Mike, I think that an important subject for you to revisit that came up this past year in your posts is your unwillingness to address, to the satisfaction of the majority of your readers, the feeling among the majority of your readers that you present yourself as extraordinarily special (an extremely unChristian posture), that you expect everyone to admit to your extraordinary speciality, that your presentations maximally minimize anyone else's understanding of anything that you present, that you've assumed, in godlike manner, that you know that, not only has no one else turned over the stones that you have, but that we have to admit to such personal ignorance in the face of your godlike knowledge and presence, acquiesce to the demand that you say they have on our lives, that we all participate in their investigation, and would not prefer that the rain didn't fall in San Diego so that you could continue to engage in the honest employment of your time.
Thanks for asking.
And since you are inviting us to suggest topics for discussion, may I suggest that you discuss with your customers the fact that when it rains on dirty windows, they look REALLY dirty, but when it rains on clean windows, they still look clean, and that; therefore, it would behoove them to allow you to continue cleaning their windows during the rainy season.
Oh def, Roy communicates just fine! I understand him better than some here who can type/spell perfectly.
Mike,
I am amused by your spin on what you have posted here in the past. You said,
quote: my angle this past year has proved to supply a large number of unturned stones demanding investigation.
Sorry, but they didn't "demand" anything except rejection, and they were rejected by 95% of the posters on your threads. Feel free to take the ones who were in agreement with you (both of them), and expound the word of Mike in more detail. privately. If you continue to post it here, be ready for your ideas to be rejected, again.
quote:I am considering resuming my inventory of startling revelations.
Nothing "startling" about them but a return to VPW's fantasy doctrine mixed with yours.
Sorry, Mike, but you can't expect to go away for awhile, then come back and try and tell us how wonderful and enlightening your posts were. They weren't.
I know I for one mike am not interested in hearing anymore of what you think is from your God. Its the tone of you knowing everything and we know nothing!!!! We have had that crap thrown down our throats for years. Why would we want it now?
Of course you are free to post what you want. That is what is nice about gs. But don't expect a lot of us to welcome you back with your garbage just because you haven't posted for a while.
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
Does anyone watch 'West Wing'? In one episode a speech-writer (Josh Lyman?) is drawn to to goings-on of a discussion board, he goes on-line to correct people's impressions of both: his stance on various topics, as well as his position. Suddenly the thread activity jumps alarmingly. What had been the rantings of perhaps a few posters, suddenly jumped to dozens, as they all unified to 'roast' Josh. What had been debating (back and forth presenting of multiple sides of an issue)turned to slamming and flaming this one (everyone unified to defame Josh).
Greasespot discussions have a similarity to the one on 'WestWing'.
Mike has a valid point-of-view, as does everyone who lived through TWI.
In a more perfect world, we could each post our thoughts and observations freely on each and every topic. Some of the posting here does mimic chicken-coop activity, everyone ganging up on a single member to rip that member to shreds.
I agree with many of the things that Mike posts, other ideas were things that perhaps I was not aware of, since I kept myself distanced from the gossiping and tattling that so many seemed to enjoy wihtin TWI.
Everytime that someone posts from their personal experiences in TWI, I learn and perhaps there is something that everyone can learn from.
I was not Stateside for Waydale (so I missed that board), but I started posting here on the previous version of Greasespot Cafe. I observed that each time I questioned the 'need' for de-programming, I was jumped on. Each time that I mentioned my beleifs in a singular Deity, the same phenomenon occured.
I understand that it happens, and I understand that it is within our nature. I still would like to imagine that some of us are mature enough, not to jump on a guy for posting what he beleives and what he is studying.
Obviously I delude myself (thinking that mankind is better than chickens).
Is the the new Galen, "Everytime that someone posts from their personal experiences in TWI, I learn and perhaps there is something that everyone can learn from?"
I don't know how many times you have flatly refused to believe the testimony of so many about their experiences because you werent' there. Oh, perhaps that was all in the categary you see fit to call "the gossiping and tattling that so many seemed to enjoy wihtin TWI," thereby insultingly dismissing the experiences of so many.
But here comes Mike with his pharisaical doctrine and attitude, and this you put in the category of "everytime that someone posts from their personal experiences in TWI." that you learn from. That's quite a stretch, Galen - in both directions.
