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

[Damien Mathew]

interestED, not interestING.  But, you get the idea.

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Damien Mathew <damien.mathew at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/20100328/9c63dac1/attachment-0001.html>