interestED, not interestING. But, you get the idea.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Damien Mathew <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:damien.mathew@gmail.com">damien.mathew@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">I am not on any of the listservs involved in this discussion. I was originally copied on the initial e-mail from David Johnson regarding the health care bill. I am interesting in any discussions pertaining to organizing for future gains in health care reform, or other political actions, for that matter. I am not in the slightest bit interesting in the current discussion. I respectfully ask to not be included in this e-mail thread unless something approaching a mature discussion of future strategy comes up.<br>
<font color="#888888">
<br>Damien Mathew.</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 2:55 AM, C. G. Estabrook <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cge@shout.net" target="_blank">cge@shout.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
This is simply dishonest. I invite readers to read the earlier posts in this thread (which I began and named ) to see if I have "taken the anonymity of the remark and chosen to own it."<div><div></div><div>
<br>
<br>
Melodye Rosales wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Tristan---I agree with what you say---but let me make it clear---I am<br>
not in battle with with anyone. More to the point, I intentionally<br>
left my "Naysayer" nameless--and I cannot take responsibility for<br>
someone who has taken the anonymity of the remark and chose to own<br>
it. An interesting decision within itself, nonetheless, my intention<br>
was not to label a named individual as much as questioning underlying<br>
motives. With that in mind, I believe Marti summed it up well.<br>
<br>
I assume there is a general lack of awareness by some--- that there<br>
are other folks on these listservs, who are married, work or are<br>
retired from UIUC and who are in tax brackets that a Bill, such as<br>
the Health Reform, will dig a little deeper into their pockets then<br>
those of the middle and poverty class. But if folks want to put<br>
their name on the "Naysayer" label, that is a choice they control,<br>
not me.<br>
<br>
Moving on... What I hope is that "Naysayers" won't distract from the<br>
purpose of such an important forum. Therefore, Tristan is correct to<br>
encourage personal debates that are absent any points of interest to<br>
the Health Reform, kept off these general discussions.<br>
<br>
That said, it is important to note---for this and future<br>
forums---what a "Naysayer" is and why I used the term. * A Naysayer<br>
is one who frequently engages in excessive complaining, negative<br>
banter and/or a genuinely poor and downbeat attitude. Naysayers are<br>
distinguished by their tendency to consistently view the glass half<br>
empty, make frequent one-way trips to negative town, and constantly<br>
emphasize the worst of a situation. They have the capacity to rant<br>
and whine for hours on end about the most insignificant<br>
inconveniences. They tend to travel solo, but have the keen ability<br>
to spread their pessimistic attitude to a group of unsuspecting<br>
bystanders and encourage others to employ their mindset.<br>
<br>
Naysayers tend to blend in with those around them rather well,<br>
granted they have learned over the years to adapt to their<br>
surroundings. However, when the opportunity arises, their true nature<br>
will be exposed and they will stop at nothing to exclude others or<br>
bring a general sense of negativity to any situation.<br>
<br>
Not to be confused with non-Naysayers (as I intended to present<br>
myself in the earlier emails) who fight against the negativity<br>
brought forth by Naysayers, make the best of a situation and are not<br>
afraid to call out a Naysayer on the spot. *<br>
<br>
Now, spiraling back to the Health Reform discussion--- I thought<br>
that John W's comments responding to Claudia's second email were on<br>
point. It was refreshing to read John's pro and con take on the<br>
user-friendly information extracted out of labyrinth of legal<br>
maneuvers, concessions, and revisions the Health Care Bill has<br>
evolved from since it was originally brought to the table.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Tristan B <<a href="mailto:tristan.bunner@gmail.com" target="_blank">tristan.bunner@gmail.com</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> I was referring to both of you. If you want to fight about<br>
> personal stuff, do it off list please.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 1:33 PM, C. G. ESTABROOK <<a href="mailto:cge@shout.net" target="_blank">cge@shout.net</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Don't be too hard on Ms. Rosales. I think she thought that she<br>
>> was making a political comment, however inappropriate it was.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Tristan B wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> Can we keep personal conversations between whoever is part of<br>
>>> them?<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:48 PM, C. G. Estabrook<br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:cge@shout.net" target="_blank">cge@shout.net</a><mailto: <a href="mailto:cge@shout.net" target="_blank">cge@shout.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> This is getting a bit creepy, Melodye.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Am I to understand that someone emailed you with observations<br>
>>> about my net worth - and you posted them - because of things<br>
>>> I'd written about politics?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Melodye Rosales wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Oops! Did I say a quarter of a million? I misspoke----someone<br>
>>> privately emailed to correct me------Correction to previous<br>
>>> email:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Silly me----I meant to say, more than a half-million<br>
>>> (conservative estimate) in C-U property alone ----add to that<br>
>>> personal assets, medical insurance packages from the University<br>
>>> times two, University pension packages times two---- So, I<br>
>>> guess that makes their combined package putting them in the (or<br>
>>> close to---or above) millionaires?<br>
>>><br>
>>> just clarifying...<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.