If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Nan and others Find anyone/anywhere People search website
In article , Nan says...
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:22:28 GMT, "cathy" wrote: Banty, the only reason for my last post was to be sure that Mark saw my public apology. I wanted to be sure since I made a big stink about the "catering to stalkers" issue, that Mark in-fact saw that I apologized, then Nan decided to say "Yes I saw it" and that she still felt the same way about me jumping to conclusions. Really sorry I defended myself to be honest, at least I did have enough ba_ls to come out and say I was wrong, that was my last point on the subject until Nan replied back with her comment. You directed the post to me. You put my name in the subject line, FFS! I replied. You don't like my reply. Not much I care to do about that. End. Of. Subject. Nan Odd - she says the only reason for her post was for *Mark* to see it, but your name was the one she headlined. This is whacked. Banty -- |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Nan and others Find anyone/anywhere People search website
On 22 Jul 2006 08:42:38 -0700, Banty wrote:
In article , Nan says... On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:22:28 GMT, "cathy" wrote: Banty, the only reason for my last post was to be sure that Mark saw my public apology. I wanted to be sure since I made a big stink about the "catering to stalkers" issue, that Mark in-fact saw that I apologized, then Nan decided to say "Yes I saw it" and that she still felt the same way about me jumping to conclusions. Really sorry I defended myself to be honest, at least I did have enough ba_ls to come out and say I was wrong, that was my last point on the subject until Nan replied back with her comment. You directed the post to me. You put my name in the subject line, FFS! I replied. You don't like my reply. Not much I care to do about that. End. Of. Subject. Nan Odd - she says the only reason for her post was for *Mark* to see it, but your name was the one she headlined. This is whacked. Banty Gee, you think she wants validation? Nan |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Nan and others Find anyone/anywhere People search website
You people are just plain bored I imagine.
The REASON I addressed the post to NAN is because after the apology that WAS NOT addressed to NAN, NAN's reply///"Wow, you're overly defensive!! Mark did no such thing. Internet pharmacies are legit, but can be misused. Just like your service! Frankly, I find your knee-jerk jumping to erroneous conclusions troubling" came into my inbox late or delayed. SO since she was so adamant about her "assertions" I decided to shut her up I would address it to Her as well as anyone else that didn't see my apology reply to Mark. Obviously that didn't work because she still is yapping away. Frankly I think Nan has nothing better to do that speak as though she is some sort of expert on EVERY subject that comes across these newsgroups as I've search on her posting history, always there with a put down or a nasty word to say, but when she is caught saying something she SHOULD apologize for...she DOES not, I guess beneath her. I said I was sorry to Mark for claiming HE said I was catering to stalkers. NAN said I was "jumping to erroneous conclusions", and not just the drug dealer thing shes been at since the beginning. In all actuality NAN should WOMAN up and say, SORRY I was wrong YOU didn't JUMP TO ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS, however SHE WILL not because of the type of gal she is....SO whatever, keep thinking your gold honey, and find a new hobby "Nan" wrote in message ... On 22 Jul 2006 08:42:38 -0700, Banty wrote: In article , Nan says... On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:22:28 GMT, "cathy" wrote: Banty, the only reason for my last post was to be sure that Mark saw my public apology. I wanted to be sure since I made a big stink about the "catering to stalkers" issue, that Mark in-fact saw that I apologized, then Nan decided to say "Yes I saw it" and that she still felt the same way about me jumping to conclusions. Really sorry I defended myself to be honest, at least I did have enough ba_ls to come out and say I was wrong, that was my last point on the subject until Nan replied back with her comment. You directed the post to me. You put my name in the subject line, FFS! I replied. You don't like my reply. Not much I care to do about that. End. Of. Subject. Nan Odd - she says the only reason for her post was for *Mark* to see it, but your name was the one she headlined. This is whacked. Banty Gee, you think she wants validation? Nan |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Nan and others Find anyone/anywhere People search website
"cathy" wrote in message ... You people are just plain bored I imagine. The REASON I addressed the post to NAN is because after the apology that WAS NOT addressed to NAN, NAN's reply///"Wow, you're overly defensive!! Mark did no such thing. Internet pharmacies are legit, but can be misused. Just like your service! Frankly, I find your knee-jerk jumping to erroneous conclusions troubling" came into my inbox late or delayed. SO since she was so adamant about her "assertions" I decided to shut her up I would address it to Her as well as anyone else that didn't see my apology reply to Mark. Obviously that didn't work because she still is yapping away. Frankly I think Nan has nothing better to do that speak as though she is some sort of expert on EVERY subject that comes across these newsgroups as I've search on her posting history, always there with a put down