There is no doubt that people gang up on individuals sometimes here because it is our nature, but Mike is not one of those times. The reasons people object to Mike's postings have probably been as least as clearly pointed out as any topic ever discussed in the cafe, maybe more. The only reason anyone would not see that is their disregard for what others are saying which is something that you and Mike share, another pharisaical characteristic, as is your like idolization for all things Wierwillian.
One of the finer things about the essentially democratic nature of a public forum is that things like the above abuses get identified and, if this were truly a democratic politic, weeded out. One of the qualities of "leaders" of men in a democratic society is that they listen to the words of their children, nieces, nephews, the women in the society, and all other "lesser" segments of society - thereby making them all equal. And if they don't listen, in a democratic society they would, and ought to be, ousted from their position and disqualified from any future leadership.
This is not a truly democratic forum; it is essentially not a political entity. It is Paw's cafe, where Paw, in gracious manner, allows the field of play to extend far beyond that of a true democracy. This allows Mike to play out is pretended leadership. And this alone.
quote: Mike has a valid point-of-view, as does everyone who lived through TWI
Ha, this is a fallacious joke, no? Go back to TWI, give them more money, allow them to con you some more - this will put more validity into your perspective. Well, maybe I'm being too harsh here. Many feel like they experienced good in TWI - that's fine.
But your point of view is NOT valid because you've experienced something. The victim in an intrigue experiences something, but he/she is the one most in the dark about what is going on. The point of view of the perpetrators of the crime is more valid. And it was WIERWILLE who said that it is not true because you experience it. This question of validity was, as a matter of fact, discussed in detail on Mike's threads - but apparently you weren't listening - so here we go again? And I should welcome this?
Def59, I must say that Roy has been using spell check on all his posts recently. That is a fare step in the write direction. And I applaud him for it and find his posts much more readable - thanks, Roy. The spell checking that would catch mistakes like confusing "fare" and "fair" would be to have open beside the computer the usually short section in many English books entitled something like Commonly Confused Words.
Tom
[This message was edited by Thomas Heller on December 26, 2003 at 12:28.]
Let me begin by saying, I don't feel well, as a matter of fact I feel like ..... I have a sore throat, a temp, and all together CRANKY.
That said....what is all this about making fun of someone who has trouble spelling? I personally spell fairly well but I can't add worth beans as just about anyone that knows me will attest to.
This is a website. The contributors are just that, CONTRIBUTORS. We share thoughts, and ideas and foibles and shortcomings and longsuits with each other. Very few of us that come here are "published writers" or even WANNA BE published writers. To my knowledge not more than a handful of us make our living writing.
To make fun of someone, anyone, for poor spelling or grammar says more about the moral integrity of the complainer than it does about the soul of the "poor speller."
It is a little known fact that one of our country's best authors, Ernest Hemingway, was not only a poor speller - his grammar was bad. We know him as a great writer because he always worked with an editor.
Mike, well, man, knock your socks off--tho' your initial post sounded a bit like Al Franken's old SNL bit about "what the 80's will mean to me, Al Franken". Ya know, just a wee bit self-important....
If you want to start doctrinal treatises, please use the "Doctrinal" section, huh???? And I second Tom--how about some real give-and-take discussion, not vp's prophet preaching to the 2nd grade...
Topics??? how about an honest consideration of the canon???? And LISTEN besides talking... :D--> --> :P-->
?Is the the new Galen, "Everytime that someone posts from their personal experiences in TWI, I learn and perhaps there is something that everyone can learn from?"
?I don't know how many times you have flatly refused to believe the testimony of so many about their experiences because _you_ werent' there?
I can only presume that this was your impression, for which I apologize. I certainly did not mean to give anyone the idea that I was denying things that have happened to us. Many bad things have happened to many of us while we were in TWI. I know that I have said this many times. If you insist upon claiming that I refuse their testimonies, that is too bad. It would be mis-representing those things that I have said.
?But here comes Mike with his pharisaical doctrine and attitude, . . . That's quite a stretch, Galen - in both directions.?
Again, I don?t think so.
?There is no doubt that people gang up on individuals sometimes here because it is our nature, but Mike is not one of those times. . . . ?
Truly?
