0n (26 Jun 05) TIM RICHARDSON wrote to ROSS CASSELL...

 TR> On 06-26-05, CINDY HAGLUND said to ROSS CASSELL:

 TR> And I want to point something out to you, also:

  I think Ross C knows this sorry bit of Ancient History.

 TR> At one time, Cindy Haglund was the target of hateful posts from

  Yeah and if I had listened to Ross S in email this bad spot
  would never have come to pass. Bad me.

 TR> Bandsma and Gallandt, as well as a few other women who posted in
 TR> various echoes when Haglund first showed up in Fido.
  
True. JB is the only one hangin' in there on the hate trip though AFAIK.
Mimi and I are friends. Blanche and I got to know each other better in
email. Haven't heard from her in years though. Hope she is okay. Sue
explained a lot and AFAIK we are on good terms. hmm Sally? IIRC never
got herself involved in that particular fray.

 TR> And they used to refer to Haglund as "it", as well as a few other
 TR> choice nasties, heaping their bile on her at every opportunity.

  Yeah, wasn't that a rich? But hey. In all this time I have never
  accused anybody of being pms'y. So see something good came out of
  that ancient fiasco after all. And oh yeah if you feel you are being
  stalked talk to the sysop about it instead of playing with aliases.
  Turns out I wasn't being stalked after all. (Long story.)

RC> This echo is not the private inner sanctum for you, Lofaso, Sauer,
RC> Chirnside and anyone else of your number who belong to the "same
RC> choir".

 TR> I made it a point to take Bandsma and Gallandt on over it, and

 Tim you knew how futile that was don't you? Everybody else just tippy
 toed around JB. And Mimi to her credit eventually saw the light.

 TR> defended Haglund to them, insisting that all Haglund had done was
 TR> appear as a new user in Fido, and Gallandt, Bandsma, and a few others
 TR> immediately attacked her.

 True. I didn't know that when you are new in here (I hadn't lurked
ahead of time you see)- you are automatically a fundie until proven
otherwise. That's just how it was. There were things I had said which
were interpreted wrong because frankly I thought this was a pro-religious
echo. Can I live this blunder down?
..................................

 TR> CH>After we get
 TR> CH>past deleting fifty plus messages from "Rag",things
get too quite
 TR> so

 TR> For all the thanks or appreciation I have ever gotten from Haglund for
 TR> it, as you can see.

 Hey! You're NOT Ragland are you? nah. Say it ain't so.

I have thanked you, Tim directly. You must have not seen it. Should we
dig and delve into more ancient history? I think not. (It wasn't at
all that long ago, but to me now, it seems like another lifetime.)

From my experience it's hard to tell how the person you want to thank
will react. Some folks don't feel comfortable with compliments, they'd
rather you simply act on their advice instead and that would be thanks
enough. While others take the compliment to their head and think they
'own you' and thus expect you to be blindly loyal to them (never
daring to disagree). There may be other reactions. Do you really need
to be thanked or is seeing how I took your advice enough? I'm not
going to fall into the blindly loyal expectation trip, again. Once was
enough for me.

 TR> CH>somebody mentions... a popular name from elsewhere.

 TR> I have also taken up a defense of Sauer on a few occasions, getting a
 TR> moderator to allow him back into their echo. For all the thanks I ever
 TR> got from him, either.

  Why exactly did you want him back?

 TR> See, neither one of them ever mentions `that' to anybody. The quicker
 TR> they both `forget' the better.

 Aw come on Tim. You just want him back in there because he's such
fun to flame and you are too, right? Heck neither of you would know
what to do without the other. So it seems.

cindy

... Nobody notices when things go right.

--- PPoint 3.01