 |
 |
Hi janet paterson <[log in to unmask]>, you wrote: >i have a right to express my feelings and opinions >on this forum as much as you do I agree entirely: possibly MORE right, as you contribute more than me. >i may find other's expressions of same, unattractive or hysterical, >but that would only be my opinion As was mine. > >i have no right to attempt to restrict those expressions >and neither do you agreed > >if you were to review my posts on the subject >you might find that the concealment of mark hughes' financial interest >is what was the main concern I recall it well, without needing the review. > >i have discerned no censorship on anyone's part except possibly yours >in your objection to my posting my opinions > I've always been a touch outspoken. No doubt it is irritating (and unattractive?) to others :-) >i pointed out directions to mark's websites; >and mark's past messages are on record for all to review > >if he chooses not to post any further messages >that is his decision > >i detest dishonesty >if that makes me righteously indignant in your eyes so be it No, I do too. However, what I read (in the Digest) was a spate of messages building on yours which appeared to get increasingly emotional in their terminology. I'll illustrate the point in a separatee, and hopefully humorous, message. > >i made no effort to make up anyone's mind for them >and i would vehemently resist any such action toward me > >this medium is the ultimate democratic forum >that is what i consider the miracle Agreed. Let's be friends, not just cyber-siblings. There just isn't enough DIEM to CARPE! :-) -- Jeremy Browne - [log in to unmask] Hampshire, UK