Wow, it has certainly appeared this way to me. I have seen many threads just ranting about how Mike is messed up.
?One of the finer things about the essentially democratic nature of a public forum is that things like the above abuses get identified and, if this were truly a democratic politic, weeded out. One of the qualities of "leaders" of men in a democratic society is that they listen to the words of their children, nieces, nephews, the women in the society, and all other "lesser" segments of society - thereby making them all equal. And if they don't listen, in a democratic society they would, and ought to be, ousted from their position and disqualified from any future leadership.?
Okay, and your point being? Other than the fact that neither one of us lives within a Democracy, but rather a Republic.
?Mike has a valid point-of-view, as does everyone who lived through TWI?
As do you.
?Ha, this is a fallacious joke, no? Go back to TWI, give them more money, allow them to con you some more - this will put more validity into your perspective. Well, maybe I'm being too harsh here. Many feel like they experienced good in TWI - that's fine.?
I don?t see where allowing everyone to share from their experiences, is likened to going back to TWI.
?But your point of view is NOT valid because you've experienced something. The victim in an intrigue experiences something, but he/she is the one most in the dark about what is going on. The point of view of the perpetrators of the crime is more valid. And it was WIERWILLE who said that it is not true because you experience it. This question of validity was, as a matter of fact, discussed in detail on Mike's threads - but apparently you weren't listening - so here we go again? And I should welcome this??
: something that has its parts reversely arranged in comparison with another similar thing or that is reversed with reference to an intervening axis or plane
Galen--you will have had to follow all Mike's threads since his beginning here to really see how much Tom has nailed it--I really don't think you have seen all the double-talk, dodge, distract, deny and general baffling with bull-stuff Mike has done...I can't say i remember much of your input on any of his long-winded "preachings"....
Lay off Roy. He writes to get the ideas out there. I have never had a problem figuring out what he meant. If it irritates you, then I would suggest that you don't read his posts. That would solve the problem. If I wanted people adept at spelling, it would have been in the rules, it isn't.
and Mike,
I have to say you have the tone of a principal or professor just letting us know what is in store for the next semester. I should remind you that these are discussion forums, not lecture platforms. And as was mentioned in an earlier post, most of what you start is doctrinal not about the way. Please start them in the correct forums.
Now that you mention it, THIS thread should have been started in the "Open" forum. Sorry.
I'll also admit most of my stuff is about OLD Way matters, instead of "About the Way" material from more recent years.
It is the case, however, that my pre-1990 material represents the roots of many misunderstandings that followed years later.
Please point me to the best forum and I'll try to behave there.
As for attitude, almost everyone here posts with the feeling that they have arrived at an accurate opinion, and their attitude is one of confidence. My attitude is that I?ve found some useful data, and I want to share it. When I run into massive resistance, my attitude can take on temporary retaliatory modes that I am sometimes proud of, and sometimes not so proud of.
I?ll do my best to not be condescending... or sound condescending, but the latter's harder. I?m willing to try a New Year?s Resolution of sorts and put aside my boxing gloves.
Plus there are a bunch of new posters here whom I don?t know very well, and who may not know me very well yet. I?d like to start from scratch with them on a better footing. This past year got pretty wild at times.
Meanwhile, I?m real busy with a lot of Christmas decoration cleanup. My business lull is still a bit in the future, but I?ll be pondering some good answers to the other posters here too.
And, Paw, congratulations on how you opened that thread about Harv?s e-mail. I?d like to think it represents a beginning in some healing processes to come in the not-too-distant future.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
6
20
5
Popular Days
Dec 26
49
Dec 27
27
Dec 28
14
Dec 29
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 9 posts
Hope R. 6 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 20 posts
Oakspear 5 posts
Popular Days
Dec 26 2003
49 posts
Dec 27 2003
27 posts
Dec 28 2003
14 posts
Dec 29 2003
14 posts
Tom
Feedback:
Mike, I think that an important subject for you to revisit that came up this past year in your posts is your unwillingness to address, to the satisfaction of the majority of your readers, the feeling among the majority of your readers that you present yourself as extraordinarily special (an extremely unChristian posture), that you expect everyone to admit to your extraordinary speciality, that your presentations maximally minimize anyone else's understanding of anything that you present, that you've assumed, in godlike manner, that you know that, not only has no one else turned over the stones that you have, but that we have to admit to such personal ignorance in the face of your godlike knowledge and presence, acquiesce to the demand that you say they have on our lives, that we all participate in their investigation, and would not prefer that the rain didn't fall in San Diego so that you could continue to engage in the honest employment of your time.
