Apology?

[Liebling:-)))]

I'm not jumping to conclusions of any sort. I know what I see and read.

Yes you jump to wrong conclusions... If you think you are not, then I feel sorry for you.

I can tell from your posts that you are a bitter woman. If you feel being offence by my post then accept my apology please.

Done!

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Yes you jump to wrong conclusions... If you think you are not, then I feel sorry for you.

I can tell from your posts that you are a bitter woman. If you feel being offence by my post then accept my apology please.

Done!

I don't need your pity. I'm happy just the way I am, so there's really no need for you to apologize.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I don't need your pity. I'm happy just the way I am, so there's really no need for you to apologize.

Thank you for let me know who you are.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Thank you for let me know who you are.

I thought you said you were done?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I thought you said you were done?

Yes I am.

 

[rockdrummer]

Not a problem for me. like I said for future reference. some other ADers get upset when members are named, then the "fingerpointing" starts...

Thanks and while I respect your opinion, I don't really agree with it. For me it depends on the context and in this context I believe it to be appropriate. Lets just agree to dis-agree.

Thanks

 

[Steel X]

Weren't you given a second chance?

second, yes. but third? nope. never happened. I'm being more careful with the rules now.
So I'm trying not to be harsh or start up insults or fights with other members.

 

[Levonian]

So now you're telling me to leave?

I would never want you to leave, C.C.! You’re kind of like the pet that my parents never let me have when I was child.

 

[Foxrac]

No no no not upset at all! I just wanted to make sure people KNEW what the real "story" was. I didn't want anyone thinking it was him when it was "all me". You didn't upset me at all hun.

Just making sure everyone HAS their facts straight.

Hugs, RG

No need to give apologize to Heath, you just nothing to make wrong.

Now, Heath is banned, that's not worth to worry about him, also let him to learn his lesson or so.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

second, yes. but third? nope. never happened. I'm being more careful with the rules now.
So I'm trying not to be harsh or start up insults or fights with other members.

Yes. Giving someone a second chance is fine. But, when a person is on their third or fifth chance, it's time to send the person packing...

As for Heath, he knows what he says, and how it affects people. The problem is, he doesn't care. He thinks he's justified, so the idea that he'll change is ludicrous.

I really hope he comes back, and makes a sincere effort to change his views, but if he doesn't, he should be permanently banned. He has hurt alot of people with the expression of his views, and he really needs to be stopped.

 

[rockdrummer]

Yes. Giving someone a second chance is fine. But, when a person is on their third or fifth chance, it's time to send the person packing...

As for Heath, he knows what he says, and how it affects people. The problem is, he doesn't care. He thinks he's justified, so the idea that he'll change is ludicrous.

I really hope he comes back, and makes a sincere effort to change his views, but if he doesn't, he should be permanently banned. He has hurt alot of people with the expression of his views, and he really needs to be stopped.

Yep, I can count at least 5 or 6 rules that he has continued to break and I again applaud the Mods for doing their job and the right thing. I have very little patience or tolerance for anybody that spews forth the hatred that he does.

 

[Reba]

It's ironic.

So many people get upset when Heath is posting.

Now, Heath is banned; he's not posting anything here.

And yet, people are still upset about him.

I'm very surprised that so many people have empowered Heath in such a way as to upset them even when he's not around.

 

[lilylover72]

It's ironic.

So many people get upset when Heath is posting.

Now, Heath is banned; he's not posting anything here.

And yet, people are still upset about him.

I'm very surprised that so many people have empowered Heath in such a way as to upset them even when he's not around.

Sigh, I already forget about Heath after I post. I understand that many people have hard feeling about him because he didnt say " I am sorry".

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

It's ironic.

So many people get upset when Heath is posting.

Now, Heath is banned; he's not posting anything here.

And yet, people are still upset about him.

I'm very surprised that so many people have empowered Heath in such a way as to upset them even when he's not around.

Some things/people are not easy to forgive and forget.

 

[Maria]

CyberRED... Errr Excuse me, your posting really find me you're protecting Heath.

No, I am NOT protectin' him. I know HOW to ignore him as his posts don't really bother me at all. I will post elsewhere if, I find his thread don't interest me. And, even I know how to leave him alone, too - so, why should I bother, if I find his threads offensive such as racist, rude or some things like this ? Just simple : Ignore and move on to post elsewhere.

 

[Reba]

Some things/people are not easy to forgive and forget.

When people don't forgive and forget, guess who it hurts?

It hurts the person who doesn't forgive and forget.

It doesn't hurt the "offender" at all. It gives power to the offender.

If people really don't like Heath, why do they give him so much power?

Who wins?

No one.

 

[Levonian]

Some things/people are not easy to forgive and forget.

I know that I said that I was going to shut up and go away, but I’d like to throw in an analogy here to reinforce this point. What if Osama bin Laden came to you and said that he was really, really, really sowwy with sugar on top and begged forgiveness? Would you give it to him? Personally, I would just chuckle and pat him on the head. I would then proceed to douse him in gasoline, set him on fire, and toss him off the top of the tallest skyscraper I could find. Extreme analogy, of course. Heath’s actions are in no way comparable to those of bin Laden’s. But where do you draw the line? If a person deliberately and maliciously attempts to harm another person, or worse—an entire group of people, then that person or those people clearly have an inherent right to take protective action. It doesn’t matter if that person is mentally disordered, as Heath almost undoubtedly is. Self defense is an inherent right of all organisms. So is retaliation. It seems very likely to me that our inherent desire for revenge is partly or even largely responsible for the ascension of our species. Only a small percentage (about 2%) of the general population is classified as meeting the diagnostic criteria of sociopathy. If and when a genetic basis of this condition is demonstrated (and I’m convinced that it eventually will be), wouldn’t that strongly suggest that our inherent thirst for revenge was responsible for eliminating the spread of the genome early in our evolutionary history? Society has the right to sanction and exclude its own harmful elements. In extreme cases, it has the inherent right to eliminate them entirely. The meek shall inherit the Earth, but it’s only a 3’ X 6’ foot plot.

OK—now I’ll go away.

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

I know that I said that I was going to shut up and go away, but I’d like to throw in an analogy here to reinforce this point. What if Osama bin Laden came to you and said that he was really, really, really sowwy with sugar on top and begged forgiveness? Would you give it to him? Personally, I would just chuckle and pat him on the head. I would then proceed to douse him in gasoline, set him on fire, and toss him off the top of the tallest skyscraper I could find. Extreme analogy, of course. Heath’s actions are in no way comparable to those of bin Laden’s. But where do you draw the line? If a person deliberately and maliciously attempts to harm another person, or worse—an entire group of people, then that person or those people clearly have an inherent right to take protective action. It doesn’t matter if that person is mentally disordered, as Heath almost undoubtedly is. Self defense is an inherent right of all organisms. So is retaliation. It seems very likely to me that our inherent desire for revenge is partly or even largely responsible for the ascension of our species. Only a small percentage (about 2%) of the general population is classified as meeting the diagnostic criteria of sociopathy. If and when a genetic basis of this condition is demonstrated (and I’m convinced that it eventually will be), wouldn’t that strongly suggest that our inherent thirst for revenge was responsible for eliminating the spread of the genome early in our evolutionary history? Society has the right to sanction and exclude its own harmful elements. In extreme cases, it has the inherent right to eliminate them entirely. The meek shall inherit the Earth, but it’s only a 3’ X 6’ foot plot.

OK—now I’ll go away.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

I know that I said that I was going to shut up and go away, but I’d like to throw in an analogy here to reinforce this point. What if Osama bin Laden came to you and said that he was really, really, really sowwy with sugar on top and begged forgiveness? Would you give it to him? Personally, I would just chuckle and pat him on the head. I would then proceed to douse him in gasoline, set him on fire, and toss him off the top of the tallest skyscraper I could find. Extreme analogy, of course. Heath’s actions are in no way comparable to those of bin Laden’s. But where do you draw the line? If a person deliberately and maliciously attempts to harm another person, or worse—an entire group of people, then that person or those people clearly have an inherent right to take protective action. It doesn’t matter if that person is mentally disordered, as Heath almost undoubtedly is. Self defense is an inherent right of all organisms. So is retaliation. It seems very likely to me that our inherent desire for revenge is partly or even largely responsible for the ascension of our species. Only a small percentage (about 2%) of the general population is classified as meeting the diagnostic criteria of sociopathy. If and when a genetic basis of this condition is demonstrated (and I’m convinced that it eventually will be), wouldn’t that strongly suggest that our inherent thirst for revenge was responsible for eliminating the spread of the genome early in our evolutionary history? Society has the right to sanction and exclude its own harmful elements. In extreme cases, it has the inherent right to eliminate them entirely. The meek shall inherit the Earth, but it’s only a 3’ X 6’ foot plot.

OK—now I’ll go away.

Bravo!

 

[Y]

No, I am NOT protectin' him. I know HOW to ignore him as his posts don't really bother me at all. I will post elsewhere if, I find his thread don't interest me. And, even I know how to leave him alone, too - so, why should I bother, if I find his threads offensive such as racist, rude or some things like this ? Just simple : Ignore and move on to post elsewhere.

Bravo !! That's exactly how I felt, too