Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
>
>>AND YOU RESPONDED TO IT BY POSTING SOMETHING TO THE LIST
>
>
> So did you! You posted to the list several times. Don't you _dare_
> stated I cannot respond to the list _after_ you've done the same. That
> just means you just want the "last word" but won't admit to it.
Don't play dumb. It's unbecoming. I was SPECIFICALLY referring to an
instance wherein you responded in your usual rambling manner to a
one-line statement that I was taking the discussion off-list. I'm not
attacking you for replying to an email that was part of the discussion:
I'm complaining about the fact that you disregarded a very specific
statement about the conversation going off-list.
>
> Rather pathetic if you ask me.
>
Speak for yourself.
>
>>Your victim mentality is well-known here, Bryan.
>
>
> If you are referring to the previous thread with Robert Snyder, that are
> countless people who can personally attest I did _not_ unsubscribe prior
> because of him. I re-affirmed this even when I came back. I _silently_
> unsubscribed and asked people _not_ to state this on-list. I just
> wanted to "get away" for awhile -- I did that before with SLUG (for
> many, many months), and I have every right too.
I refer to an ongoing pattern of behavior, not just the Snyder incident.
No, I'm not going to give you examples. That wasn't the point.
>
> Not because I'm a "victim." But because I merely want to. Do _not_
> read into them. I don't want you too. Any insinuation that I
> unsubscribe to "make a point" will have no weight to them. Others can
> and will verify this is very much the case. My use of the word "victim"
> was directed towards specific people that considered me on a "moral high
> horse" in this thread (totally ignoring the fact that I _did_ condone
> the Asia comment -- which _would_ be a conflict with that viewpoint ;-)
> -- and at _no_time_ did I even infer _anything_ was a list violation,
> etc...
Nobody said "moral high horse" until you did. Nobody said you were
claiming anyone violated list rules. Stop acting like we're persecuting
you for saying things you didn't. Nobody made any such claims. NOBODY
MADE ANY SUCH CLAIMS.
Nobody made any such claims. Never. Nobody. Not once, in this entire
discussion. This happened ZERO times. Get it yet? Is it sinking in?
Stop bringing it up. You brought it up, not me. Not Mario. Not Paul.
Not Dylan. Get over it. It didn't happen.
>
> God, I just merely thought the comments, even as a joke, were not going
> to attract women. Women laugh at them, they try to get along, but in
> reality, they don't want to hear about popular actresses. They hear
> them enough from other men. This has just been my observation, and I
> _only_ shared it as such. You made further comments on what you thought
> I would and wounldn't not object too, and I just don't know what to tell
> you -- _you_ were doing far more "ass-u-me'ing" than you can even accuse
> me of.
You're going to have to teach me this mindreading trick of yours. It's
interesting that I've heard so many women make such jokes without
prompting, to excesses that none of the men around them generally would.
In any case, the initial joke to which you object (or claim that women
object silently, since you have secret knowledge of the true thoughts
and feelings of all women everywhere) was not of the nature you ascribe
to it.
That ass-u-me crap is starting to look like illiteracy.
>
> _No_one_ is "out to get me." Only 1 person (from LEAP) in my e-mail
> life has actually made good on threats, and only 1 other person (from
> JAXLUG) has made threats to do to the same level. But I _do_ run into
> the issue that my "outside the box" _opinions_ regularly cause me to be
> in the "minority," typically a very small one. And then some people
> take my statements, which are _opinion_, and then treat them like I'm
> pushing some sort of "fact." And that is simply _not_ the case.
I suspect that, like me, they are usually actually trying to tell you
that you made a broken assumption, and you're reacting as though they're
trying to say you made an unequivocal statement when they did no such thing.
>
> P.S. As far as picking on misspelling, grammar, etc... remember that
> sometimes I don't have a full-up keyboard. And I _never_ pick on others
> for their posting approach, format, etc... In fact, it's rather weak to
> do so, and displays a rather argumentative and intolerance attitude in
> general. And that appears to be the level you have now stepped to. You
> can post again, but I'm not responding -- on-list or off-list. You can
> have the "last word." Good day.
I corrected one word because it was annoying me, and another because
it's clearly intentional and meant to be "clever" but has been beaten to
death. You're on your high horse again. How's that rarified air up there?
What it's demonstrating in this case is the fact that I'm actually
bothering to read what you're saying, in full, and would like you to fix
some problems to make it easier on me to read. It's also demonstrating
my lack of belief that you couldn't figure out how to run your text
through a spell-check when it's that friggin' long.
>
> P.P.S. Just to "prove a point," I will _stay_subscribed_ but _not_ post
> at all. But I'm sure this will not get me anywhere with you, and you
> will continue to psycho-analyze me and ass-u-me until I'm dead. And
> that's fine, your loss, your fixation, your whatever. At this point,
> you don't seem interested in anything other than my discrediting.
> That's what I get for stating my _opinion_ I guess.
. . .
I don't care about your "discrediting". I care about the fact that YOU
are telling ME what I MEAN when I say something, despite the fact that
you are clearly without a clue.
-- Chad ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:06:10 EDT