Thanks for asking.
And since you are inviting us to suggest topics for discussion, may I suggest that you discuss with your customers the fact that when it rains on dirty windows, they look REALLY dirty, but when it rains on clean windows, they still look clean, and that; therefore, it would behoove them to allow you to continue cleaning their windows during the rainy season.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
the topic of mary magdalene interests me
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
ExC! Yes! That would be a great discussion!
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Mike
Maybe we could talk about how to spell check that would help Roy communincate better.
Roy you wrote fare when you meant fair
Am I wright?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Oh def, Roy communicates just fine! I understand him better than some here who can type/spell perfectly.
Mike,
I am amused by your spin on what you have posted here in the past. You said,
Sorry, but they didn't "demand" anything except rejection, and they were rejected by 95% of the posters on your threads. Feel free to take the ones who were in agreement with you (both of them), and expound the word of Mike in more detail. privately. If you continue to post it here, be ready for your ideas to be rejected, again. Nothing "startling" about them but a return to VPW's fantasy doctrine mixed with yours.Sorry, Mike, but you can't expect to go away for awhile, then come back and try and tell us how wonderful and enlightening your posts were. They weren't.
Still shaking my head and laughing,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Mike,
Please mike,
I know I for one mike am not interested in hearing anymore of what you think is from your God. Its the tone of you knowing everything and we know nothing!!!! We have had that crap thrown down our throats for years. Why would we want it now?
Of course you are free to post what you want. That is what is nice about gs. But don't expect a lot of us to welcome you back with your garbage just because you haven't posted for a while.
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Does anyone watch 'West Wing'? In one episode a speech-writer (Josh Lyman?) is drawn to to goings-on of a discussion board, he goes on-line to correct people's impressions of both: his stance on various topics, as well as his position. Suddenly the thread activity jumps alarmingly. What had been the rantings of perhaps a few posters, suddenly jumped to dozens, as they all unified to 'roast' Josh. What had been debating (back and forth presenting of multiple sides of an issue)turned to slamming and flaming this one (everyone unified to defame Josh).
Greasespot discussions have a similarity to the one on 'WestWing'.
Mike has a valid point-of-view, as does everyone who lived through TWI.
In a more perfect world, we could each post our thoughts and observations freely on each and every topic. Some of the posting here does mimic chicken-coop activity, everyone ganging up on a single member to rip that member to shreds.
I agree with many of the things that Mike posts, other ideas were things that perhaps I was not aware of, since I kept myself distanced from the gossiping and tattling that so many seemed to enjoy wihtin TWI.
Everytime that someone posts from their personal experiences in TWI, I learn and perhaps there is something that everyone can learn from.
I was not Stateside for Waydale (so I missed that board), but I started posting here on the previous version of Greasespot Cafe. I observed that each time I questioned the 'need' for de-programming, I was jumped on. Each time that I mentioned my beleifs in a singular Deity, the same phenomenon occured.
I understand that it happens, and I understand that it is within our nature. I still would like to imagine that some of us are mature enough, not to jump on a guy for posting what he beleives and what he is studying.
Obviously I delude myself (thinking that mankind is better than chickens).
:=)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Galen?
Is the the new Galen, "Everytime that someone posts from their personal experiences in TWI, I learn and perhaps there is something that everyone can learn from?"
I don't know how many times you have flatly refused to believe the testimony of so many about their experiences because you werent' there. Oh, perhaps that was all in the categary you see fit to call "the gossiping and tattling that so many seemed to enjoy wihtin TWI," thereby insultingly dismissing the experiences of so many.
But here comes Mike with his pharisaical doctrine and attitude, and this you put in the category of "everytime that someone posts from their personal experiences in TWI." that you learn from.
That's quite a stretch, Galen - in both directions.
There is no doubt that people gang up on individuals sometimes here because it is our nature, but Mike is not one of those times. The reasons people object to Mike's postings have probably been as least as clearly pointed out as any topic ever discussed in the cafe, maybe more. The only reason anyone would not see that is their disregard for what others are saying which is something that you and Mike share, another pharisaical characteristic, as is your like idolization for all things Wierwillian.
