 |
 |
hi wendy; i considered not responding to your message since most of it seems to repeat earier statements of yours but, for clarity's sake, here goes: At 06:24 1998/11/16 -0700, you wrote: >Don't get me wrong everybody. I agree that >people should perhaps be confronted at times. my 'radar' is maybe more finely tuned than some others due to three intense years of 'etherization' and multiple huckster exposures i rarely 'confront' anyone unless i sense dishonesty and an attempt to mislead myself and my friends on this list >It's the manner in which it's being >done that offends me personally. as i said earlier, i regret that you choose to view my actions in that way i do not regret any of my actions >Like I said, I appreciate Janet's work in following >up on alot of these claims, however, I would >appreciate only being supplied with the relevant >information, such as the web site address in this >case where the products are supposedly being sold. you 'would appreciate only being supplied with...' ?? 'supplied with' by whom? sorry, wendy, that ain't my job! [and david oller certainly wasn't forthcoming with this information] as i said to you earlier, my 'digging' was only for my own benefit; and i will not provide free advertising for anyone whom i think is deliberately concealing their financial interest >I prefer to rely on my own judgement rather than >someone else's interpretation of the facts. good! the search facilities of the net are open to all >Whether Janet or someone else decides to follow through on >these things, I think it would be appropriate simply to voice >one's concerns in a general manner, give the evidence found >that supports them, and that would be enough. i will do and say what i feel is appropriate for me regardless of the opinions of others i would never dream of telling anyone else what they should do or say [unless asked] >I really don't think it's necessary to try to >publically humiliate people in this manner. If their >intentions are in doubt, the very fact that the evidence >was given public display should discourage them. my carefully considered conclusion was that financial interests were being deliberately concealed thus that david oller was being dishonest with us / me i asked him to prove me wrong i asked him to reveal his purpose in joining this list if any 'public humiliation' is going on here i think it might be self-inflicted >if their intentions are more honorable, >then they will hang in there, if they are >not so rudely welcomed to the list. if their intentions are honourable they will answer direct questions honestly i.e. one 'santalady' misunderstanding here recently i regret that you interpret my messages as 'rude' i consider them 'frank' and 'challenging' >There are also ways to confront people without resorting >to the sort of behavior that I've been seeing. It's one >thing to dispute someone's claims, but I think it's another >thing altogether to presume to know their motives and integrity >and to attack them in this manner. I don't know, but to me it >seems like how kids argue something, "So you SAY that this is >true, well PROVE it to me," etc. Some of the questions being >asked are none of our business, frankly, and some of them can't >be proven as is being demanded. this is not a 'public' message posting place this is not a news-group it is a restricted access e-mailing list of subscribed members who have sought and found a 'safe' place to express their fears / joys with people who understand their struggles; a place where honesty rules [has to rule] [i hope] >It also seems to me as tho' opinion was already been biased >against the person before they were ever exposed. The questioning, >by the way it's being presented, is being done from a tone which >already presumes the person's guilt and really leaves no room open >for this person to prove otherwise, no matter how they respond. >It seems to me that no matter they reply, it'll be unacceptable. >One can confront without prejudging the answers to be received. i believe i have covered all this ground in earlier messages i based my conclusion on my own findings i have asked a direct question and i await the answer >Besides, there's alot of crap out there, pesticides, >household chemicals, drugs, junk food, etc., that we >all pay alot of money for, and which is ten times more >dangerous to our health, and in some ways more. Because >it's so widespread and so accepted, people rarely question >its use or the motives of the companies who manufacture >this stuff, etc. I personally feel very strongly about >the use of pesticides. They are probably more of a threat >to us all who are prone to PD, that alot of other things. >I don't see too many people attacking the chemical companies >with this same vigor as they go for "snake-oil" salesmen. i fail to see how all of this is relevant my concern, as stated several times before, and apparently ignored, is the dishonest method of presentation nothing to do with the product >It was also said that sometimes individuals get the >brunt of the attacks rather than the big companies, >cuz at least we know where we can go if we have a >beef with a big company and probably be compensated, >whereas we probably can't with an individual. yes, this 'was said' by our cyber-sibling ken becker >To an extent this is true, but not completely. Sometimes >people won't take on industries like the pesticide industry, >because it is so entrenched. Some of these industries have >even tried sueing anyone who speaks out against them in >order to shut them up (take Oprah and the beef industry for >example, altho' there are many more relevant examples too). the types of companies you mention have at least had to comply with legal checks and standards set in place for the public good by their relevant governments meaning you, wendy, and me >So, just as an investigative newspaper reporter would >follow up on some disputed issue and supposedly present >the facts without drawing conclusions, I feel that this >is the way these issues should also be handled. i am not a 'reporter' being paid to 'investigate' anything i am a cyber-sibling of yours in this cyber-family who feels compelled to follow her nose i have drawn my own conclusions from my own findings based on my own experiences i have asked a direct question of a cyber-sibling and am still awaiting an answer [in my experience, this 'stonewalling' is only further evidence that my conclusions are correct] >All we need is the relevant info found in >the investigation, and we can then all make >up our own minds in an unbiased manner. exactly! this is exactly what i have done! and since almost all of us have access to the internet we can each do our own digging as we feel we 'need' to your cyber-sibling in archy-ology janet janet paterson - 51/41/37 - almonte/ontario/canada http://www.newcountry.nu/pd/members/janet/ [log in to unmask]