"Midjis" <midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:d63ens$g8c$2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Visscher" <visscher@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote :
>>
>> Whos is forcing her compliance are you crazy??????????
>
> One question mark would suffice. Ten gives a distinct impression of
some
> emotional excitation.
> But to answer your question: Yes, marginally. From time to time, in
any
> case. But I am doing what I can to suppress this.
> Unfortunately the question of my mental state is not as relevant here as
> you seem to hope. If you read what I wrote once again you'll see that I
> did not say that you, or anyone else, was forcing Vera's compliance with
> anything. I asked if that was what you hoped to do. If not, then the
> appropriate answer would have been a simple "no".
>
>> It was Vera who forced her compliance upon us!!!!
>
> She may have tried. She clearly did not succeed. And strictly speaking
> she could not force her compliance on you - that suggests that she
> forcibly obeyed you, which does not make sense. She may or may not have
> attempted to force your compliance with her demands.
>
>> Have you spoken with Vera about this?
>
> No.
>
>> Are you cooperating now with Vera?
>
> No. But I wonder if you are likely to believe this in any case?
'Mematt'
> and Diana seem to have followed my reasoning here (whether or not they
> agree with it). They can accept, apparently, that I have involved
myself
> here because of my own curiosity, and because I am always intrigued (if
> not always pleasantly so) when Christians of different stripes start
> attacking each other. You, however, seem unable to accept that I might
> become involved independently of the existing dispute between you and
> Vera. You therefore contrive to indicate that Vera and I have some sort
> of alliance. Is this because you simply cannot accept that a
more-or-less
> detached observer might question your methods? Has it occurred to you
> that what makes sense to you, embroiled as you are in the dispute, might
> not make sense to those who are not involved?
>
>> Are your e-maills a result of a discussion with Vera?
>
> No. See above.
>
>> New Tactics to convince us of Vera's innocence?
>
> As I have tried to explain, I am not really interested whether Vera is
> innocent or not. I do not know, and I do not care. What I AM
interested
> in is how Christian your response to her alleged activity actually is.
> Why you think it will serve to improve matters. Why you believe you are
> entitled to try to do what you condemn her for supposedly trying to do.
>
>> Let me know how long you are friends with Vera and why you are
defending
>> her in such an unnatural way so aggressively.
>
> Aggressively? Hmm. Perhaps. I admit I cannot always maintain an
> adequate level of control over my emotions and sometimes I do allow
myself
> to get angry or agitated. It may be that I have been aggressive without
> realising it. But it does strike me as odd that out of the three of you
I
> initially addressed, you seem to be the only one who has perceived this.
> Combined with your conviction that I am in cahoots with your opponent, I
> wonder again if you are seeing what you want to see rather than what is
> actually there.
> I will not address the idea that my comments have been 'unnatural',
> because that claim obviously does not make any sense.
I can't see anything Biblical nor Christian in this discussion. Would
you very much mind moving your private correspondence to private email?
There is enough Satanic stuff in here to move your post to Satanic groups
though, and I will assist you in that.
|