One of the finer things about the essentially democratic nature of a public forum is that things like the above abuses get identified and, if this were truly a democratic politic, weeded out. One of the qualities of "leaders" of men in a democratic society is that they listen to the words of their children, nieces, nephews, the women in the society, and all other "lesser" segments of society - thereby making them all equal. And if they don't listen, in a democratic society they would, and ought to be, ousted from their position and disqualified from any future leadership.
This is not a truly democratic forum; it is essentially not a political entity. It is Paw's cafe, where Paw, in gracious manner, allows the field of play to extend far beyond that of a true democracy. This allows Mike to play out is pretended leadership. And this alone.
Ha, this is a fallacious joke, no? Go back to TWI, give them more money, allow them to con you some more - this will put more validity into your perspective. Well, maybe I'm being too harsh here. Many feel like they experienced good in TWI - that's fine.
But your point of view is NOT valid because you've experienced something. The victim in an intrigue experiences something, but he/she is the one most in the dark about what is going on. The point of view of the perpetrators of the crime is more valid. And it was WIERWILLE who said that it is not true because you experience it. This question of validity was, as a matter of fact, discussed in detail on Mike's threads - but apparently you weren't listening - so here we go again? And I should welcome this?
Def59, I must say that Roy has been using spell check on all his posts recently. That is a fare step in the write direction. And I applaud him for it and find his posts much more readable - thanks, Roy. The spell checking that would catch mistakes like confusing "fare" and "fair" would be to have open beside the computer the usually short section in many English books entitled something like Commonly Confused Words.
Tom
[This message was edited by Thomas Heller on December 26, 2003 at 12:28.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
Let me begin by saying, I don't feel well, as a matter of fact I feel like ..... I have a sore throat, a temp, and all together CRANKY.
That said....what is all this about making fun of someone who has trouble spelling? I personally spell fairly well but I can't add worth beans as just about anyone that knows me will attest to.
This is a website. The contributors are just that, CONTRIBUTORS. We share thoughts, and ideas and foibles and shortcomings and longsuits with each other. Very few of us that come here are "published writers" or even WANNA BE published writers. To my knowledge not more than a handful of us make our living writing.
To make fun of someone, anyone, for poor spelling or grammar says more about the moral integrity of the complainer than it does about the soul of the "poor speller."
Radar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
Amen Radar,
Hope you get better soon.
It is a little known fact that one of our country's best authors, Ernest Hemingway, was not only a poor speller - his grammar was bad. We know him as a great writer because he always worked with an editor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Planning new threads?
Be still my heart!
geo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
Anticipation abounds!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
E. W. Bullinger
Dear Mike:
Merry Christmas Mike. I have two quick suggestions.
1. Only have one open thread at a time.
2. Please answer the honest questions posters asked in your previous threads.
EWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Editors are good.
I wasn't making fun; I was being sincerely appreciative.
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Mike, well, man, knock your socks off--tho' your initial post sounded a bit like Al Franken's old SNL bit about "what the 80's will mean to me, Al Franken". Ya know, just a wee bit self-important....
If you want to start doctrinal treatises, please use the "Doctrinal" section, huh???? And I second Tom--how about some real give-and-take discussion, not vp's prophet preaching to the 2nd grade...
Topics??? how about an honest consideration of the canon???? And LISTEN besides talking...
:D--> 
--> 
:P-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Thomas Heller:
?Is the the new Galen, "Everytime that someone posts from their personal experiences in TWI, I learn and perhaps there is something that everyone can learn from?"
?I don't know how many times you have flatly refused to believe the testimony of so many about their experiences because _you_ werent' there?
I can only presume that this was your impression, for which I apologize. I certainly did not mean to give anyone the idea that I was denying things that have happened to us. Many bad things have happened to many of us while we were in TWI. I know that I have said this many times. If you insist upon claiming that I refuse their testimonies, that is too bad. It would be mis-representing those things that I have said.
?But here comes Mike with his pharisaical doctrine and attitude, . . . That's quite a stretch, Galen - in both directions.?
Again, I don?t think so.
