Message
Mike,
I think the point Kevin is trying to make is that you strayed off-topic
telling your tire story. You sent entire messages with no
multipointing content at all.
Yet a few weeks ago when a quote was posted to the list (I think by
Lowell?), you questioned its relevance because it had no multipointing content
at all. There was no difference, and some on the list see it as being
quite hypocritical.
Now you contradict yourself in this message saying that everything is
allowed, but being on point and "being true to the purpose of the group" is also
important.
Well, which is it? It can't be both. Most lists like ours
stray off-topic from time to time and I don't see this one as any
different. There's no reason people should not feel free to post a link or
text about a tangental piece not directly related to borders and/or
multipointing.
No personal offense meant to you, but I understand why the argument is
made.
Brendan
Monroeville, PA USA
---
In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Meynell
<knm@m...>
wrote:
> Mike,
>
> >maybe these points were missed because
their names were
unfamiliar to
> >newer members
>
>
Your admirable multipointing credentials have never been in
question.
yes i agree
so thats not what this is about
good
The
> question is whether there is any scope in this group to provide
some
> context as to why multipoints exist in the first
place
good question
i would think so
& i for one would be quite
interested in learning why they do exist
in the first
place
excellent
, or even to add
> occasional humorous
anecdotes about those things that
thwart our quest?
interesting
please clarify what you mean by
our quest
&
also what you mean by
those things that thwart it
It
> would
seem this is allowed for certain members of the group,
but not others
> despite the much-vaunted personal sovereignty of each of
us.
wait
to me it seems everything is equally allowed here for
all
indeed the whole world is equally free for all
isnt
it
& that proposition must apply especially to bp & this our most
beloved everyones land
dont you think
so i really dont know what
you are talking about here kevin
nor do i think group consensus has
anything to do with it
being on point & on target has everything to
do with it
being true to the purpose of the group has everything to do
with it
& members who are both slobbery about that & voluble as
well
& then negatively oriented on top of all that
do tend to make a
laughing stock of themselves
for being so persistently off the
beam
& i am here equally as free as you to enjoy it all with
you
& my questions really are my questions
& i wish you
would really answer some of them
the consistency is already provided
by cosmic law
& it is already very nice
as well as very empowering to
know
you get what you vibrate
I'm happy to
> live
with the group consensus on this, but it would be nice to
have some
>
consistency.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kevin
Meynell