<<Proving Jean's "frugality," I asked her to mail me something (which she very
kindly did!) and the envelope she used was hotel stationary!!>>
Oops - found guilty again!!!!
________________
Jean $�ott
The new " FRUGAL VIDEO POKER
SCOUTING GUIDE" and other frugal
products are available at my Web site,
http://queenofcomps.com/.
I had a good laugh on that,this is why Jean is where she is at.What especially got me laughing was the fact that Jean,Brad,and their partners won about a year ago 1/4 of a MILLION,or was it 1/2 MILLION??? My family said if I had MILLIONS I still would be checking ads,looking for coupons and doing price comparisons.I always say to my kids ''A FOOL AND HIS MONEY ARE SOON PARTED''
Jean Scott <qeenofcomps@cox.net> wrote: <<Proving Jean's "frugality," I asked her to mail me something (which she
very
kindly did!) and the envelope she used was hotel stationary!!>>
Oops - found guilty again!!!!
________________
Jean $¢ott
The new " FRUGAL VIDEO POKER
SCOUTING GUIDE" and other frugal
products are available at my Web site,
http://queenofcomps.com/.
---------------------------------
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I'm sure that Linda Boyd will agree with me when I say,
"Bob Dancer, your statement below is absolutely correct!"
On 7/26/07, Bob Dancer <bob.dancer@compdance.com> wrote:
Jeep wrote: I think it is a good time to mention that we have a really
good group here. . . . and no one really attacks anyone.There are lots of good things that can be said about vpFREE, but "no one
really attacks anyone" is not one of them.Bob Dancer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Good point Bob. There have been a few times. However, there is a grey
line between attack and opinion. I like to give the benifit of the
doubt onto the opinion side. Also, you guys that are in the spotlight
have to be like a duck and shake off the bad posts, press or whatever.
Shake it off just like a duck sheds water. Sometime you have to think
of it as a bad day at the office; nothing more, nothing less.
Just my opinion...Jeep
.
.
Jeep wrote: I think it is a good time to mention that we have a
really
good
group here. . . . and no one really attacks anyone.There are lots of good things that can be said about vpFREE, but "no
one
really attacks anyone" is not one of them.
Bob Dancer
For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video
poker
.-- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com
<<I had a good laugh on that,this is why Jean is where she is at.What especially got me laughing was the fact that Jean,Brad,and their partners won about a year ago 1/4 of a MILLION,or was it 1/2 MILLION.>>
Total prize was half a million. Each couple got 1/4 a million.
Brad and I do splurge once in awhile. Put in a pool at Frugal Princess house for our grandchildren (and the whole neighborhood, it seemed, when we were there.) And we had granite counter tops and bar installed in our condo. The rest is invested for our old age - which might arrive any minute - in fact, sometimes it feels like it is already here!
________________
Jean $�ott
The new " FRUGAL VIDEO POKER
SCOUTING GUIDE" and other frugal
products are available at my Web site,
http://queenofcomps.com/.
Bob Dancer wrote:
There are lots of good things that can be said about vpFREE, but "no
one really attacks anyone" is not one of them.
whitejeeps wrote:
Good point Bob. There have been a few times. However, there is a grey
line between attack and opinion. I like to give the benifit of the
doubt onto the opinion side.
Jeeps goes on to say re criticism, "Shake it off just like a duck
sheds water."
Jeep nails it on the head so squarely that I now fall a little in awe 
------
In truth, I'm disappointed that Bob finds "attack" to be an aspect of
this group. I can understand that perspective a bit, however.
Recently he's been called both pompous and offensive (in the latter
case the phrasing was "I'm offended by").
I'd hardly characterize these as attacks, though. Maybe I've been
hardened by usenet discussion groups that can take on a spirit that
could deemed a "bonfire of the egos". I wouldn't be thrilled by
what's lobbed in his direction were I him, but I wouldn't feel
attacked. In any case, looking at the big picture here, I'd be
inclined to entirely disregard the tone and simply reply matter of
fact where appropriate -- to his credit, while he may take note of the
tone, he largely speaks to the facts in response.
------
Of course, it's more often that Bob is accused of being on the attack.
In the Boyd/Dancer exchange, that provoked rather heated discussion
in the group, Bob declared Linda's strategies to be "very inferior to
others on the market". I found that characterization quite
unfortunate and bordering on gratuitous. While the strategies fall
short on EV vs. others, it's to be understood that this was a
sacrifice in making them among the most approachable to a new player.
While I know Bob disagrees with this latter suggestion, he might have
softened his call without diluting the impact of his evaluation.
Still, Bob's bluntness is the hallmark of his style. And so long as
it represents his firm conviction and doesn't disparage the individual
themselves, I draw no exception to it nor find it to be an "attack".
------
There's no denying that the occasional miscreant finds their way into
this group and lets go with what can only be characterized as attack.
But we effectively deal with them in short order, without undue
rancor, and eventually they lose interest and wander off. It's hardly
worth making note of and in no way reflects on the group as a whole.
I know I'm not alone is finding this one of the most constructive and
cordial internet groups to be found. That's the only assessment worth
taking note. Anything else calls for Jeeps suggested quackish
response 
(I expect the moderator has done just that.)
- Harry
There are lots of good things that can be said about vpFREE, but "no
one
really attacks anyone" is not one of them.
A fox smells his own hole first.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:
mickeycrimm wrote:
A fox smells his own hole first.
You can tell where my head is: An image of dogs came to mind initially.
- H.
Sorry Harry, but when someone posts an error filled analysis, asks for
any comments and then ignores those comments while attacking the
commentor, I find it hard to find anything one could say about it other
than it was an outright, unwarranted attack. Not only that but it was
probably done to increase his own sales which makes it even worse IMO.
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
While I know Bob disagrees with this latter suggestion, he might have
softened his call without diluting the impact of his evaluation.Still, Bob's bluntness is the hallmark of his style. And so long as
it represents his firm conviction and doesn't disparage the individual
themselves, I draw no exception to it nor find it to be an "attack".
mroejacks wrote:
Sorry Harry, but when someone posts an error filled analysis, asks for
any comments and then ignores those comments while attacking the
commentor, I find it hard to find anything one could say about it
other than it was an outright, unwarranted attack.
I dread consequences of digging into this, but it would be helpful to
better understand what you considered to be an attack. Discussing
this to any extent in the abstract isn't possible. I'm not content in
a suggestion that anyone attacked anyone else until I'm sure I grasp
what comments are under criticism.
Let's keep this light and simple. I don't think there's anything to
be said that would change my, or anyone else's, perspective. However,
I can't be certain I'm not mistaken in my perceptions until I have a
solid understanding of what you object to.
- Harry
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
I dread consequences of digging into this, but it would be helpful to
better understand what you considered to be an attack. Discussing
this to any extent in the abstract isn't possible. I'm not content in
a suggestion that anyone attacked anyone else until I'm sure I grasp
what comments are under criticism.Let's keep this light and simple. I don't think there's anything to
be said that would change my, or anyone else's, perspective. However,
I can't be certain I'm not mistaken in my perceptions until I have a
solid understanding of what you object to.
No problem. Reread messages 75414 and 75418 where Bob claims I am
neither "respected" or "knowledgeable" and further claims my responses
to his posts were "erroneous" without supporting this claim. Of course,
my posts were absolutely correct, which Bob knows, and yet he has yet
to apologize to me or to Linda. I think it puts him somewhere pretty
low on any scale of morality you want to choose and if you don't think
this was a personal attack then you and I think a lot differently.
Dick
It's my impression that Mr. Dancer does just as much "attacking"
as anyone else in this group. So, it's interesting that he said what
he did.
I can only think of one reason for Mr. Dancer to post that message
below. Mr. Dancer must like the attention that he gets when he
stirs things up by posting controversial messages. He sure gets
a lot of messages posted with his name in them, when he does!
If that's not the reason for his post, I would like to know what it was.
On 7/26/07, Bob Dancer <bob.dancer@compdance.com> wrote:
Jeep wrote: I think it is a good time to mention that we have a really
good group here. . . . and no one really attacks anyone.There are lots of good things that can be said about vpFREE, but "no one
really attacks anyone" is not one of them.Bob Dancer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
mroejacks wrote:
No problem. Reread messages 75414 and 75418 where Bob claims I am
neither "respected" or "knowledgeable" and further claims my responses
to his posts were "erroneous" without supporting this claim. Of
course, my posts were absolutely correct, which Bob knows, and yet he
has yet to apologize to me or to Linda. I think it puts him somewhere
pretty low on any scale of morality you want to choose and if you
don't think this was a personal attack then you and I think a lot
differently.
Because the posted comments specifically involve you, I'm directly an
extended reply to you privately.
In short, I don't find that his remarks constitute a personal attack.
However, they are inflammatory and fall short of the etiquette I
expect of others here. (Of course, I climb pretty high on my horse at
times.)
- Harry
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:
mroejacks wrote:
> No problem. Reread messages 75414 and 75418 where Bob claims I am
> neither "respected" or "knowledgeable" and further claims my
responses
> to his posts were "erroneous" without supporting this claim. Of
> course, my posts were absolutely correct, which Bob knows, and
yet he
> has yet to apologize to me or to Linda. I think it puts him
somewhere
> pretty low on any scale of morality you want to choose and if you
> don't think this was a personal attack then you and I think a lot
> differently.Because the posted comments specifically involve you, I'm directly
an
extended reply to you privately.
In short, I don't find that his remarks constitute a personal
attack.
However, they are inflammatory and fall short of the etiquette I
expect of others here. (Of course, I climb pretty high on my horse
at
times.)
Like I said Harry, you and I think differently. Doesn't matter
whether the post referenced me or any other member. Essentially
calling someone stupid and telling others to "ignore" that members
posts is an unmitigated personal attack. You can try to put another
spin on it but it still stinks and it always will.
Dick
Hey Bob, still waiting for that apology ... or better yet, how about
admitting all YOUR "erroneous" statements. You remember, the ones I
pointed out and you can't defend (and I know you've tried).
mroejacks wrote:
Like I said Harry, you and I think differently. Doesn't matter
whether the post referenced me or any other member. Essentially
calling someone stupid and telling others to "ignore" that members
posts is an unmitigated personal attack. You can try to put another
spin on it but it still stinks and it always will.
We have different takes on someone suggesting that a person should be
ignored. I call it very poor form, you call it an attack. So be it.
Concerning "stupid" -- saying that someone is relatively
unknowledgable re a specific subject is not an attack. You haven't
provided any reference to a post where Bob called you stupid.
- Harry
If I'm persistent, it's because I dislike seeing anyone
inappropriately disparaged (especially an easy target ;). Were I to
perceive that someone unfairly denigrated you Dick, I'd be inclined to
chime in similarly.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:
Concerning "stupid" -- saying that someone is relatively
unknowledgable re a specific subject is not an attack. You haven't
provided any reference to a post where Bob called you stupid.
Entry: knowl·edge·able
Pronunciation: 'nä-lij-&-b&l
Function: adjective
: having or showing knowledge or intelligence
Main Entry: 1un-
Pronunciation: "&n, often '&n before '-stressed syllable
Function: prefix
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German
un- un-, Latin in-, Greek a-, an-, Old English ne not -- more at NO
1 : not
Let me understand this ... saying someone is "relatively" stupid is
OK in your mind. Bob likes to make his slams as subtle as possible to
avoid administrative wrath. It doesn't change the meaning. From
webster above ... put them together you get "not intelligent".
Main Entry: 1stu·pid
Pronunciation: 'stü-p&d, 'styü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French stupide, from Latin stupidus, from stupEre
to be numb, be astonished -- more at TYPE
1 a : slow of mind : OBTUSE b : given to unintelligent decisions or
acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking
intelligence or reason
Now please tell me again that "unknowledgeable" is not the same as
being called "stupid"! By the way, most topics on any forum are
related to a subject. Do you really believe that if I called someone
stupid for their comments on that subject it wouldn't be considered a
personal attack? How is that different than this case?
