[bct] Re: why the replies?

  • From: Pam Quinn <quinn.family@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:07:12 -0600

Yes,  and now you've lowered yourself too. For one thing, the message
wasn't meant for the list, and for another, I appologized. And for
still another thing, Chris would be the one who has a right to talk
about the immaturity involved, yet he chose to be a much bigger person
about it. I know he realizes that I don't think he's an idiot, that
we've all been under a lot of pressure this weekend. No excuse, but he
was very nice about it and I appreciate that. 

I've seen several instances where people have appologized on this
list, and others who weren't even involved in the first place keep
attacking. So if you'll take your own advice, maybe there's hope for

As for me, whether it was meant for the list or not, I regretted it
the moment I fired it off. And other than appologizing for it, there's
really nothing I can do about it. Chris, once again, I'm sorry.


On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:13:45 -0600, you wrote:

>I find that you are just as bad as the person that started this problem by 
>calling others "idiots"
>You should be just as ashamed of yourself as the perpetrator of this whole 
>mess because you attacked another list member.
>I find your behavior immature and disgusting.
>Joseli Walter
>I'd say I've lost my sanity, but you can't loose what you never had to begin 
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Pam Quinn" <quinn.family@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:35 PM
>Subject: [bct] Re: why the replies?
>Yes, and whether I like it or not, I'm using another alternative. But
>the fact remains that the offending word needs to be stopped. If we
>lose a lot of list members over this because of the moron who started
>it, that's one thing. But those of you who have switched to other
>alternatives ought to know better than to reply to messages with
>subjects that will crash the computers of those who haven't. Let's not
>get to a point now where we're saying that if they haven't switched,
>that's their problem. I already know of a person who unsubscribed from
>this list and was a valuable contributor.
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:11:22 -0600, you wrote:
>>Hi Pam
>>But that's just it, you, and everybody else here, I'm willing to bet,
>>*does* have an alternative to eloquence. If you use Windows XP, you
>>have at least one Microsoft Sapi speech voice installed by default,
>>and more can always be downloaded for free. and if you're willing to
>>spend a bit of cash, you can buy Sapi voices from several different
>>websites.  So while the messages *are* extremely annoying, there are
>>alternatives, if you're willing to look for them.
>>At 09:02 PM 3/19/2006, you wrote:
>>>Hellooo? Please don't reply to the message with the offending words in
>>>it. The subject itself is crashing computers of people having no other
>>>alternatives other than Eloquence.
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.4/283 - Release Date: 3/16/2006

Other related posts: