|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: CarrieCarrie Date: Jul 27, 2007 04:43
>> Sheryl is extending the relationships that she has
>> spent years building on this n.g.
to keep us posted
>> on what she's doing elsewhere.
I guess this is the point of creating the relationships and building
up the image in a certain way.
Marketing herself.
>
> Thanks for answering for Sheryl.
One of the perks of building up a reputation in a certain way.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: KatieKatie Date: Jul 27, 2007 06:10
"Carrie" kingcon.com> wrote in message
news:f8clpj$jb$1@aioe.org...>> On Jul 26, 9:58 pm, "Lee" <4gi...@ innocent.com> wrote:
>> >>> Sheryl is extending the relationships that she has
>>> spent years building on this n.g.
> to keep us posted
>>> on what she's doing elsewhere.
>
> I guess this is the point of creating the relationships and building
> up the image in a certain way.
>
> Marketing herself.
>>
>> Thanks for answering for Sheryl.
>
> One of the perks of building up a reputation in a certain way. ...
|
| Show full article (1.34Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: LeeLee Date: Jul 27, 2007 06:50
>> Sheryl is extending the relationships that she has
>> spent years building on this n.g., to keep us posted
>> on what she's doing elsewhere.
>
> Thanks for answering for Sheryl.
As though anyone owes you a response
to your emotional problem with sheryl.
It's pretty patently absurd for a troll to
challenge someone's announcement of
a blog, or anything else here.
Your post was rude. And your rudeness
was uncalled for. The woman posted info
about her blog, fer chrissake. Get a grip.
How absurd is it for Katie's partner here
to police the newsgroup for posting violations?
LOL
|
| Show full article (0.70Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AA Date: Jul 27, 2007 07:15
Lee wrote:
> Chuck yahoo.com> wrote:>> On Jul 26, 9:58 pm, "Lee" <4gi...@ innocent.com> wrote:
>> >>> Sheryl is extending the relationships that she has
>>> spent years building on this n.g., to keep us posted
>>> on what she's doing elsewhere.
>> Thanks for answering for Sheryl.
>
> As though anyone owes you a response
> to your emotional problem with sheryl.
>
> It's pretty patently absurd for a troll to
> challenge someone's announcement of
> a blog, or anything else here.
>
> Your post was rude. And your rudeness
> was uncalled for. The woman posted info
> about her blog, fer chrissake. Get a grip.
> ...
|
| Show full article (0.95Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AA Date: Jul 27, 2007 07:15
Lee wrote:
> Chuck yahoo.com> wrote:>> On Jul 26, 9:58 pm, "Lee" <4gi...@ innocent.com> wrote:
>> >>> Sheryl is extending the relationships that she has
>>> spent years building on this n.g., to keep us posted
>>> on what she's doing elsewhere.
>> Thanks for answering for Sheryl.
>
> As though anyone owes you a response
> to your emotional problem with sheryl.
>
> It's pretty patently absurd for a troll to
> challenge someone's announcement of
> a blog, or anything else here.
>
> Your post was rude. And your rudeness
> was uncalled for. The woman posted info
> about her blog, fer chrissake. Get a grip.
> ...
|
| Show full article (0.95Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ChuckChuck Date: Jul 27, 2007 09:52
> Chuck yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>> Sheryl is extending the relationships that she has
>>> spent years building on this n.g., to keep us posted
>>> on what she's doing elsewhere.
>
>> Thanks for answering for Sheryl.
>
> As though anyone owes you a response
> to your emotional problem with sheryl.
I didn't say anyone owed me a response. One was forthcoming from you.
I don't know why you chose to answer for sheryl and really don't care.
I don't have an emotional problem with sheryl or anyone else here. I
don't know why make stuff up and pawn it off as fact. Why do you do
that?
|
| Show full article (1.73Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: LeeLee Date: Jul 27, 2007 10:22
>
>> How absurd is it for Katie's partner here
>> to police the newsgroup for posting violations?
>
> I realize the question is hypothetical because it assumes a role that
> is not a fact.
>
> They were questions and valid ones as far as I'm concerned. If you
> don't have a problem with what sheryl does, fine. I'm just curious as
> to why she's doing it in the manner she is.
If you were "just curious" you wouldn't have
posted your interrogation under the heading
"What's you game, shameless? "
Don't give your own messages a rude spin, and
act surprised when I notice. It was uncalled for,
and -nobody- imo owes you an explanation for
what they post to our group. You are an active
enabler for a madwoman's dedicated campaign
against this list, its members and this Course.
|
| Show full article (1.87Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: CarrieCarrie Date: Jul 27, 2007 14:53
>>
>>> How absurd is it for Katie's partner here
>>> to police the newsgroup for posting violations?
>>
>> I realize the question is hypothetical because it assumes a role that
>> is not a fact.
>>
>> They were questions and valid ones as far as I'm concerned. If you
>> don't have a problem with what sheryl does, fine. I'm just curious as
>> to why she's doing it in the manner she is.
>
> If you were "just curious" you wouldn't have
> posted your interrogation under the heading
> "What's you game, shameless? "
Sheryl is the one who started referring to herself as "Shameless"
Where does Chuck call himself "Chuckles"?
>
> Don't give your own messages a rude spin, and
> act surprised when I notice. It was uncalled for,
> and -nobody- imo owes you an explanation for
> what they post to our group. You are an active
> enabler...
|
| Show full article (2.59Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tera Free NwsTera Free Nws Date: Jul 27, 2007 15:48
On Jul 27, 4:53 pm, "Carrie" kingcon.com> wrote:
>> If you were "just curious" you wouldn't have
>> posted your interrogation under the heading
>> "What's you game, shameless? "
>
> Sheryl is the one who started referring to herself as "Shameless"
>
> Where does Chuck call himself "Chuckles"?
As far as I can see, Sheryl referrs to her Promotions as "Shameless."
As far as "Chuck," he can be called anything any poster chooses to
call him. "Troll" is a good reference for both Carrie Starchild and
"Chuckie V"
|
| Show full article (1.35Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: KatieKatie Date: Jul 27, 2007 15:57
>>
>> That's all I've ever asked or expected of you. Grow
>> up and step up.
>
> You've ever asked or expected of Chuck?
And she wonders why I refer to her as The Queen.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
