. . . the moderators of Greasespot? I will explain my reason for asking when this topic makes it on the board (and if there is a response from someone).

:) Sometimes, Garth, I have to look myself in the mirror and ask myself: Am I actually nodding my head in agreement to what Garth just said? And the evidence that I see indicates that I am. Either that or I have some sort of malady that makes my head nod up and down and I'm just mistaken. ;)

You're a sick, sick man Danny. I'm absolutely flabbergasted at the accusations and innuendo that some of you are making about Oldies character. To even hint at him being a sexual pervert/pedophile not only crosses the line but is indicative of an unsound mind. IMO those doing this should join me in the land of pre-screening of posts. That Paw would allow this sort of crap to continue is pathetically bias.

As personal attacks goes, dooj, this one not only crosses the line but does so by a mile. Shame on you! Btw Dooj -- I took the liberty of reporting your post to Pawtucket. Perhaps allowing this post to be permitted for public consumption is his way of responding to that report. Fair enuf. I believe you OWE Oldies an apology. Can you manage one? I have my doubts.

Good point Mike. It reminds of what 2 Timothy 2:17 says.

:) Paw, will my editing privileges be taken away next? P.S. Test. I see no reason why John should respond (curteously or otherwise) to the crap I see posted here. You'll have to come up with a better reason than that. DWBH's posts are so obviously insincere you could cut through the bullcrap with a butter knife. P.S. As an afterthought -- Groucho, if you're right then PAW is being rude by not responding to me. :)

And you know this HOW? Have they been in touch with you? And just HOW MANY are many?

Well, THAT certainly clarified what he meant. NOT!

Hypocrisy: An expectation (considered reasonable) to hold others accountable for their behavior but criticizing others (like TWI and CES) to be unreasonable to hold their members accountable for their behavior.

Thanks socks for your response. Due to the fact that my posts are being pre-screened I'm hesitant to put much effort in a full response. I posted something which I feel is relevant to the discussion but I'm waiting for it to be posted. By the time you read this I might have been.

I suppose it's alright for DWBH to badger John for a response but, it's not alright for me to badger you. Btw Paw -- How do you define hypocrisy?

What's wrong Paw? Don't like it when someone badgers you for responses? :)

What about this Paw? "As to what is flying around cyberspace about me and my personal life, my email is jalces@aol.com and my home phone is 317-849-5707. If you know me and care about me, I’ll be glad to communicate with you. I will not, however, dialogue with anonymous people who lack the love and courage to identify themselves in interacting with me." Seems to me if anyone wants to engage John on this matter he's opened the door to do so. Why is that not enuf?

:) Do you think I'm badgering you Paw? I suppose if you think I am I wouldn't blame you for not responding to me. But think about it -- Isn't whatshisname badgering John Lynn? Would you find it unreasonable for him not to respond but then reasonable for you not to?

Correction to my last point -- no question asked. But what you failed to do is answer the point I made. So let me put it in the form of a question. What makes you think Lynn or anyone from CES OWES you a response on this thread (or any other thread on GS)?

That doesn't answer my question.

Well, since you (and probably all other members here) aren't a member of CES I would say they owe you nothing. IOW -- they AREN'T accountable to any of you. Where you get the notion that they owe you an explanation from is pathetically unreasonable. Oops! I'm challenging you -- will this post see the light of day? ;) Socks, you'll have to wait for a full response to your post. Since my posts are being pre-screened I'm leery of taking too much time responding. But thanks. :) Hi Dooj!Oh and btw dooj: Where are their posts? True, dooj. But you're NOT one of their sheep. :)

:) Did you have a change of heart Paw? You're screening my posts before they're submitted -- so why are you deleting them afterwards?

Unfortunately, Dan, that sort of answer only feeds the atheist and/or agnostic more reasons NOT to believe. It may sound good (in a humility sense) but all you're really saying is: "I don't know but, I know I'm right and you're wrong."

So, cman, what's it about then? Did he marry them all for their wit, charm, or intellect? If I'm not mistaken physical attraction (the flesh) is what draws men to seek out a mate. Do you have a source which says otherwise?

True. And yet you posted it nonetheless. :)

Oldie isn't really far off the mark according to some socialogists. The Basic Sexual Nature of Man

I see your point dooj but, if a woman seduced VP to "drop his pants" doesn't that make her guilty of phycological rape? If VP was weak in that area wouldn't it be incumbered upon the woman not to take advantage of his weakness?

You'll have to ask Paw. Apparently he won't allow any post I submit which even remotely questions his decision to preview any posts I submit. Nor will he allow any posts which question the validity of fellow members logic. Especially if it involves rascal's penchant for contradicting herself. :)

How is it you conveniently forget that becoming a member of the Corp entailed taking a vow but, conveniently remember what would happen if you broke that vow?