[Rhodes22-list] therapeutic reply to Todd that the rest of oucan skip(FOU
BenCittadino
bencittadino at gmail.com
Mon Feb 15 18:20:47 EST 2010
"All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take
on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it
is all give and no take."
Mohandas Gandhi
or
"Big trouble for Moose and Squirrel."
Boris Badinov
BenC
R22RumRunner wrote:
>
> Stan,
> Do you think it's possible that I've picked up a little bit of your logic
> after all these years??? Now that's a frightening thought. Me thinking
> like
> Stan? Yikes. I think I need another drink. And then possibly another one.
>
> Rummy
>
>
> In a message dated 2/15/2010 9:48:22 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> stan at rhodes22.com writes:
>
> Rummy,
>
> I think you are onto something but someone has to keep this company
> afloat
> in the meantime for all the prior posted good reasons.
>
> let me know when you are available. the way you so clearly defined
> "foul",
> I am sure you are going to be able to make my points much clearer than I
> ever will.
>
> ss
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <R22RumRunner at aol.com>
> To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 8:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] therapeutic reply to Todd that the rest of
> oucan skip(FOUL)
>
>
>> Stan,
>>
>> I'm declaring a "foul". Any post over two weeks old on the list without
>> rebuttal has automatically expired. If you can't read your email and
>> respond
>> within the list term limits, you really can't have a valid argument due
> to
>> the fluctuation of the paraphernalia and the resistance to the
>> co-resistance.
>>
>> Rummy
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 2/14/2010 6:11:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> sloopblueheron at gmail.com writes:
>>
>> Stan,
>>
>> For those of us who are hero worshiping impaired, which George Bush was
>> that?
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 5:19 PM, stan <stan at rhodes22.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Todd,
>>>
>>> In your e-mail of 1/20/10 you say, "don't bring me into this", "don't
>> put
>>> words in my mouth" and sign "straight shooter". So I know you will
>> allow
>>> me the sport, fun and right of follow up, checking how on or off
>>> target
>> you
>>> may be:
>>>
>>> "don't bring me into this". Too late You already brought yourself
>>> into
>>> our holistic issues with your prior e-mails.
>>>
>>> In your e-mail of 12/29/09 you say I said that, "membership to this
> list
>> be
>>> conditional upon agreement to giving GB a 5% commission". I do not
>> recall
>>> ever saying this. If you can show me that quote I will apologize to
> the
>>> List. If you cannot, I would expect your apology to the List for
>>> putting
>>> words in my mouth.
>>>
>>> In other e-mails inserting yourself in the fray, you posted that it is
>> Art
>>> who is being (your words) "vilified and berated". Come on straight
>> shooter,
>>> you know the fact is it is GB who is being harassed by Art not
>>> following
>>> the rule of law and breaking agreements and that it is GB who
> presented
>>> a
>>> proposal of resolution that, as far as I know, Art has ignored.
>>> Until
>> this
>>> matter is equitably resolved it will keep coming up. And, until
>> resolved,
>>> GB's response to calls of help from GB, will be per George Bush's,
>>> "You
>> are
>>> either with us or against us" - we feel that betrayed.
>>>
>>> We will not bring you in (unless you ask) to any future give and take
> on
>>> the issues of GB's value to re-sales or the List's well being;. We
>>> know
>>> that in your humble opinion the GB position is "insane" and that in
> GB's
>>> humble opinion GB's contributions to the demand and price level of
>> re-sales
>>> and the List's growth and longevity, are priceless - that something
> like
>> the
>>> 5% "loyalty/royalty" notion is a mad bargain. Of course the fact
>>> that
>> you
>>> and I are at the productive end of these 2 issues does not mean I will
>> not
>>> enjoy further debate with anyone else who is still not clear on the
>>> arguments or even the analogies like the "Shakers", now that I am
>> adopting
>>> my new hero's position on basic survival conflicts of "Bring it on".
>>>
>>> stan/gbi
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe go to
>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/mailman/listinfo/rhodes22-list
>>>
>>> For the list Charter and help with using the mailing list and archives
>
>>> go
>>> to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/mailman/listinfo/rhodes22-list
>>
>> For the list Charter and help with using the mailing list and archives
> go
>> to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/mailman/listinfo/rhodes22-list
>>
>> For the list Charter and help with using the mailing list and archives
> go
>> to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/mailman/listinfo/rhodes22-list
>
> For the list Charter and help with using the mailing list and archives go
> to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/mailman/listinfo/rhodes22-list
>
> For the list Charter and help with using the mailing list and archives go
> to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-therapeutic-reply-to-Todd-that-the-rest-of-oucan-skip%28FOU-tp27595649p27601626.html
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list