|
In Reply to: Re: To Joseph posted by Joseph on July 26, 2002 at 07:03:58:
I take issue with what your are saying because it's not what happened. You are now saying that: "The comment about Barney was in response to a message saying that someone should do something for the SGA's."
Your comment about Barney was an answer to some question you invented (I'm sorry if it sounds antagonistic but that is the way I see it and does not reflect any opinions I have of you). I had asked you:
"Talking about compassion, where is their compassion in actually DOING something to help the dozens, hundreds of displaced SGA's, or stranded families result of the hierarchy's decisions? Paraphrasing your own words:"
And this was referring to The Family as my previous paragraphs clearly show but instead of addressing it you took the question alone including exmembers into it, and pointed Barney as a good example. This is what your post said:
Posted by Joseph on July 23, 2002 at 17:00:49:
In Reply to: Re: Quote of the week posted by Miguel on July 23, 2002 at 14:58:53:
>Talking about compassion, where is their >compassion in actually DOING something to help >the dozens, hundreds of displaced SGA's, or >stranded families result of the hierarchy's >decisions? Paraphrasing your own words:
I know a guy like that. His name is Barney, and much of the ex-member community treats him like he's the devil.
Care to explain that one to me?
------------------
I refused to discuss your answer because it did not address the issue but other took the bait and off into a tanget.
So, if you don't want to talk about the original question under the original context, that's fine. You can set your own boundaries and topics but trying to modify the way things happened is incorrect. You have successfully moved the topic of conversation from some characteristics of Family members to what some exmembers are doing. Some people may not have noticed the difference but they are two differnt things.