Dick
Date: 1829
Date: 1541
mroejacks wrote:
Let me understand this ... saying someone is "relatively" stupid is
OK in your mind ...
I'll discuss this privately (I wouldn't want everyone to know that I
go around slamming people right and left as being "relatively" stupid
... although, I'll note that Bev takes the cake when "discussing"
other drivers while she's behind the wheel
I wrote you at your former att.net email address but I received a
bounce. You have my email; drop a line with the correct address.
- H.
I have a new computer and removed all addresses that I had not
corresponded with recently. Just click on the send email button to the
right of any of my posts.
I'm not sure there's really anything more to debate. You seem to feel
that subtle personal attacks are OK while blatant attacks are not. I've
already stated Bob's "unknowledgeable" attack was subtle. Although
Bob's claim that I was not "respected" was a little less subtle it must
still meet your definition. So be it.
One thing you might want to consider is Bob's position as an expert in
the VP community and whether that should require a somewhat more
stringent set of posting guidelines. If VPFREE is going to allow him to
advertise in every one of his posts it doesn't seem too far fetched to
require better conduct.
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
mroejacks wrote:
> Let me understand this ... saying someone is "relatively" stupid is
> OK in your mind ...I'll discuss this privately (I wouldn't want everyone to know that I
go around slamming people right and left as being "relatively" stupid
... although, I'll note that Bev takes the cake when "discussing"
other drivers while she's behind the wheelI wrote you at your former att.net email address but I received a
bounce. You have my email; drop a line with the correct address.
Dick,
Harry is just one guy who happens to disagree with you. You are not
going to change his mind.
However, I believe that there are plenty of us in this group that do
agree with you and understand where you are coming from. The sad
thing is that most of those people are choosing to not post their
feelings. It's probably due to fear of being attacked by Mr. Dancer.
Luke
On 7/28/07, mroejacks <rgmustain@aol.com> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
> mroejacks wrote:
> > Let me understand this ... saying someone is "relatively" stupid is
> > OK in your mind ...
>
> I'll discuss this privately (I wouldn't want everyone to know that I
> go around slamming people right and left as being "relatively" stupid
> ... although, I'll note that Bev takes the cake when "discussing"
> other drivers while she's behind the wheel
>
> I wrote you at your former att.net email address but I received a
> bounce. You have my email; drop a line with the correct address.I have a new computer and removed all addresses that I had not
corresponded with recently. Just click on the send email button to the
right of any of my posts.I'm not sure there's really anything more to debate. You seem to feel
that subtle personal attacks are OK while blatant attacks are not. I've
already stated Bob's "unknowledgeable" attack was subtle. Although
Bob's claim that I was not "respected" was a little less subtle it must
still meet your definition. So be it.One thing you might want to consider is Bob's position as an expert in
the VP community and whether that should require a somewhat more
stringent set of posting guidelines. If VPFREE is going to allow him to
advertise in every one of his posts it doesn't seem too far fetched to
require better conduct.Dick
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Harry always tries to take a positive outlook. I'm not sure he's ever
thought bad of anyone in his life. These are good qualities and I
respect him for that. I didn't really expect him to completely agree
with me but I made my points and that is all I can do.
I think this discussion a somewhat humorous in one sense. All Bob
needed to do is apologize and this issue would have been dead long
ago. I've often heard it takes a big person to admit when they are
wrong. By not apologizing or admitting his mistakes Bob has invited
these discussions. Maybe he believes any publicity, good or bad, is
great for business. Somehow I find it hard to believe that most of
the intelligent people who belong to this forum do not see the facts
for what they are.
Thanks for your support.
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Luke Fuller" <kungalooosh@...> wrote:
Dick,
Harry is just one guy who happens to disagree with you. You are not
going to change his mind.