radioelizabeth said:
neutralobserver said:
Have you forgotten we've done that a few times already?
no... we haven't... you approached me off board...and I said I would not exchange emails with you.
Is this really Elizabeth, or has someone hacked her account?
Elizabeth,
it's the exact opposite! I never approached you; you approached me! Given that it was to a Gmail account, I could pull it right back up and show everybody if you really wanted me to!
on this board, you made a post with your email included, to which I believe I merely said thank you in an email, as you requested members write you...and I replied off board...after your first email back, approaching me for discussion, I said I would not exchange them...it would not be relevant to get into the specifics, but that you chose to be personal on this board...and clarity is necessary. Look, I'm not picking a fight with you on this N.O...but you apparently felt the need to state I needed to reconcile something, then said you had something more to discuss, but would not do it here... that is personal in nature...if you have something to say... say it.
You have something to say, which you obviously think you do... you can say it here.
Even with your permission, I still won't do it. I feel like I know you (at least a little), we're a lot alike, we have a strangely high number of things in common...I'm just not going to do it. It's not who I am.
then you should have held your tongue
??? Wow...I'm really confused. You're saying I
shouldn't have kept a personal comment between the two parties involved? This doesn't sound like you, at all!
you should not have implied there was something you had to say that you could not say on this board.......if you have something to say about my post...then say it here.
The concept of someone trying to determine what ought to be the "correct" way to do "Christian" radio is flawed.
You must mean that for someone else; I said nothing about the way they do radio being flawed.
you might want to re read the post.
Ok, hang on a sec.......
Ok, I'm back. I looked at my four-point post, and then I looked at the entire thread. The only use of the word "flawed" came from
you.
oh my gosh... must we go over reading comprehension? Really? Come on Neutral. Stop being so thick about this, please? Because I know you are smarter than this. While text is difficult at times, please re read the post I made...and your reply again. N.O...in a reply to my post you stated they were a "supposed Christian organization" and that I needed to reconcile things...this is a flawed concept... to apply a "Christian" standard, or infer that you know what that standard is. Your post speaks for itself.
And your conclusions are just that your conclusions...
What
are my conclusions?? Again, I assert that I've simply made
observations. I've simply listed what I have heard on the air, have seen in their filings, and have heard from witnesses to their deals.
you didn't only make observations, you drew conclusions.
Okay....again, just as I did before (and keep quoted right above), I must ask, "what
are my conclusions?"
Here is your post: "But, Elizabeth, there's one thing you keep leaving out -- absolute dishonesty (and there really is no other way to say it) in fundraising. The only reason EMF has the money to make these buys is because they out-and-out lie to their audience. They lie. Yes, lie. Deceive. Intentionally....Look, I'm laissez-faire and libertarian at heart, but, if you're going to take the stand you are, you're going to have to reconcile -- at least to yourself -- a supposed "Christian" organization lying to its audience, its contributors, its acquisition targets, and its industry. "
Now, this draws lots of conclusions... 1. That they lie. That they do so intentionally. 2. That they are a "supposed Christian organization"...which draws several other conclusions...3. That there is something that I need to reconcile, in regards to what I stated in my post.
...and don't attempt to pass yourself off as neutral.
But I
am! Again, I don't "hate" EMF; I admire their product and am neutral on their delivery method.
you aren't neutral in this discussion.
Once again, I must ask you to show me how you've come to that conclusion.
because by your very post, you show bias. I covered that already.
There is bias in the fact that you even posted what you did.
If...
if...that's true, it's bias toward
honesty and
transparency. Are you against honesty and transparency?
it's bias....towards many things.
Examples of which would be.....?
That you know what is "supposed" means. That your conclusion of deception was something that needed to be reconciled by another in this discussion. You are not neutral here. You can think you are, but again...that you felt the need to state what you said, the way you said it, is pretty clear.
Elizabeth, this doesn't sound like you. If there's something different, something wrong, or maybe even something you'd like to talk about, please feel free and safe in letting me know.
More conclusions... assumptions...and personal appeals that are not relevant to this discussion. Again, you eluded that there was something to be reconciled, that "supposed" was involved...and that you had something to say to me, you didn't feel comfortable saying on this board...now...I'm about clarity...not these kind of statements that elude to something that is not on the table. Define "supposed", and state why you felt you needed to say, I had something to reconcile, or we will simply circle and neither of us wants to do that.
