Justice Watch Support JW "Dear Mame 2" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Dear Mame 2, ibnora, 12:31:14, 10/01/2000 #1, v_p, 12:44:54, 10/01/2000, (#1) Seems to me..., Ginja, 13:13:35, 10/01/2000, (#2) And another thing..., Ginja, 13:21:10, 10/01/2000, (#3) The perfect example, Ruthee, 13:33:07, 10/01/2000, (#4) well..Ruthee.., Dianne E., 13:48:00, 10/01/2000, (#6) Nice post, ibnora, Gemini, 13:46:00, 10/01/2000, (#5) what the hey.., Dianne E., 13:53:18, 10/01/2000, (#7) Gemini and Ginja, starry, 14:07:39, 10/01/2000, (#8) Ruthee, Ginja, and Gemini, fly, 15:21:14, 10/01/2000, (#9) well well well, MerlCat, 15:27:07, 10/01/2000, (#10) Fly, Gemini, 15:41:11, 10/01/2000, (#11) Merlcat, rico, 16:29:54, 10/01/2000, (#12) I did find the, MerlCat, 17:39:57, 10/01/2000, (#13) Checkmate!, Greenleaf, 18:57:17, 10/01/2000, (#14) Whew....., eedayspa, 19:11:14, 10/01/2000, (#15) All of this over nothing, Ruthee, 20:24:45, 10/01/2000, (#16) Different strokes, Watching you, 07:12:58, 10/02/2000, (#17) WY, Chart, 07:45:23, 10/02/2000, (#18) Watching You, momo, 08:17:36, 10/02/2000, (#19) please.., Dianne E., 08:44:41, 10/02/2000, (#20) Well, whatever, Dianne E, Watching you, 08:46:58, 10/02/2000, (#21) Greenleaf: as I have become a fan of your writings..., Dunvegan, 09:15:00, 10/02/2000, (#22) Dunvegan , Greenleaf, 10:45:50, 10/02/2000, (#23) Watching You, Real Stormy, 11:16:41, 10/02/2000, (#24) Hissssssss, Watching you, 11:43:01, 10/02/2000, (#25) Yes, Watching You, Real Stormy, 12:15:36, 10/02/2000, (#26) RS, Watching you, 12:33:50, 10/02/2000, (#27) 'Ya know, China, 20:32:39, 10/02/2000, (#28) Well, no, Chris, Real Stormy, 22:08:41, 10/02/2000, (#34) Real Stormy....., Pedro, 22:59:27, 10/02/2000, (#35) Well....., Pedro, 21:17:17, 10/02/2000, (#30) Real Stormy, Morgan, 21:02:57, 10/02/2000, (#29) Morgan...., Pedro, 21:19:14, 10/02/2000, (#31) Morgan...., Pedro, 21:22:19, 10/02/2000, (#32) Oh Morgan, Real Stormy, 21:56:07, 10/02/2000, (#33) Pedro, RiverRat, 06:35:09, 10/03/2000, (#36) Pedro, Real Stormy, 07:01:43, 10/03/2000, (#37) Just a suggestion, Ruthee, 08:26:44, 10/03/2000, (#38) Well, Ruthee, Real Stormy, 12:34:50, 10/03/2000, (#44) My son, Ev, 10:26:23, 10/03/2000, (#41) How bout another suggestion....., Sailer, 10:07:54, 10/03/2000, (#39) Hey Sailer, Watching you, 10:15:37, 10/03/2000, (#40) Wait a minute!, Sailer, 11:53:27, 10/03/2000, (#42) Nope, Watching you, 12:23:08, 10/03/2000, (#43) ok, Sailer, 14:18:08, 10/03/2000, (#45) Ahh, Sailer..., Slinky, 05:12:26, 10/04/2000, (#46) ................................................................... "Dear Mame 2" Posted by ibnora on 12:31:14 10/01/2000 Dear Mame 2 After spending a glorious day and early evening in the Napa Valley visiting the Oxbow school for the second time, and being a special guest at the The di Rosa Art and Nature Preserve I was delighted to see that Mame had finally had the opportunity and taken the time out of her busy schedule to respond to the original questions posed. I thank you very much Mame, however, I must say, I was disappointed to see that the original questions were not, in my mind, answered. see Dear Mame (thread 1): http://www.justicewatch.com/jw/jonbenet/286.html For those who care, [grassroots journalism students please take note] I have reproduced below a copy of the Principles on the Conduct of Journalists as adopted by the International Federation of Journalists. I have called special attention to Tenet #8. INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF JOURNALISTS Source: Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists, 1954/1986 IFJ Declaration on Principles on the Conduct of Journalists The Second World Congress of the International Federation of Journalists, at Bordeaux, April 25-28, 1954, adopted the following declaration, which was amended by the 18th IFJ World Congress, Helsingor, June 2-6, 1986. The Pacific Journalists' Association, Fiji Journalists' Association, PNG Journalists' Association, Journalists branch of the NZ Engineers, Print and Media Union, and the Australian Journalists' Association section of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance are affiliated to the IFJ which is the major international body of journalists with more than 400,000 members. However, the Pacific Islands News Association and its affiliates are not linked to the IFJ. 1.Respect for the truth and for the right of the public to truth is the first duty of the journalist. 2.In pursuance of this duty, the journalist shall at all times defend the principles of freedom in the honest collection and publication of news, and of the right of fair comment and criticism. 3.The journalist shall report only in accordance with the facts of which he/she knows the origin. The journalist shall not suppress essential information or falsify documents. 4.The journalist shall use only fair methods to obtain news, photographs and documents. 5.The journalist shall do the utmost to rectify any published information which is found to be harmfully inaccurate. 