![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:14:32 GMT, "cathy"
wrote: Nan, Not sure if anyone seen my lat post...but I wrote: Yes, I read it, and I stand by my assertions. Nan |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What assertions? that I am overreacting and claiming that people said things
that they didn't? Well Yes it certainly was said that I "primarily cater to stalkers", only it was Rich that said it and not Mark, which I apologized for. None the less it was said. And I was replying to your statement of "Nan" wrote in message Frankly, I find your knee-jerk jumping to erroneous conclusions troubling. SO how did I jump to conclusions erroneously? Wow, seems even though it was said and I was offended and tried to defend myself, and then was bashed for "jumping to conclusions" although it was said and I didn't jump to any conclusions, and then even had enough integrity and made a public apology to Mark, still not good enough. Seems people hear just want to stick by what they said no matter if they were wrong or not. Cathy "Nan" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:14:32 GMT, "cathy" wrote: Nan, Not sure if anyone seen my lat post...but I wrote: Yes, I read it, and I stand by my assertions. Nan |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:25:17 GMT, "cathy"
wrote: What assertions? that I am overreacting and claiming that people said things that they didn't? Er, no. That your site enables stalkers to find their victims. You know, instead of getting your back up about what strangers on usenet think of your business, you should put the energy you're putting here to defend yourself, into improving your business. Nan |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Come on, follow the thread. You jumped to conclusions when you equated
Internet pharmacies with drug dealers. "cathy" wrote in message ... What assertions? that I am overreacting and claiming that people said things that they didn't? Well Yes it certainly was said that I "primarily cater to stalkers", only it was Rich that said it and not Mark, which I apologized for. None the less it was said. And I was replying to your statement of "Nan" wrote in message Frankly, I find your knee-jerk jumping to erroneous conclusions troubling. SO how did I jump to conclusions erroneously? Wow, seems even though it was said and I was offended and tried to defend myself, and then was bashed for "jumping to conclusions" although it was said and I didn't jump to any conclusions, and then even had enough integrity and made a public apology to Mark, still not good enough. Seems people hear just want to stick by what they said no matter if they were wrong or not. Cathy "Nan" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:14:32 GMT, "cathy" wrote: Nan, Not sure if anyone seen my lat post...but I wrote: Yes, I read it, and I stand by my assertions. Nan |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yes, I suppose I shouldn't waste my time here on Usenet defending myself, I
should put my time and energy into improving my business which you have no clue about because you have never used it. Why don't you go ahead and give me some pointers since you know exactly what I need to do to improve with all your experience in the people search/detective business. How crazy/hard Nan is it to say, oh yes I'm sorry you did have a valid reason to get upset someone did say that you cater to stalkers PRIMARILY, I was wrong to say that your jumping to conclusions???? I certainly did say I am sorry to Mark for blaming him for saying something that was not him. Can't win, I guess your word is gold. Please do send my some tips who to improve my business which you have never used and you know exactly where improvements need to be made Nan...please "Nan" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:25:17 GMT, "cathy" wrote: What assertions? that I am overreacting and claiming that people said things that they didn't? Er, no. That your site enables stalkers to find their victims. You know, instead of getting your back up about what strangers on usenet think of your business, you should put the energy you're putting here to defend yourself, into improving your business. Nan |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Patty, no...it all began when I was blamed for "catering to stalkers", I was
already UPSET at that statement when Mark had said he ranked me up with the internet pharmacies. "PattyMomVA" wrote in message ... Come on, follow the thread. You jumped to conclusions when you equated Internet pharmacies with drug dealers. "cathy" wrote in message ... What assertions? that I am overreacting and claiming that people said things that they didn't? Well Yes it certainly was said that I "primarily cater to stalkers", only it was Rich that said it and not Mark, which I apologized for. None the less it was said. And I was replying to your statement of "Nan" wrote in message Frankly, I find your knee-jerk jumping to erroneous conclusions troubling. SO how did I jump to conclusions erroneously? Wow, seems even though it was said and I was offended and tried to defend myself, and then was bashed for "jumping to conclusions" although it was said and I didn't jump to any conclusions, and then even had enough integrity and made a public apology to Mark, still not good enough. Seems people hear just want to stick by what they said no matter if they were wrong or not. Cathy "Nan" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:14:32 GMT, "cathy" wrote: Nan, Not sure if anyone seen my lat post...but I wrote: Yes, I read it, and I stand by my assertions. Nan |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , cathy says...
Nan, Not sure if anyone seen my lat post...but I wrote: Nan didn't answer your last post, since this discussion wasn't going anywhere (that's how these USENET discussion often end), so now you're back to stoke the very last gleaming coals of this fire? Cathy, I've only been a spectator on this, but I must say that this kind of defensiveness and obsessiveness doesn't give me much confidence in your judgement. And good judgement, at the very least, is what's needed to get into the kind of business you are gettting into. Banty -- |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , cathy says... Nan, Not sure if anyone seen my lat post...but I wrote: Nan didn't answer your last post, since this discussion wasn't going anywhere (that's how these USENET discussion often end), so now you're back to stoke the very last gleaming coals of this fire? Cathy, I've only been a spectator on this, but I must say that this kind of defensiveness and obsessiveness doesn't give me much confidence in your judgement. And good judgement, at the very least, is what's needed to get into the kind of business you are gettting into. Banty -- |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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, OK, I saw it. Now, back to my boat. The weather forecast stinks for this weekend. 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. "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , cathy says... Nan, Not sure if anyone seen my lat post...but I wrote: Nan didn't answer your last post, since this discussion wasn't going anywhere (that's how these USENET discussion often end), so now you're back to stoke the very last gleaming coals of this fire? Cathy, I've only been a spectator on this, but I must say that this kind of defensiveness and obsessiveness doesn't give me much confidence in your judgement. And good judgement, at the very least, is what's needed to get into the kind of business you are gettting into. Banty -- |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |