Re: Transfusion-Free Surgery: A religious belief of Jehovah's Witnesses may also be good medicine for everyone

[Sue Begg]

In message et>, Kay
> writes
>I suggest that we leave persons of religious persuasion to their beliefs
>instead of mocking their religions. Today the risks of transfusion are not
>so much death as the possibility of getting a disease from them. What may
>have looked bizarre in the Jehovah's Witnesses a generation ago, looks a
>lot smarter in view of the present day!
>
>
I know that I am a newby on this group, but might I respectfully suggest
that the religious topics would be better discussed on a RELIGIOUS group
so that people interested in ponds can discuss them here.
--
Sue Begg
Remove my clothes to reply

Do not mess in the affairs of dragons - for
you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[Derek Broughton]

Sue Begg wrote:

> I know that I am a newby on this group, but might I respectfully suggest
> that the religious topics would be better discussed on a RELIGIOUS group
> so that people interested in ponds can discuss them here.

They would, but this (and much of the other noise on the group recently) was
cross-posted to numerous groups. Rec.ponds gets included because some of
the children involved have a feud with one of our regulars. She's good
enough to try to avoid carrying it on here, so I see no need to name
her :-)

Unfortunately, because you responded _only_ to rec.ponds, you've only
succeeded in continuing the discussion on rec.ponds and have totally missed
chastising the idiots responsible. otoh, it's not really unfortunate,
because if you do respond, they just continue the fighting here.

I'm always tempted to ask them to leave us out, but I figure it'll just
encourage them. If you _must_ respond to them, send it back to the
originating groups, but _always_ trim rec.ponds from the distribution, and
set the "Followups-to" header, preferably to "alt.null" (and if that's all
Greek to you, just don't respond!)
--
derek

[Sue Begg]

In message >, Derek Broughton
> writes
>Sue Begg wrote:
>
>> I know that I am a newby on this group, but might I respectfully suggest
>> that the religious topics would be better discussed on a RELIGIOUS group
>> so that people interested in ponds can discuss them here.
>
>They would, but this (and much of the other noise on the group recently) was
>cross-posted to numerous groups. Rec.ponds gets included because some of
>the children involved have a feud with one of our regulars. She's good
>enough to try to avoid carrying it on here, so I see no need to name
>her :-)
>
>Unfortunately, because you responded _only_ to rec.ponds, you've only
>succeeded in continuing the discussion on rec.ponds and have totally missed
>chastising the idiots responsible. otoh, it's not really unfortunate,
>because if you do respond, they just continue the fighting here.
>
>I'm always tempted to ask them to leave us out, but I figure it'll just
>encourage them. If you _must_ respond to them, send it back to the
>originating groups, but _always_ trim rec.ponds from the distribution, and
>set the "Followups-to" header, preferably to "alt.null" (and if that's all
>Greek to you, just don't respond!)

Cheers Derek. Will keep out of it I think :-)
It was reaching the stage where I couldn't decide whether the pond stuff
was worth the hassle of ploughing through the crap.
I've killfiled a couple but don't want to miss out on people who do talk
about ponds most of the time
This is end of mention of it :-))
--
Sue Begg

Do not mess in the affairs of dragons - for
you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[Derek Broughton]

Sue Begg wrote:

> Cheers Derek. Will keep out of it I think :-)
> It was reaching the stage where I couldn't decide whether the pond stuff
> was worth the hassle of ploughing through the crap.
> I've killfiled a couple but don't want to miss out on people who do talk
> about ponds most of the time
> This is end of mention of it :-))

I've taken to killfiling any author of any post cross-posted to rec.ponds
and any of the religion groups. It might just catch somebody trying to get
them to stop, but my newsreader defaults to expiring such rules after 30
days, so it's just a time-out :-) It seems to be working pretty well, so
far.
--
derek