[Peace-discuss] [Discuss] [CentralILJwJ] Fw: Fw: What hath got rot?

[Damien Mathew]

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.

Damien Mathew.

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 2:55 AM, C. G. Estabrook <cge at shout.net> wrote:

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

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100328/da32c763/attachment.html>