or a nasty word to say, but when she is caught saying something she SHOULD apologize for...she DOES not, I guess beneath her. I said I was sorry to Mark for claiming HE said I was catering to stalkers. NAN said I was "jumping to erroneous conclusions", and not just the drug dealer thing shes been at since the beginning. In all actuality NAN should WOMAN up and say, SORRY I was wrong YOU didn't JUMP TO ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS, however SHE WILL not because of the type of gal she is....SO whatever, keep thinking your gold honey, and find a new hobby It appears that while you may be able to google you are not very thorough in your research. Nan's lengthy posting history is quite well rounded in provision of support, suggestions and assistance as well as confrontations of others as she sees appropriate. She also does not spam newsgroups. It also appears that you do not have a full understanding of human behavior or how newsgroups function. Just because you wrote something and posted it to a newsgroup does not mean that anyone will read it, acknowledge reading it, or agree with it either privately or on the newsgroup. Who knows if Mark is reading any of this thread or these groups since that post you took umbrage over. Obviously some of the rest of us are, though, and there is absolutely no reason for any of us to refrain from responding to your publicly posted comments. If you want a private conversation, then take it to email, otherwise you should be prepared for the public conversation to continue and take directions that you may neither appreciate nor be able to control. And for what its worth, I also think that, based solely on the information you have posted here to this interestingly xposted thread, you do run quite a risk of assisting stalkers in finding their victims, perhaps assisting someone in identity theft and enabling domestic violence perpetrators to find those fleeing them. Perhaps you do have various failsafes built into your business that work to prevent that, but the information which you presented does not indicate that and your reaction has not encouraged me in believing otherwise. As someone who works in mental health/social work your apparent choice to refuse to examine the possibility is chilling. -aula |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Nan and others Find anyone/anywhere People search website
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:16:58 -0400, "Aula"
wrote: It appears that while you may be able to google you are not very thorough in your research. Nan's lengthy posting history is quite well rounded in provision of support, suggestions and assistance as well as confrontations of others as she sees appropriate. She also does not spam newsgroups. Thank you for your support, Aula :-) And for what its worth, I also think that, based solely on the information you have posted here to this interestingly xposted thread, you do run quite a risk of assisting stalkers in finding their victims, perhaps assisting someone in identity theft and enabling domestic violence perpetrators to find those fleeing them. Perhaps you do have various failsafes built into your business that work to prevent that, but the information which you presented does not indicate that and your reaction has not encouraged me in believing otherwise. As someone who works in mental health/social work your apparent choice to refuse to examine the possibility is chilling. This is what has bothered me. The defense that her business does more good than harm is just wrong, imo. Having seen the effects of others being stalked, and having been stalked myself, it's not a matter to take lightly. Nan |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Nan and others Find anyone/anywhere People search website
"Nan" wrote in message ... This is what has bothered me. The defense that her business does more good than harm is just wrong, imo. Having seen the effects of others being stalked, and having been stalked myself, it's not a matter to take lightly. ditto on all points. now that i'm working more closely with those fleeing domestic violence i'm becoming more aware of the lengths some will go to to control and find others. not a good thing if you are the one attempting to disappear and the one seeking you is, say, your spouse or parent of your child. what would the op do to screen out these types? -aula |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Nan and others Find anyone/anywhere People search website
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:17:42 -0400, "Aula"
wrote: "Nan" wrote in message .. . This is what has bothered me. The defense that her business does more good than harm is just wrong, imo. Having seen the effects of others being stalked, and having been stalked myself, it's not a matter to take lightly. ditto on all points. now that i'm working more closely with those fleeing domestic violence i'm becoming more aware of the lengths some will go to to control and find others. not a good thing if you are the one attempting to disappear and the one seeking you is, say, your spouse or parent of your child. what would the op do to screen out these types? It's something a phone interview isn't going to handle, imo. You're aware of my work with battered women and children, as well. Our organization went to great lengths to assist DV survivors and it was hard pre-internet to keep them well hidden. That perpetrators have such information readily available with a credit card payment is very chilling. Nan |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Nan and others Find anyone/anywhere People search website
Nan has issues.
