A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Breastfeeding
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Find anyone/anywhere People search website



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 22nd 06, 04:42 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.kids.breastfeeding,misc.kids.health,misc.kids.pregnancy
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,278
Default 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  
Old July 22nd 06, 09:00 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.kids.breastfeeding,misc.kids.health,misc.kids.pregnancy
Nan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 211
Default 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  
Old July 22nd 06, 09:56 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.kids.breastfeeding,misc.kids.health,misc.kids.pregnancy
cathy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default 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  
Old July 22nd 06, 11:16 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.kids.breastfeeding,misc.kids.health,misc.kids.pregnancy
Aula
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 06, 12:59 AM posted to misc.kids,misc.kids.breastfeeding,misc.kids.health,misc.kids.pregnancy
Nan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 211
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 06, 01:17 AM posted to misc.kids,misc.kids.breastfeeding,misc.kids.health,misc.kids.pregnancy
Aula
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 06, 03:44 AM posted to misc.kids,misc.kids.breastfeeding,misc.kids.health,misc.kids.pregnancy
Nan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 211
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 06, 07:25 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.kids.breastfeeding,misc.kids.health,misc.kids.pregnancy
LaTreen Washington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 06, 07:25 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.kids.breastfeeding,misc.kids.health,misc.kids.pregnancy
LaTreen Washington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 06, 07:25 PM posted to misc.kids,misc.kids.breastfeeding,misc.kids.health,misc.kids.pregnancy
LaTreen Washington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.