Why is it Doc's duty to take crap from people that attack others on this list?

[Guest guest]

healingenergies-

essentialskills , " geminitrader " <geminitrader

wrote:

> This is a public forum (at least insofar as people remain on your

good side it seems) and

> Lillie is a big girl. She posted here knowing that it opened her

up to a variety of remarks

> from a variety of people; some of whome might not agree with her.

Better to have met

> this lady with compassion than to have thrown a vague " test " at

her and then belittle her

> for not responding. Not everyone will pick up on the idea that an

aggressive email is really

> an all-important test in disguise.

>

> I never learned the art of communicating in a concise manner

(obviously ), but to sum

> up, I think you over-reacted.

>

> *braces for firestorm*

 

I don't know about a firestorm but I am curious to where you think

Doc was aggressive in his reply to her. I've included it below. I

personally think that you are throwing stones at the Doc for reasons

of your own. I've no clue what your reasons are. Doc does state in

his introductory letter to all that join, " no personal attacks " , and

Janice did purposefully do personal attacks.

What Doc did was attempt to privately give her his guidelines for

posting. She came back with " how many woman have you fucked " . That

does seem that she viciously attacked him.

Granted Janice has a problem. I'm curious why you think that it's

Doc's fault, or Doc's duty to solve it for her? No where did I see

aggression on Doc's part. Maybe you should look at your own mind

reads. Talking about mind reads, you do know that Doc is

accomplished at Remote viewing? Maybe he saw something that you do

not see and got rid of the problem before it escalated?

William

 

> > ---------------------

> > <message #2, is my private post to that lady>

> > Hello Janice,

> >

> > It seems to me that you are attacking Lillie WITHOUT any

> > provocation, and NOT answering the original question.

> >

> > Then you attack this list saying, " not having much to offer on

this

> > list " .

> >

> > If you disagree with Lillie, please give reasons and specifics.

If

> > you want to talk about YOUR version of " loser's limp " , that's

fine,

> > give reasons, specifics, and maybe a way to help them.

> >

> > If you want to attack me, or this list, give reasons, specifics

and

> > verification processes.

> >

> > Thank you.

> >

> > ----------------------------

> > <message #3 is her response to my private suggestions>

> >

> > Not everyone in life will make a success of it, or be successful

in

> > what they do. I should have thought you'd know that. Obviously,

there's nothing I can

> say about that. We live in different worlds, no doubt.

> >

> > If someone is losing out, and they keep smiling, and they

continue to lose out, they will

> die with no one knowing they lost out. If people keep smiling even

when the world's gone

> wrong, and they keep silent, no one will ever know. Of course, if

they smile, and then life

> gets better, it all makes sense, but I will tell you this, where I

live, you don't get ahead

> unless you let them fuck you.

> >

> > And as long as a woman doesn't say no, she is likely to be

unaware of how she got

> ahead in life. So how many ex's does Lillie have. And how many

girls have you fucked.

> >

> > Janice McFee

> >

> > ------------------------

> >

> > Well group,

> >

> > Not much to say with an attitude like that, is there?

> >

> > Especially in a public forum.

> >

> > Sort of off topic when vented in that manner.

> >

> > Now, what manner could Janice have commented the EXACT SAME

THINGS but been

> within the boundaries of politeness and respect towards Lillie,

and towards this group?

> >

> > And the topic of HATE is also allowed on this group.

> >

> > A neat topic, especially regarding PROPULSION SYSTEMS...

> >

> > ...And regarding BLACK BOXES that hold you back.

> >

> > Feel free to post your comments, suggestions, etc.

> >

> >

> > ps. Would I take this person on as a private client? Well,

probably NOT. Why not?

> Because I always test a person for what they want, and then I test

for them doing what is

> necessary to acquire the skills they need to get to where they

want to go. She failed the

> test. Did you notice where I tested her, and how she failed the

test? Look again. It's in the

> above.

> >

>