In a message dated 11/30/2010 11:58:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, birgitte_sb@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?