In a message dated 11/30/2010 11:58:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com writes:
> Your recent postings have definitely been foolish. You seem to be going
> out of
> the way to misinterpret everyone's words in the worst possible light. Why
> should
> you assume the phrase donor is meant to be restricted to monetary
> donations? Why
> must you approach responses that are not full agreement with you as
> combat? You
> obviously aren't on my ignore list, but frankly I am not sure how
> representative
> this thread is of your general behavior. I guess I will know in a year or
> so. >>
>
I disagree with your characterization "You seem to be going out of
the way to misinterpret everyone's words in the worst possible light."
Don't you find a sentence like that a bit extreme?
Have I really responded to everyone ? Have I really put every word in the
worst light?
In U.S. English "donor" in the content of a foundation means monetary. We
don't call volunteers who give their *time* donors, we simply call them
volunteers. If you are implying that "donor" in terms of a foundation, means
anyone who donates anything, I would suggest that is a non-standard
definition. Are you presuming that in the case of the original message "donor" meant
something else? I would suggest it did not.
I do not "approach responses that are not full agreement with [me] as comba
t". When a person directly attacks me, I respond. That is a normal
attitude in my opinion. I did not directly attack you, and yet you directly
attacked me. You mischaracterized my responses as "combat", a provocative word
meant to illicit negative responses and attitudes in the readership. Yet you
probably perceive this as a "fair" charge. My responses to attacks are
defensive responses, hardly fair to term these "combat".
Does your above response, seem like a logical course toward your goal?
Does it seem likely to lead to an outcome that you would consider fair and just
and rational?