Controversial Abortionist Dr. George Tiller Assassinated in Wichita - Comments Page 8

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 326 - roger nowosielski

  Jun 04, 2009 at 5:46 am

  On torture. But let me forewarn you. You might disagree.
  
  But you're right. There's still enough life left in me. I'll try to stick around.
  
  Have you looked at "Love & Murder in Cyberspace"?

• 327 - Cindy

  Jun 04, 2009 at 8:21 am

  I provided you with an answer to your last question, so you see that I'm cooperating.
  
  Ah, I see you got my point on cooperation. (That you'd have to answer the questions--setting aside your defense/offense for a moment.) But I don't find the answer you are referencing. (confused)

• 328 - Cindy

  Jun 04, 2009 at 9:56 am

  Roger,
  
  Answering the questions may be past purpose. Maybe you'd just rather say how the discussion resolves.
  
  (It's not the format that is important.)

• 329 - roger nowosielski

  Jun 04, 2009 at 10:09 am

  Cindy,
  
  Well, you put the question to me about raw feelings. And I think it's on the right track, which is why I'd like to stick with it. I gave you a qualified response. So why don't you carry the ball for the next ten yards.
  
  See, I'm cooperating.
  
  BTW, I'm going to take a nap for an hour or so. Just finished my article (you're gonna hate me for it) and submitted it to Clavos. Was working on it since four AM. So I deserve a rest.
  
  Post your response and I hope a provocative question. I don't want you to think that no one's listening. And I'll do my best not to "contextualize." I think I do understand why you want to keep the discussion on a general level. And I can deal with it.
  
  Later.
  
  Roger

• 330 - Cindy

  Jun 04, 2009 at 11:57 am

  Roger,
  
  Sorry. I am confused. I have no idea what you mean.
  
  Well, you put the question to me about raw feelings.
  
  I don't think I did. I don't think you understood I only meant to guide you through a scenario that would be parallel, so I could hope to get you to see something yourself.
  
  'Cooperation'--try not to read too much into what I meant by that. It was factual assessment not a judgmental complaint. By not answering the direct questions I kept posing---you failed to cooperate with what I was trying to do. That's all I meant.

• 331 - roger nowosielski

  Jun 04, 2009 at 1:25 pm

  Cindy, #330:
  
  I'm referring to your #267 and my #270. Your move was next. But if you want to drop it, fine with me.

• 332 - Cindy

  Jun 04, 2009 at 3:52 pm

  Roger,
  
  Thanks for the reference. I needed it. And sure I will continue.
  
  I am not sure if I am only speaking about 'raw feelings'. I think you are reading something into what I'm saying. Or taking my scant question and heading off somewhere else.
  
  That's why I asked if you were willing to just answer the questions (cooperate) without reading into my motives. It complicates things when you do that. You're smart (you can likely often second guess people). But not that smart (you are, after all, talking to me :-) LOL --I couldn't resist!)
  
  Now, I don't know if what you are saying has anything to do with where I was going or not. So, why not take the lead and continue your explanation as I hardly can take the lead from where you derailed me.

• 333 - roger nowosielski

  Jun 04, 2009 at 3:56 pm

  I'll have to do it little later, Cindy. OK? I'm just about wiped-out; the article's just been published.

• 334 - Cindy

  Jun 04, 2009 at 5:08 pm

  Any time Roger. Have a good rest.

• 335 - Jeannie Danna

  Jun 04, 2009 at 5:34 pm

  Hi Cindy, You know, I wanted to comment on the video "The really old revolutionary" but I am not a member of that site. So I'll comment to you directly. I like him...:)

• 336 - Cindy

  Jun 04, 2009 at 7:20 pm

  Hiya Jeannie :-)
  
  I am sure I just missed you again.
  
  I am so glad you like him. The wise old revolutionary is one of my very favorites. I have grown used to seeing him once in awhile as a reminder.

• 337 - woodzee

  Jul 10, 2009 at 3:01 pm

  He destroyed himself.