Kind of a startling image for a Unitarian Universalist Minister to share on facebook.
And you said it to him on FB. What is your intention in reposting your disapproval for an additional audience?
Presumably Bill's intention for reposting his disapproval of Rev. David Owen-O'Quill's Facebook face-plant for an additional audience here is so that *that* additional audience will approve of Bill's disapproval of yet another Unitarian Universalist minister going just a tad "overboard" on the U*U Ship Of Fools. . .
Just show he hadn't caused me to lose concentration at all. I'm a stay focused guy and the focus on him.
Steve, I do not know if it matters, as a technicality, but David's FB post had and still has a privacy setting of public, so anyone can access it without being David's FB friend or friend of his friend. Bill could have described the post and then commented here on David's posting it. Or he could have posted a link to David's status/link and commented on it here. Or is it not "legal" to discuss a public post one encounters except in the same social medium? Even the network news programs do that.I guess the question is, who owns the picture, which, sans words, is from Pulp Fiction but in its current form, avec words,is posted in Linda Hawthorne's Photos, though, blurry as it is, she probably got from some other source as a copy of a copy...
Correcting my little sin of omission above -I am just pointing out the outrageously hypocritical *double* standards that the UUA practices.
David asks me to take it down, I certainly will.
Robin, you just go a little off topic on me. Post on your blog and link if you wish.
I think the topic is pretty much the same Bill. I add a few more specific targets and examples to it. . .I will however do a blog post that reproduces what I said in my comments that you deleted and come back here and provide a link to it. That might have to wait until tomorrow though.
Post a Comment