In a message dated 11/30/2010 11:58:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Your recent postings have definitely been foolish.
You seem to be going
the way to misinterpret everyone's words in the worst possible light. Why
you assume the phrase donor is meant to be restricted to monetary
must you approach responses that are not full agreement with you as
obviously aren't on my ignore list, but frankly I am not sure how
this thread is of your general behavior. I guess I will know in a year or
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
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"
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