"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
> "Ozgirl" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> "Cheri" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Ozgirl" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> IMO ASD lost a lot because of the pettiness of a very small few,
>>>> who appear to agree with each other on a lot of different issues.
>>>
>>> Then maybe we can agree to leave this *old news* and pettiness
>>> behind in the diabetic FOOD group and take it back to ASD if you're
>>> wanting to carry it on.
>>>
>>> Cheri
>>
>> Umm, who made the first response to Alan about this issue in this
>> thread? Who was the second to comment from the Three Musketeers? Who
>> also said EOD? Enuf said.
>
> Yes, Alan specifically responded to *me.* I was not the person who
> brought it up, he did. I believe I said that I didn't believe anyone
> could run him off if he didn't want to go. You're like a little
> yapping dog nipping at peoples heels while trying to stir stuff up
> that's long dead...so bite me Jan.

He said he was chased out, no names mentioned, you picked up and ran
with the ball after that. I also said you "responded" to him over the
old news, not that you initiated it. If you didn't want to rehash old
news you could have ignored his post to Evelyn. If you sincerely wanted
to keep stuff dead then you would have said nothing. I am not interested
in biting people, just setting things straight.

My message to you still stands. You "did" make the first response about
the issue to Alan, seconded by Susan. The same two people in the
original 136 post thread that criticised him for being blatantly
commercial. So in your own words, if you didn't want stuff stirred up
why the hack did you respond to him in the first place. You knew it was
provocative as it elicited so many responses in ASD. And that's all I am
saying about it. Sorry Evelyn.