Hello Demitrius!

> > If your reasons are to
> >just 'get elected' then your gangplank is a yard shy of the boat.
> 
> Help me out here, Jim. I'm trying to visualize this; I thought the
> gangplank _started_ from the boat. Otherwise, wouldn't it just be a
> surfboard?! Jeeze, I haven't even been elected and already you have
> me "walking the plank". Where's my sword?

I didn't mean walking the plank, a gangplank simply reaches from boat 
to shore regardless of origin. 

> >> Now, allow me to state, for the record, my position on this (so
> >> called) moral/religion issue.
> >
> >'So called'? I believe you 'called it so':
> /msgid/01bd231b$c25b62a0$51b4d7cf(at)simone.genesisne
> tw ork.net
> 
> Nonononononono. Read it *again*!! I was *quoting* someone else!!!!
> I *DID NOT* refer to it as a moral/religion issue. I stated I
> thought it was a *legal* issue. I was referring to NetDay and child
> porn. I was referring to acknowledging that this is a real issue
> and if there were concerned parents present at NetDay, that perhaps
> the HWG could provide information on how a parent could protect
> their child from this.

OK, I'll take that at face value. But still see no recommendation as 
to how the HWG should actually do that.

> >Sorry about the wrap there, but you did start the Subject: of this
> >thread.
> 
> Wrong again, 

You replied to a message that carried a Subject: line of 'NetDay 
Endorsement'. I see no other msgs that support HWG involvement in 
'pornography control education'. You changed the thread to 
'Moral/religion issues' and supported that the HWG should do that.

How should the guild do that?

> correction breath. 

Can you spell 'personal attack'? Sure you can. [Mr. R] You can attack 
facts and opinions but personal attack is forbidden by 
/lists/rules.html#7.

> >No, you did not say -exactly- any of those things
> 
> I object to an argument (debate, counterpoint, whatever) that is
> based on restating the issue and then tying that issue to
> exaagerated assumptions in order to reder the original issue
> rediculous. That tactic will not work with me. I will call you on it
> every time.

But it is ridiculous. Unless of course you can describe how the HWG
could: "...the HWG could provide information on how a parent could
protect their child from this."

> >And please don't reply via email, I dropped that thread for the same
> >syllable-splitting. Post to the list or not at all. If you can't
> >answer a question without denying the question or asking three more
> >questions, then just say so.
> 
> Let me ask you a question...
> 
> ...I thought I *did* post to the list, didn't I? I also CC:'d you.

You did, and you didn't answer that question directly so I gave up. 
Have no idea why but can't find my or your posts in the archives.

Have a :) day!

jim barchuk
mailto:jb(at)jbarchuk.com
http://www.jbarchuk.com

HWG: hwg-elections mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA