J Lee on fri 24 aug 12
for first seeing, and then being, the light of reason in=3D
=3D0A=3DA0 =3D0A=3DA0=3D0A=3D0Afor first seeing, and then being, the light =
of reason in=3D
this Boycott Penland=3D0Aissue.=3DA0 I agree with all that you said.=3DA0 =
Your p=3D
assion for justice and simple,=3D0Acivil consideration for=3DA0the valuable=
ass=3D
et to all potters that Penland can=3D0Aoffer... shines through your every p=
ar=3D
agraph.=3D0A=3DA0=3D0AYou're definitely one of The Good Ones.=3D0A=3DA0=3D0=
ATake care.=3D
=3D0A=3DA0=3D0AJoyce (Mom, GMom, GG Mom, Aunt, Sis)
Robert Harris on sat 25 aug 12
I tried to stay out of this topic, I really did ...
Obviously I am sure that everyone would agree that hiring and employment
practices should be above board. I assume that the current modus operandi
of Penland is now on the up and up. Boycotting Penland (if it actually had
any hope of working) would therefore punish those now working there.
John originally said that the statue of limitations on this has passed. I
would ask ... why do we have statutes of limitations (and it's not just
about legal laziness)?
As Vince said ... it seems to me that digging up old grudges, and dirt,
and misdemeanors, is, in cases like this, detrimental to both the cause,
and the people who are engaging in it. I know that chewing over the anger
and irritation I feel at old slights and hurts is more stressful to me than
just getting on with life and making sure it doesn't happen again.
JRodgers on sat 25 aug 12
I tried not to put my oar in the water on this. I'm with Vince. When we
kids were yakking it up over an issue and wouldn't let it go, my Granma
would tell us: "A stirred turd just smells worse!"
John
On 8/24/2012 11:06 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> I tried to stay out of this topic, I really did ...
>
> Obviously I am sure that everyone would agree that hiring and employment
> practices should be above board. I assume that the current modus operandi
> of Penland is now on the up and up. Boycotting Penland (if it actually ha=
d
> any hope of working) would therefore punish those now working there.
>
> John originally said that the statue of limitations on this has passed. I
> would ask ... why do we have statutes of limitations (and it's not just
> about legal laziness)?
> As Vince said ... it seems to me that digging up old grudges, and dirt,
> and misdemeanors, is, in cases like this, detrimental to both the cause,
> and the people who are engaging in it. I know that chewing over the anger
> and irritation I feel at old slights and hurts is more stressful to me th=
an
> just getting on with life and making sure it doesn't happen again.
>
| |
|
