|
In Reply to: Re: My two cents worth posted by Coordinator on September 09, 2003 at 14:58:20:
Ok, I'm back. I'm willing to bend a little here, so I'll throw out some options and you can see what you think.
First of all, the context of the statement in question is conditional. "But if Sam [doesn't apologise]..." I'm demonstrating that I am focussing on the behaviour, not the person. If Sam does some significant fence-mending, I am willing to forgive and forget.
But if he doesn't, I am not going to be in any mood to be charitable. The time for that is past.
As for "sewage," I think that in the context of advocating against the Family, many of Sam's comments do qualify as sewage. Not all, and here I am willing to bend. And I'm willing to qualify my statement by saying" ...Sam's views, many of which,in my opinion, are sewage." Something like that.
Sam had recently implied that someone who spoke out against him was a pedophile (me). He has publicly advocated for persecution in Russia, like the Argentine stuff, but without the excesses. He has dictated to SGAs in Russia what they should do when they leave the group and voluntarily out themselves to the authorities there. He has boasted repeatedly that he does not check up on his facts, he publishes what he hears, he knows little about the law and makes no effort to learn it. He publishes all sorts of lies about the people at Love's Bridge, naming christina and implying that she was masturbating on a Family video. This is for all the world to read!!!!
In my mind, in the context of advocating against the group, this is sewage. there is nothing good about it, it is waste, and belongs in the sewer.
If you are still uncomfortable with 'sewer,' then I'm willing to describe his views, always with the preface "in my view," as "poisonous." Does that help? "Cancerous" is another adjective that springs to mind.
Are we getting anywhere? Let me know which of these work for you, and I'll post an edited version. Then you can delete the original. My first deletion -- I'm so excited :)
Sam boasts of 'telling it like he sees it,' and he has done so on this board. Well, I'm exercising the same liberty, and I dare say that my comments are a lot more responsible and thought out than his. For the most part, I am not ashamed of what I write here. And as long as Sam chooses to persist in this reckless folly which is hurting innocent people, I will continue to denounce his views and methods in the strongest possible terms.
I reiterate that I bear no malice to management here. you're doing a great job, putting up with motormouths like me!
Get back to me on what works for you, ok?