Are there any internet pharmacies you recommend? "cathy" wrote in message ... You people are just plain bored I imagine. The REASON I addressed the post to NAN is because after the apology that WAS NOT addressed to NAN, NAN's reply///"Wow, you're overly defensive!! Mark did no such thing. Internet pharmacies are legit, but can be misused. Just like your service! Frankly, I find your knee-jerk jumping to erroneous conclusions troubling" came into my inbox late or delayed. SO since she was so adamant about her "assertions" I decided to shut her up I would address it to Her as well as anyone else that didn't see my apology reply to Mark. Obviously that didn't work because she still is yapping away. Frankly I think Nan has nothing better to do that speak as though she is some sort of expert on EVERY subject that comes across these newsgroups as I've search on her posting history, always there with a put down or a nasty word to say, but when she is caught saying something she SHOULD apologize for...she DOES not, I guess beneath her. I said I was sorry to Mark for claiming HE said I was catering to stalkers. NAN said I was "jumping to erroneous conclusions", and not just the drug dealer thing shes been at since the beginning. In all actuality NAN should WOMAN up and say, SORRY I was wrong YOU didn't JUMP TO ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS, however SHE WILL not because of the type of gal she is....SO whatever, keep thinking your gold honey, and find a new hobby "Nan" wrote in message ... On 22 Jul 2006 08:42:38 -0700, Banty wrote: In article , Nan says... On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:22:28 GMT, "cathy" wrote: Banty, the only reason for my last post was to be sure that Mark saw my public apology. I wanted to be sure since I made a big stink about the "catering to stalkers" issue, that Mark in-fact saw that I apologized, then Nan decided to say "Yes I saw it" and that she still felt the same way about me jumping to conclusions. Really sorry I defended myself to be honest, at least I did have enough ba_ls to come out and say I was wrong, that was my last point on the subject until Nan replied back with her comment. You directed the post to me. You put my name in the subject line, FFS! I replied. You don't like my reply. Not much I care to do about that. End. Of. Subject. Nan Odd - she says the only reason for her post was for *Mark* to see it, but your name was the one she headlined. This is whacked. Banty Gee, you think she wants validation? Nan |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Nan and others Find anyone/anywhere People search website
raises hand What is an entitlemoo breeder? /raises hand
"Nan" wrote in message ... On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:56:06 GMT, "cathy" wrote: You people are just plain bored I imagine. snip repetitive drone You know the kind of woman I am, do you? Oh forget it. You're just too easy. Nan |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Nan and others Find anyone/anywhere People search website
Oh pshaw!
Shouldn't you be working on a 10.80 birfday party or something? "Aula" wrote in message ... "cathy" wrote in message ... You people are just plain bored I imagine. The REASON I addressed the post to NAN is because after the apology that WAS NOT addressed to NAN, NAN's reply///"Wow, you're overly defensive!! Mark did no such thing. Internet pharmacies are legit, but can be misused. Just like your service! Frankly, I find your knee-jerk jumping to erroneous conclusions troubling" came into my inbox late or delayed. SO since she was so adamant about her "assertions" I decided to shut her up I would address it to Her as well as anyone else that didn't see my apology reply to Mark. Obviously that didn't work because she still is yapping away. Frankly I think Nan has nothing better to do that speak as though she is some sort of expert on EVERY subject that comes across these newsgroups as I've search on her posting history, always there with a put down or a nasty word to say, but when she is caught saying something she SHOULD apologize for...she DOES not, I guess beneath her. I said I was sorry to Mark for claiming HE said I was catering to stalkers. NAN said I was "jumping to erroneous conclusions", and not just the drug dealer thing shes been at since the beginning. In all actuality NAN should WOMAN up and say, SORRY I was wrong YOU didn't JUMP TO ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS, however SHE WILL not because of the type of gal she is....SO whatever, keep thinking your gold honey, and find a new hobby It appears that while you may be able to google you are not very thorough in your research. Nan's lengthy posting history is quite well rounded in provision of support, suggestions and assistance as well as confrontations of others as she sees appropriate. She also does not spam newsgroups. It also appears that you do not have a full understanding of human behavior or how newsgroups function. Just because you wrote something and posted it to a newsgroup does not mean that anyone will read it, acknowledge reading it, or agree with it either privately or on the newsgroup. Who knows if Mark is reading any of this thread or these groups since that post you took umbrage over. Obviously some of the rest of us are, though, and there is absolutely no reason for any of us to refrain from responding to your publicly posted comments. If you want a private conversation, then take it to email, otherwise you should be prepared for the public conversation to continue and take directions that you may neither appreciate nor be able to control. And for what its worth, I also think that, based solely on the information you have posted here to this interestingly xposted thread, you do run quite a risk of assisting stalkers in finding their victims, perhaps assisting someone in identity theft and enabling domestic violence perpetrators to find those fleeing them. Perhaps you do have various failsafes built into your business that work to prevent that, but the information which you presented does not indicate that and your reaction has not encouraged me in believing otherwise. As someone who works in mental health/social work your apparent choice to refuse to examine the possibility is chilling. -aula |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Find anyone/anywhere People search website | cathy | General | 34 | July 24th 06 07:36 PM |
Find anyone/anywhere People search website | cathy | General | 15 | July 19th 06 02:37 PM |
Find anyone/anywhere People search website | cathy | Pregnancy | 15 | July 19th 06 02:37 PM |
Find anyone/anywhere People search website | cathy | Kids Health | 15 | July 19th 06 02:37 PM |
Find anyone/anywhere People search website | cathy | Breastfeeding | 15 | July 19th 06 02:37 PM |