?There is no doubt that people gang up on individuals sometimes here because it is our nature, but Mike is not one of those times. . . . ?
Truly?
Wow, it has certainly appeared this way to me. I have seen many threads just ranting about how Mike is messed up.
?One of the finer things about the essentially democratic nature of a public forum is that things like the above abuses get identified and, if this were truly a democratic politic, weeded out. One of the qualities of "leaders" of men in a democratic society is that they listen to the words of their children, nieces, nephews, the women in the society, and all other "lesser" segments of society - thereby making them all equal. And if they don't listen, in a democratic society they would, and ought to be, ousted from their position and disqualified from any future leadership.?
Okay, and your point being? Other than the fact that neither one of us lives within a Democracy, but rather a Republic.
?Mike has a valid point-of-view, as does everyone who lived through TWI?
As do you.
?Ha, this is a fallacious joke, no? Go back to TWI, give them more money, allow them to con you some more - this will put more validity into your perspective. Well, maybe I'm being too harsh here. Many feel like they experienced good in TWI - that's fine.?
I don?t see where allowing everyone to share from their experiences, is likened to going back to TWI.
?But your point of view is NOT valid because you've experienced something. The victim in an intrigue experiences something, but he/she is the one most in the dark about what is going on. The point of view of the perpetrators of the crime is more valid. And it was WIERWILLE who said that it is not true because you experience it. This question of validity was, as a matter of fact, discussed in detail on Mike's threads - but apparently you weren't listening - so here we go again? And I should welcome this??
I don?t care whether you welcome him or not.
I do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Main Entry: mirror image
Function: noun
Date: 1885
: something that has its parts reversely arranged in comparison with another similar thing or that is reversed with reference to an intervening axis or plane
Pronunciation Key
© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
You have set the stage Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Galen,"Okay, and your point being?"
Mike's a Pharisee.
"I don?t care..."
Exactly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Galen--you will have had to follow all Mike's threads since his beginning here to really see how much Tom has nailed it--I really don't think you have seen all the double-talk, dodge, distract, deny and general baffling with bull-stuff Mike has done...I can't say i remember much of your input on any of his long-winded "preachings"....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Def,
Lay off Roy. He writes to get the ideas out there. I have never had a problem figuring out what he meant. If it irritates you, then I would suggest that you don't read his posts. That would solve the problem. If I wanted people adept at spelling, it would have been in the rules, it isn't.
and Mike,
I have to say you have the tone of a principal or professor just letting us know what is in store for the next semester. I should remind you that these are discussion forums, not lecture platforms. And as was mentioned in an earlier post, most of what you start is doctrinal not about the way. Please start them in the correct forums.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Pawtucket,
Now that you mention it, THIS thread should have been started in the "Open" forum. Sorry.
I'll also admit most of my stuff is about OLD Way matters, instead of "About the Way" material from more recent years.
It is the case, however, that my pre-1990 material represents the roots of many misunderstandings that followed years later.
Please point me to the best forum and I'll try to behave there.
As for attitude, almost everyone here posts with the feeling that they have arrived at an accurate opinion, and their attitude is one of confidence. My attitude is that I?ve found some useful data, and I want to share it. When I run into massive resistance, my attitude can take on temporary retaliatory modes that I am sometimes proud of, and sometimes not so proud of.
I?ll do my best to not be condescending... or sound condescending, but the latter's harder. I?m willing to try a New Year?s Resolution of sorts and put aside my boxing gloves.
Plus there are a bunch of new posters here whom I don?t know very well, and who may not know me very well yet. I?d like to start from scratch with them on a better footing. This past year got pretty wild at times.
Meanwhile, I?m real busy with a lot of Christmas decoration cleanup. My business lull is still a bit in the future, but I?ll be pondering some good answers to the other posters here too.
And, Paw, congratulations on how you opened that thread about Harv?s e-mail. I?d like to think it represents a beginning in some healing processes to come in the not-too-distant future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
I am still cranky and "ill" feeling
. Those of you that live in the south will understand that one right quick 
:D-->.
Mike.....I think Paw said DOCTRINAL!!!!
Woof Woof.
Radar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washingtonweather
And DONT EVEN get me started on the arrogance of correct spelling critics----
Just Dont---I will not play fare!@!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.