6.The journalist shall observe professional secrecy regarding the source of information obtained in coinfidence. 7.The journalist shall be aware of the danger of discrimination being furthered by the media, and shall do the utmost to avoid facilitating such discrimnination based on, among other things, race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, and national or social origins. 8.The journalist shall regard as grave professional offences the following: plagiarism; malicious misrepresentation; calumny [ibnora note: calumny means the act of uttering false charges or misrepresentations maliciously calculated to damage another's reputation], slander, libel, unfounded accusations; the acceptance of a bribe in any form in consideration of either publication or suppression. 9.Journalists worthy of that name shall deem it their duty to observe faithfully the principles stated above. Within the general law of each country the journalists shall recognise in professional matters the jurisdiction of colleagues only, to the exclusion of every kind of interference by governments or others. http://www.sidsnet.org/pacific/usp/journ/docs/ethics/ifj.html **** I would hope that this explains some of the concerns I and I assume others have had with statements made by you Mame. For me, it is not a personal issue, it is an issue of responsible and ethical journalism. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "#1" Posted by v_p on 12:44:54 10/01/2000 1.Respect for the truth and for the right of the public to truth is the first duty of the journalist. Nuff said. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Seems to me..." Posted by Ginja on 13:13:35 10/01/2000 ...you've all lost your marbles! :-) Could someone be so kind as to point me to the publication where Mame's byline represents the libelous article? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "And another thing..." Posted by Ginja on 13:21:10 10/01/2000 ...while I'm thinking of it. Thanks to whomever for posting the journalist's code. As noted in my post above, it bears to published journalist's writings. Yet Mame "wings" it solely for the benefit of posters' consideration, and instead of taking the information and applying it however, you toss it aside and attack the poster. Are these the same minds who ignore the laws of Colorado as to parents murdering their child, and instead of understanding the conundrum faced by Boulder officials, ridicule them instead, accusing them of being part and parcel of widespread conspiracies and obstruction of justice? Get out of the attack mode. At least in the personal tenor. Instead of attacking each other, or authorities, attack the laws themselves. Figure out a way to apply the law to JonBenet's murderers, and make it stick. Stop licking your paws and make your intelligence work FOR JonBenet, not AGAINST her! Put the solution on a silver platter and hand it over to the authorities. Get justice. Real justice. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "The perfect example" Posted by Ruthee on 13:33:07 10/01/2000 There's an easy way and a hard way. We are again asked to take the hard way. The insturctions are to take a trip to the Library of Congress and learn who was Mame's father. Will the person who claims to know, just tell me. Why can't information come forth in a simple and direct manner? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "well..Ruthee.." Posted by Dianne E. on 13:48:00 10/01/2000 ..first you must research to make sure before you go to do your research if you are looking for mames dad or step-dad? I do believe whoever you are looking for is dead though. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dianne E. ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Nice post, ibnora" Posted by Gemini on 13:46:00 10/01/2000 Maybe the Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists should be posted more often to remind us all when we consider the words and actions of ALL journalists. Maybe we could send Peter Boyles a copy. Oh yeah ... he isn't a journalist, is he? :-) So! A new feeding frenzy, eh (origin thread)? Wha'hoppened? Did PR and JR get rancid? Time to butcher and bleed out new meat? No ... that does not mean I agree with making unfounded accusations against FW, or anyone for that matter ... tho it goes on here all the time. No ... that does not mean I agree with the (very inappropriate) threads that have been created in connection with the FW/MW subject matter. But, there's no really good excuse for the bully (thug?) tactics, either. Ibnora's post was fair. I kept reading along, also hoping her questions would be answered. When they weren't, there was room for some good, valid commentary. But, no ... the mob mentality prevailed and turned the thread into a bloody mess. I can easily see how mame might feel a little confused. A.K. routinely does some of the same things mame has done ... dropping unsubstantiated bits and pieces of information, hinting at all kinds of inside knowledge, leading folks down a weedy garden path. Yet, no one calls her on it (tho Edie did give it a go at one time :-) ) and insists she elaborate. With mame, the tactics change. Some of you won't allow her to post anything alluding to choice, private information without riding her and shoving her until she attempts to satisfy the blood-lust ... thereby, oft-times, cutting her own throat. That isn't a sign of evil ... just inexperience at the art of the (A.K. perfected) side-step. The grazing flock has, once again, devolved into a rabid pack. Yuck! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "what the hey.." Posted by Dianne E. on 13:53:18 10/01/2000 ..no one went looking for mame, SHE was the one who posted some things that have been called into question. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dianne E. ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Gemini and Ginja" Posted by starry on 14:07:39 10/01/2000 I wish everyone had youse guys sense and decency. Over and out. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Ruthee, Ginja, and Gemini" Posted by fly on 15:24:53 10/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:24:53, 10/01/2000 Ruthee - Exactly. Also, having the guy's name would be rather helpful if we're supposed to do research, don't you think? I know you might be intuitive enough to get it through psychic means, but I know I'm not. Ginja - You've got a point about that libelous article. Might be kind of hard proving libel when the person in question hasn't published any articles, as far as I can tell -- unless you count posting on forums publishing. However, notice that those journalistic principles do mention slander, and I assume they were intended not only for print journalists but also for TV/radio journalists. However, I suspect that the reason for posting those journalistic principles was to show that concern for the truth and checking one's facts prior to publication is, indeed, part of the job. The discussion wasn't really directed toward proving mame commited libel (or slander). I do agree with you, though, that uproars like the one the past couple of days gets us nowhere. Of course, I seriously doubt that anybody here is going to advance justice in any signicant way, in any case. Gemini - It's true that some people get to slip in their insinuations and inside source comments without getting grilled as much as mame has this time. It's also true that the discussion has gotten nastier than it needs to be -- from both sides. Frustration leads to hostility, though, and there's plenty to be frustrated about from several different directions. Let's look back at this whole episode. Lacey lobbed a mudball that probably shouldn't have been lobbed. (Lacey - it is OK to pass up an opportunity to send a personal zinger somebody's way.) Mame had every right to lob one back, but it should have been lobbed at Lacey, not making accusations about FW and, as many people interpreted it, unspecified JW posters's lack of integrity. That is the sort of thing that is certain to take the situation from two people trying to incinerate each other, to a whole squadron of folks spraying the entire town with napalm. Add another condescending "journalism for dummies" lecture, and you're on the brink of forum nuclear war. I think mame is quite expert at the fine art of side-stepping (often completely out of the scene, leaving others to fight her battles, in fact). However if mame is not totally proficient, as you suggest, it isn't from lack of practice. Like you suggested - she still hasn't addressed those original questions, preferring instead to launch into a discussion of MW and then citing legal advice to not get specific. Been there, done that. That's why the frustration, and thus hostility, level is so high, I think, and partly why people are quicker to jump mame for these sorts of offenses. I'm not saying the hostility is appropriate or good. We all need to try to keep that in check more. We also need to think before posting, pausing to ask themselves whether the post is worthwhile, if we are willing to back up what we say, suffer the flames the post might produce, and be responsible for starting (or continuing) another flamefest at JW if our posts are likely to be controversial. Edited to correct a typo [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "well well well" Posted by MerlCat on 15:27:07 10/01/2000 since the first thread has mysteriously vanished, guess this thread is a moot point? and the beat goes on...... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Fly" Posted by Gemini on 15:41:11 10/01/2000 Yep, the journalistic side-step is alive and well on the forums. Mud-balls aren't a biggie, and I don't think Lacey's jabs are major considerations when compared to the group-lunge. So, a lot of us don't agree with mame's input. So fine ... we don't HAVE to agree. Neither do we have to form a pack and indulge in a gang-bash. People often feel frustrated about any number of things, but are able to remain civil. Then, I'm sure you're right ... others don't have that saving grace. Loved your comparison on the daily :-) . Another might be the old joke ... "the villagers are revolting!" "yes, they are." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Merlcat" Posted by rico on 16:29:54 10/01/2000 the first thread is in the archives. As far as this being a moot point, what's left to debate? Ibnora asked for clarification on serious allegations brought to this forum by mame; she refuses (or can't justify) to act in good faith. If people don't see the malice and harm in posting unfounded allegations against another human being with a family (just like mame)who is NOT suspected by public officials of any crime, then why call this forum "Justice Watch"? "Mean-spirited" and "nasty"? I would rather belong to a forum that critically questioned any such outlandish information, regardless of the poster, than some suck-up fan fest for a small clique. Thank God posters like Lacey are here with the courage to sound the bs alarm bells. Her prose may offend some but at least she's concerned with the truth. And what of ibnora? When I first came to this forum ib and lizzieb were the best sources of FACTS that I could rely on; so she respectfully asks mame to stand by her post and mame takes exception. Too transparent. I've been flamed, corrected, challenged, etc. and I'm still here; like some posts, disagree with others and always speak my mind. Most of the reasonable and intelligent members here understand this isn't personal so if mame won't stand behind her posts with FACTS and EVIDENCE why shouldn't posters call her on it? So run away to another forum mame; you burned your own bridges. You are wrong and lack the strength of character to admit as much. Back to the real case. JfJBR rico [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "I did find the" Posted by MerlCat on 17:39:57 10/01/2000 thread in the archives, thanks rico :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Checkmate!" Posted by Greenleaf on 18:57:17 10/01/2000 Many years ago, a new family moved into the neighborhood. The mother was a grammar school teacher, the father was a CEO at a local paper company and their only child was a little girl. The mother, I'll call Babs, was soon discovered to be a big gossiper. When she started loosing her credibility, she commenced adding little hints of her "inside connections" to everybody from the Mayor wife to the Bishop's butler. If there was any kind of scandal in town, both Babs and her husband, miraculously knew details the public was not privy to. Of course, she was related to several famous people. When particularly salacious scandals arose, from the mouth of Babs, we would sometimes call her hand, demanding proof. At such times, she would either deny she ever said the quotes in question, or she would change the subject. Once, when she was threatened with a libel suit, she kept her trap shut for the entire summer months. Babs is now an old lady. She has mellowed, but still loves to blab imaginary tales about people in the area. No one pays much attention to her anymore, and she hasn't aged very gracefully. Nevertheless, at the drop of a hat, she'll let you know that she is a very important person, with first hand information on every important citizen in town. People like Lacey and Ibnora (and many other intelligent posters at JW) are necessary. We need them in order to keep the Babs of this world in check. Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Whew....." Posted by eedayspa on 19:11:14 10/01/2000 Bumper Sticker for this Thread: eedayspa [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "All of this over nothing" Posted by Ruthee on 20:24:45 10/01/2000 When Jane Doe came upon the scene, I was just as interested as the next person. Soon things just didn't seem right to me. The big question in my mind at that time was why the person whom Jane Doe accused was not named and arrested. He was still alive, and still around children. After I thought about that aspect, I completely dismissed the story as a set of circumstances that were misunderstood. I did and do believe that Jane Doe is ill and I hope she is receiving the help she needs and deserves. I have no problem with Jane Doe because I believe she is ill. I have no problem with Mame, I would probably feel the same compassion for someone like Jane Doe, and try to help as much as I could. I'm not a reporter, so the story would stop there. Mame is a reporter, so the story did not stop there, and the biggest problem for me is the big brother attitude. I don't do well with people who tell me that they know what's best for me. It reminds me of a socialist society. Keep quiet, accept your hand-outs, and ask no questions, the government is always right because they are privy to information that you