Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: VERY willing to unsubscribe a whole lot of you...

Expand Messages
  • aot1952 <aot1952@yahoo.com>
    Dear CWWT crowd- Gosh,I guess this means Mr. Rose was NOT trying to be humorous! At any rate, Groucho was probably right I suppose I should not be a member of
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 26, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear CWWT crowd-
      Gosh,I guess this means Mr. Rose was NOT trying to be humorous!
      At any rate, Groucho was probably right I suppose I should not be a
      member of a group that would have me for a member anyway. Having been
      rather conspicuously singled out by the good moderator I suppose that
      the appropriate thing for me to do is to offer my apologies to the
      group and take my 'unsubscription' like a man. Thanks for some very
      interesting observations.
      Regards
      Wakefield

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "P. B. Jones" <jones@p...> wrote:
      > All right. I'm responding attached to Steve's email, but there are
      others of you out there who are being addressed in what I am saying.
      Cut the garbage, the cuteness, the personal attacks right now. It
      DOES NOT MATTER if you don't LIKE someone or their opinions. If that
      person states their opinions in a civil manner, without personal
      attacks, they WILL be allowed to post here. If you all continue to
      respond with personal attacks, you will not.
      >
      > You have some choices:
      >
      > 1) You can respond minus the PERSONAL attacks
      >
      > 2) You CAN choose to not respond at all. In other words IGNORE,
      IGNORE, IGNORE (as you've been counseling each other to do but
      obviously not following through)
      >
      > OR...
      >
      > 3) you can continue to respond with your petty, personal attacks
      and be UNSUBSCRIBED.
      >
      > Your choice and don't blame ANYONE but yourself. No one is MAKING
      you post what you do.
      >
      > As is our usual policy, any commentary upon moderation, please take
      it to PRIVATE EMAIL.
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: mailto:aot1952 <aot1952@y...
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 3:04 PM
      > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Whereabouts of Grant and his staff
      >
      >
      > Mr. Rose wrote-
      > "Thank you, however, for your interest"
      > Oh no Mr. Rose thank you for the humorous interlude. You really
      are
      > always good for a hearty laugh, you really are quite a humorous
      > fellow.
      > Unfortunately some people might actually misunderstand you and
      > actually take your postings seriously! LOL
      > You are just trying to be funny --right?
      > Wakefield
      >
      > -- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose
      > <josepharose@y...>" <josepharose@y...> wrote:
      > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "aot1952 <aot1952@y...>"
      > > <aot1952@y...> wrote:
      > > > YEAH MR. Keene!!!
      > > > while we are at it--
      > > > Do you have ANY evidence that Grant had stopped beating his
      > > wife????
      > > > Do you have any evidence that the SUN came up on April 8th
      > 1862?"
      > > > Am I the only one that finds this statement to be foolish?
      > > >
      > > > " Do you have any evidence whatsoever that "[Grant] was not
      on a
      > > > social engagement?"
      > > >
      > > > Now now that sure makes sense! Has anyone read Grant's social
      > > > calendar for the day in question? By the by Mr. Rose since
      you
      > are
      > > > the one that first made this rather silly accuation please
      > provide
      > > > your evidence of the social engagement in question.
      > > > Next we have this telling debating point--
      > > > " Do you have any evidence that Buell didn't report his
      arrival
      > to
      > > > one of Grant's subordinates?"
      > > > MMMM very interesting please provide your evidence that Buell
      > > > reported his arrival.
      > > > Now let me get this straight-- one poster admits that he
      alleged
      > > that
      > > > Grant 'mistated' the truth...BUT then the same poster says
      that
      > > they
      > > > did not say that Grant lied???
      > > > Just out of curiosity, could someone please explain why that
      > > > statement is not foolish blathering?
      > > > Wow I am sure looking forward to how silly things can get
      when
      > the
      > > > poster does not admit that what he is posting is tiresome!
      > > > Regards-
      > > > Wakefield
      > >
      > >
      > > Mr. Wakefield:
      > >
      > > If you happened to read the post in question you would realize
      that
      > > I was responding to several unqualified statements with a
      request
      > > for evidence. As you, also, seem to indicate that there is no
      > > evidence for certain assertions (e.g., "Has anyone read Grant's
      > > social calendar for the day in question?"), you agree with my
      > > position.
      > >
      > > Please note that a "misstatement" is an untrue statement, while
      > > a "lie" is an untrue statement intended to deceive. I should
      think
      > > that it wouldn't take a lawyer to distinguish between the two.
      > >
      > > Thank you, however, for your interest.
      > >
      > > Joseph
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > ADVERTISEMENT
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.