cannot have. Trust them! I have posted this circumstance before dealing with other information. I read a snip of this and a snip of that and I'm told that I'm to accept the information at face value, as the remainder of the information is confidential. That's fine. If you're not going to tell me what you know, then don't bring up the subject. I don't want the story, if it's part of the story. I told a friend of mine that there was going to be big problems when the Jane Doe story first surfaced. It's become worse than I thought. I don't think it's about Fleet White, JonBenet Ramsey, Jane Doe, or anyone else connected to this case. It's about status, power and control. I may strive for those personality traits in other circumstances, I don't know. I do know that in this big picture, they mean nothing to me. Holly, Mary, Mame and any other member may post what and how they wish on this subject. As far as I'm concerned it's a small ripple in a large pond. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Different strokes" Posted by Watching you on 07:12:58 10/02/2000 for different folks? Come on, youse guys, let's get real here. People is people, you know? This forum is no different than Real Time - we have a broad cross-section of RT population, including The Kind, The Pacifists, The Take-No-Prisoners, The Loonies, LOL. This is a volatile subject, and I guess we should expect some volatile opinions. I mean, have you seen some of the political debates on TV lately? har har When I read mame's first post last, what was it, Friday?, I knew where it was going to go, and so did she. If she didn't want to open up this sore subject again, she should have let it be. There's a lot more going on here than just the MW/FW thing, anymore, I think. It is obvious some posters have taken an intense dislike to some of mame's tactics. I don't deny I am one of those posters, I've made no secret about that. But, come one, guys, going after mame's step-father, someone she obviously loves very much, to me is off-limits. What's the point? So we don't agree with her tactics, we may think she perpetrated a grave injustice to FW and we may be upset because she misled (in our opinions) us, but is that justification for hate? I'm not the hall monitor and far be it from me to preach on the niceties of posting. Lawd knows I can snipe with the best of them, but I do sort of draw the line at cutting someone's heart out - and I think striking at mame's father (he was a father to her, so knock it off) is getting pretty bloody and fair is fair. OTOH, mame has put herself squarely in the line of fire and legitimate questions and challenges are absolutely right - even rightful jabs are in order. My tender sensibilities shy away from drawing blood at the expense of another family member, though. Hey, it's Monday. What you think? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "WY" Posted by Chart on 07:45:23 10/02/2000 Yours is the voice of reason in an obviously tumultuous time around here. I found it unbearable to read such venomous posts yesterday because I had hoped that this forum would elect to keep within the bounds of decency and not cross that line into the area of personnal attack. Everyone here has a right to an opinion and to express it. I do not believe that we cannot find a way to argue a point without descending into a realm of verbal annihilation. A few courageous posters said it so much better yesterday than I could. MATTHEW 5:9 - Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. I was hoping Mrs.Rac would appear because she has a way with calming the storm. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Watching You" Posted by momo on 08:17:36 10/02/2000 You said it so well. A deceased person has no defense. It was beyond low. And way beyond personal. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "please.." Posted by Dianne E. on 08:44:41 10/02/2000 ..quit the hall monitor business while you are ahead. You are trying to make it sound like we just dragged mames poor ol dead dad into the story out of the blue on our own. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dianne E. ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Well, whatever, Dianne E" Posted by Watching you on 08:46:58 10/02/2000 you knock yourself out, okay? Shows more about you, though, then it does about mame and her dad. And, can it with the hall monitor stuff. Say whatever the hell you want, you have to live with it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Greenleaf: as I have become a fan of your writings..." Posted by Dunvegan on 09:15:00 10/02/2000 (...sidestepping the whole core subject of this thread...) I'd personally LOVE to read one of your character thumbnail sketches of "Babs" sometime. I think you could get a good story out of that rememberance. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Dunvegan " Posted by Greenleaf on 10:45:50 10/02/2000 Thank you, my friend. You just gave me an idea. Seriously, I consider the Babs of this world dangerous creatures, with self-serving agendas. With limited inner resources, they rely upon the misery of others to gain some pitiful measure of attention. Whenever I see your name of a post, Dunvegan, I know I'm in for a treat. Thank you for your kind remarks. Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Watching You" Posted by Real Stormy on 11:16:41 10/02/2000 Since I am one of the persons who mentioned Mame's step-father, let me explain why I did it. Certainly, I said nothing personally derogatory about him. My point, and in my mind it is perfectly valid, is that Mame has for months indicated that she inherited her writing skills from her step-father. Perhaps you don't remember her saying she "grew up with Bobby Kennedy in her living room." It is she who repeatedly brought up her step-father, saying that Plaskett reminded her of him, posting old articles he had written, etc. My impression of her point in doing so, particulary when she would bring him up repeatedly in her lectures about journalism, was to try to say he was a journalist, so that makes her one. It does not. She is not. I think she has behaved outrageously and I am not impressed that her step-father was a journalist. I did not bring him up, she did. If she had not, I would know nothing about him, and certainly would not have mentioned him. Perhaps you don't remember the stories about being taken to the newspaper office on Saturdays, etc. What was the point of that? Since it was she who time and time again brought him up in ways that were not even relevant, I feel it fair to bring him up in my discussion of her irresponsible behaviour. I do think that what she has done was an attempt to make daddy proud. I don't think he would be. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Hissssssss" Posted by Watching you on 11:43:01 10/02/2000 LOL, RS, settle down, now. I know and I remember. My children grew up with a stepfather. They "inherited" many of his characteristics, good and bad. No, I don't remember the Bobby Kennedy in her living room statement, but mame makes lots of statements like that. That's part of who mame is, I guess. You are right, because her step-father was a journalist does not make her one. And, you of all people should know there is no love lost between mame and me. I don't hate her. I don't like what she did. My philosophy on life is this: stand up for what you believe in, but try to remember we are all human beings with real feelings. On the other end of our computer screens is another human with real feelings and a life that includes, hopefully, people they love very much. Mame apparently is proud of her dad, as I am of mine, who never was a poet, but he was a damn fine man, and I would be irate and hurt if someone attacked him. I have posted about my dad from time to time. Would you, then, attack my dad? Hell, he was the finest man I have ever known, and I brag about him - can't help it, there should be more like him. I personally read mame's posts about her dad and at the time I enjoyed them. What's going on now, IMMSO, really has nothing to do with mame's dad. It is use everything mame ever posted against her in this game of spite. I don't mean you, specifically, RS, I just mean that's how people get when they're pissed at someone. I try to stick with the issues, not go for character assassination. Hey, mame is open game as far as I'm concerned. She gives as good as she gets, her posts aim to wound and bloody the other guy, turnabout is fair play. All I am saying, RS, is there are some things that should be sacred - our kids, our parents, our personal lives. Just because we believe she behaved outrageously (and, yes, I do believe that, you know I do), does not mean we, in turn, have to act that way, too. But, I know I sound santimonious. Gol, I'm far from that - I like to blast as well as the next guy, you know. This is my personal opinion, no one has to agree with me. Peace. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Yes, Watching You" Posted by Real Stormy on 12:23:11 10/02/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:23:11, 10/02/2000 Had I attacked Mame's step-father, you would certainly have a right to be incensed. But, I did not. My comments were in the context of my perceiving Mame's goal to be of pleasing him by becoming a great journalist. Woodward and Bernstein, even. Maybe Watergate; maybe the Pulitzer. That goal seems neurotic to me and IMO is part of Mame's delusions of grandeur. I think it can explain Mame's hysterical pursuit of this silly MW story. Nothing personal about her step-father, though, and certainly no attack. Other than the many, many references and anecdotes about him which Mame has posted, I know nothing whatsoever about him. He was probably a fine man. I did not say he wasn't. But that was not the context in which I referred to him. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "RS" Posted by Watching you on 12:33:50 10/02/2000 smooch [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "'Ya know" Posted by China on 20:32:39 10/02/2000 Preparation H is also good for a fat lip. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Well, no, Chris" Posted by Real Stormy on 07:03:15 10/03/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:03:15, 10/03/2000 addressed it wrong person [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Real Stormy....." Posted by Pedro on 22:59:27 10/02/2000 .....where do you see Chris here? LOL. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Well....." Posted by Pedro on 21:17:17 10/02/2000 Lurker XIV, generations can't separate equally brilliant minds, and I am a conceptualist, remember Occamh againts Bacon? so to me thoughts are thougths, we structure them in different lenguajes, but they are the same. RiverRat, I'm lost on this, I guess I am an slut :-). Maxi, I love your posts too, and China isn't the jelous tipe, reason why I'm stil alive and breathing, I am not jelous too, heh. :-). Maxi, I can composse the most complex and worst sentences in English ever!!! LOL, but I get my point across, right??? LOL. Denver, I hope you're fine. I see no evil here, I see wrong doing, amateurism, stubborness, leack of humbleness and a problem getting over mistakes, acting better in the future, giving apologies and moving on, in other words, I see Mame. Mame was wrong and until she accept it publically, as she accused publically, she is in *default*. She had lot of support, help and friendship, but these can't change wrong for right, nor lie for truth. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Real Stormy" Posted by Morgan on 21:02:57 10/02/2000 Get a life. It's obvious you don't have one. Butt out of Mame's. I hope all of the jackals have enjoyed their feast. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Morgan...." Posted by Pedro on 21:19:14 10/02/2000 ....what jackals?. I lknow nothing about jackals, do you ? Pedro PS: I thought we were *Restless Natives*. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Morgan...." Posted by Pedro on 21:22:19 10/02/2000 .....as you can see, we are right again, LOL. Who's using call naming? get a life yourself and get over it, MW is a fraud and Mame was wrong. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Oh Morgan" Posted by Real Stormy on 21:56:07 10/02/2000 Riled you up, huh? You couldn't possibly imagine what my life is like. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Pedro" Posted by RiverRat on 06:35:09 10/03/2000 A slut?! No Way - I had you pegged for a tease! Ha! Oh well, either way, enjoy! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Pedro" Posted by Real Stormy on 07:01:43 10/03/2000 I meant China--sorry. Should have known honeymooners would be together. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Just a suggestion" Posted by Ruthee on 08:26:44 10/03/2000 Get a life is so trite, how about something like back to your knitting or go clean your toilet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Well, Ruthee" Posted by Real Stormy on 12:34:50 10/03/2000 I don't knit and my housekeeper cleans my toilet. But I do have a life. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "My son" Posted by Ev on 10:26:23 10/03/2000 once told me to get a life. I turned to him and said, "You know, when I was single I had a very nice life. Wonderful, in fact. Then for some strange reason, I decided to get married, and worse yet, I decided to have children. I don't know what ever possessed me!" You should have seen the look on his face. (I really didn't mean it, but it shut him up very quickly.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "How bout another suggestion....." Posted by Sailer on 10:11:31 10/03/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:11:31, 10/03/2000 Edited cause I changed my mind about wading to the middle of this :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Hey Sailer" Posted by Watching you on 10:15:37 10/03/2000 wanna get married? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Wait a minute!" Posted by Sailer on 11:53:27 10/03/2000 Didn't I see you asking China if you could borrow Pedro??? You Hussy! I have doubts if you'd be true to me and not break my heart! LOL! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Nope" Posted by Watching you on 12:23:08 10/03/2000 didn't ask China anything - what she don't know won't hurt her, heh. Besides, that's just this week - next week's free. I'd never break the sailer's heart, promise. Really. Shut up, Slinky. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "ok" Posted by Sailer on 14:18:08 10/03/2000 we're on for next week. Do I need to sign a pre-nup??? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Ahh, Sailer..." Posted by Slinky on 05:12:26 10/04/2000 So, aren't you going to be true to me anymore? Are you going to break my heart??? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE