e-Manners

[Justice]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-01 AT 00:11AM (EST)[p]x( :'(

[Guest regulation]

>This seems accurate, more or less.

> But once the first

>stone is cast at you,

>you seem to descend with

>unseemly haste into hurling barbs

>and insults. Before long

>stones are raining in from

>all sides. If you

>have so many good arguments,

>you are so superbly well

>educated (which, you claim, means

>that you necessarily stick to

>the facts), and you really

>don't care what others think

>or say on this site,

>then why do you follow

>the lead of others into

>the fray? Why not

>just remain on your Olympian

>perch and let the mere

>mortals down below fight it

>out?

 

I don't think you can find any post of mine in which I make any claim about my education. If there is anything that distinguishes me from other posters here, it's not my education but my habit of staying away from discussions to which I have no knowledge or experience to contribute. That's why I never find myself in the position of being unable to reply to substantive arguments with anything but personal attacks. But I do respond in kind to personal attacks from others and will continue to do so. I never have been a complacent target for people who abuse me because they don't like my opinions, and I never will be.

[Guest Hanover]

>I don't think you can find

>any post of mine in

>which I make any claim

>about my education.

 

Not in so many words, but implicitly you do. For example, you write that "[o]n boards having to do with political legal and economic issues especially, most participants lack the educational background to confine their discussions to facts". Your regular interventions here suggest that you do not consider yourself vulnerable to this criticism. (It is a highly contestable assumption in itself.) If you did, then you'd be a hypocrite. If not, then you must think yourself sufficiently well educated. (Moreso than most who frequent such sites anyway.) I am assuming it is the latter. Also, you appear to make assumptions about the educational attainments of others without them explicitly stating their qualifications. This is reasonable, even when applied to you.

 

> But I do respond

>in kind to personal attacks

>from others and will continue

>to do so. I

>never have been a complacent

>target for people who abuse

>me because they don't like

>my opinions, and I never

>will be.

 

But why? If, as you claim, you REALLY don't care what others you don't know and haven't met think, then why do you bother to respond to such insults at all? It doesn't seem to add up. If you don't care, then why not just brush them off? And it is certainly counterproductive in most cases, at least the way you do it.

[Guest regulation]

>>I don't think you can find

>>any post of mine in

>>which I make any claim

>>about my education.

>

>Not in so many words, but

>implicitly you do.

 

No. I imply nothing. It is you who infer.

 

For

>example, you write that "[o]n

>boards having to do with

>political legal and economic issues

>especially, most participants lack the

>educational background to confine their

>discussions to facts". Your regular

>interventions here suggest that you

>do not consider yourself vulnerable

>to this criticism. (It

>is a highly contestable assumption

>in itself.) If you

>did, then you'd be a

>hypocrite. If not, then

>you must think yourself sufficiently

>well educated. (Moreso than

>most who frequent such sites

>anyway.) I am assuming

>it is the latter.

 

As I said above, I take care to confine my participation to discussions in which my background does allow me to offer something of substance, and try to avoid those in which it does not. See the difference?

 

 

>Also, you appear to make

>assumptions about the educational attainments

>of others without them explicitly

>stating their qualifications. This

>is reasonable, even when applied

>to you.

>

 

You are free to make any assumptions you wish. You are not free to state that I have made claims about my own educational background when the truth is that I have made none. You did use the word "claim" in your post, didn't you?

 

>> But I do respond

>>in kind to personal attacks

>>from others and will continue

>>to do so. I

>>never have been a complacent

>>target for people who abuse

>>me because they don't like

>>my opinions, and I never

>>will be.

>

>But why? If, as you

>claim, you REALLY don't care

>what others you don't know

>and haven't met think, then

>why do you bother to

>respond to such insults at

>all?

 

Again, you are inferring something from my posts that isn't actually there. What I said is that I don't care about being "popular." Go back and check the post if you wish.

 

 

It doesn't seem

>to add up.

 

See above.

 

 

If

>you don't care, then why

>not just brush them off?

> And it is certainly

>counterproductive in most cases, at

>least the way you do

>it.

 

"Counterproductive" in what sense? What is it you think I am trying to produce?

[Guest Hanover]

>No. I imply nothing.

>It is you who infer.

 

They aren't mutually exclusive. The fact that I infer something doesn't mean you haven't implied it.

 

But even if you didn't intend the implication, it's still a reasonable inference. You DID make the highly specious claim that educational background is directly linked to a capacity for sticking to the facts. (Are you an expert on that? Are you an educational psychologist? Or a teacher?) Given your repeated claim that you restrict yourself to the facts (heavily spiced with sarcasm, condescension, and personal invective), what else are we to infer but that you regard yourself as well educated, at least by the standards of the Internet sites you frequent?

 

>You are free to make any

>assumptions you wish. You

>are not free to state

>that I have made claims

>about my own educational background

>when the truth is that

>I have made none.

>You did use the word

>"claim" in your post, didn't

>you?

 

Actually, I said "suggests"; you said "claim".

 

I am free to state whatever I care to. You haven't expressed yourself accurately here. You are mixing up the freedom to make statements with the accuracy of the statements made. They are logically separate. See the difference?

 

>Again, you are inferring something from

>my posts that isn't actually

>there. What I said

>is that I don't care

>about being "popular." Go

>back and check the post

>if you wish.

 

The fact that you don't care about being "popular" is stating the obvious. (Actually, it is understating the obvious!) It is simply redundant. You should avoid redundancies.

 

>"Counterproductive" in what sense? What

>is it you think I

>am trying to produce?

 

God knows what you think you are trying to produce here! Why don't you tell us. I can only comment on what you ARE producing, which is one part enlightenment and for every fifty parts pointless acrimony.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-14-01 AT 03:28AM (EST)[p]>>That doesn't stop regulation from saying what he thinks and it's not going to stop me either<<

 

Very familiar words. I'd say famous last words, but we all know they won't be your last. And I hope I'm not violating CTs' admirable wishes for the civility of these boards, but as Tampa Yankee pointed out in a seperate thread....

 

>>Although the evidence is thin, I sense a familiar edge to the tone... Beware of new posters showing up in contentious threads in which Regulation participates..... <<

 

Good call there, Yank. And as the 15th draws near, I think we should Beware the Ides of March as well. Wasn't Cassius the conspiratorial Roman General who, along with some pals, assassinated Julius Caesar? I think it was Caesars' ambition which Cassius and his republican cronies feared. Maybe Caesar just wanted to reorganize, I'm not sure, but it's a funny coincidence that someone who's chosen an infamous Roman screen-name (a usurping power figure at that) should so stoicly defend someone named 'regulation': a person who is time and again using terms such as 'order', 'rules', and 'allow' (ancient Romans being notorious for their need to impose order); employs spartan logic (stoic again, yet primitive); and has already implied in another thread that he would be joyous over my death. I'm certainly no Caesar, but my initials are JC, as were of course, Julius Caesar. Speaking of Romans, this is turning into a veritable roman-a-clef!! Regulation, is your favorite playwright Skakespeare? Is your real name Brutus?

 

>>If you think it is okay for you to do it then you can't complain when other people do it<< >>If it is true, why can't you just do it?<< >>Why don't you try holding your breath, it won't be that long<<

 

Repetitive compartmentalization (very roman) and childish replies (not an insult - a fact). The two most ineffective (yet most frequently employed) tools in regulations' arsenal of debate.

 

>>You don't take a job running a jackhammer and bitch about the noise<<

 

Regulation is also quite analogous. Likes standing on outlandish similarities without identity. There's actually a well defined logic to that. Its' pattern is clear in these various threads. Evident even in the analogy of these two screen names. Regulation is as cassius does.

 

And this last bit is crazy, but cassius has used the word 'nasty' at least twice on this thread. Regulation has stated he thinks I lead a 'nasty' life. Maybe I do by his definition of nasty. But I don't play silly games like the one being exposed, and I own up to being foolish when I am. So how 'bout it, cass?

 

>>Furthermore, Regulation owes apologies to Joey Ciccone and Stephan Lacoste<<

 

Thanks for the thought, shadow, but personally, I don't feel that regulation owes me an apology. He's as reactionary as myself (although half as fun), I've been less than kind (for obvious reasons-but that doesn't make it right), and he's free to speak his mind. If he also wants to speak his mind in the guise of a plotting Roman general whose murderous intentions caused his own ignoble demise, he may do so as well. We should be grateful he's descended from on high to address us plebs. If we only had a Mark Antony to stir up the crowd. And cassius, don't forget where Dante placed your namesake (at the lowest depths of hell.)

 

>>I never have been a complacent target for people who abuse me because they don't like my opinions, and I never will be<<

 

Regulation, judging by the above statement, it sounds as if you've had a great deal of experience with people not liking your opinions. Personally I don't think it's so much the opinions themselves, but the way they're delivered. I'm sure you don't care what I think 'cause you've made me feel as if you hate my lousy guts already. And you're free to do that too. For what it's worth tho' (and I don't mean to be hurtful when I say this), I like cassius better than you.

- JC -

[Guest regulation]

>>No. I imply nothing.

>>It is you who infer.

>

>They aren't mutually exclusive. The

>fact that I infer something

>doesn't mean you haven't implied

>it.

>

 

But the truth is I haven't. The inference comes entirely from inside your head.

 

>But even if you didn't intend

>the implication, it's still a

>reasonable inference.

 

But since I said nothing of the kind, your "inference" is attributable to you, not to me. You have repeatedly tried to attribute it to me, but I won't let you get away with it.

 

You DID

>make the highly specious claim

>that educational background is directly

>linked to a capacity for

>sticking to the facts.

>(Are you an expert on

>that? Are you an

>educational psychologist? Or a

>teacher?)

 

What authority can YOU cite to support your statement that the link is specious? How many studies on the subject have you read? How many experts have you consulted? If the answer in both cases is none, then you have nothing more to offer than a personal opinion -- just like mine.

 

 

Given your repeated

>claim that you restrict yourself

>to the facts (heavily spiced

>with sarcasm, condescension, and personal

>invective), what else are we

>to infer but that you

>regard yourself as well educated,

>at least by the standards

>of the Internet sites you

>frequent?

>

 

You prove my point. Running short of facts, you once again resort to insults. Can you really do no better than that? No one is compelling you to infer anything. Your desire to make inferences about my educational background is entirely of your own making, since it's not a subject I have ever raised.

 

>>You are free to make any

>>assumptions you wish. You

>>are not free to state

>>that I have made claims

>>about my own educational background

>>when the truth is that

>>I have made none.

>>You did use the word

>>"claim" in your post, didn't

>>you?

>

>Actually, I said "suggests"; you said

>"claim".

>

 

In fact you did use the word "claim" in your Post #27.

 

 

>I am free to state whatever

>I care to. You

>haven't expressed yourself accurately here.

> You are mixing up

>the freedom to make statements

>with the accuracy of the

>statements made. They are

>logically separate. See the

>difference?

>

 

I "mix up" nothing. You are not free to attribute statements to me that I have never made, then criticize me for making them or demand that I justify them -- not without a response from me. Each and every time you do it I will call you on it.

 

 

>>Again, you are inferring something from

>>my posts that isn't actually

>>there. What I said

>>is that I don't care

>>about being "popular." Go

>>back and check the post

>>if you wish.

>

>The fact that you don't care

>about being "popular" is stating

>the obvious. (Actually, it

>is understating the obvious!) It

>is simply redundant. You

>should avoid redundancies.

>

 

I've always found redundancy an important tool in communicating with people who have difficulty grasping a point the first time it is made.

 

>>"Counterproductive" in what sense? What

>>is it you think I

>>am trying to produce?

>

>God knows what you think you

>are trying to produce here!

> Why don't you tell

>us. I can only

>comment on what you ARE

>producing, which is one part

>enlightenment and for every fifty

>parts pointless acrimony.

 

Then what did you mean when you used the word "counterproductive?" The truth is, the acrimony is on your part and on the part of others who have never learned how to disagree with someone without actually being disagreeable. At least you were honest enough to admit that I am never the first to introduce insults and personal attacks into any conversation. In our conversation, you have been the first. It amazes me that an educated adult finds it so difficult to control himself.

[Guest regulation]

Joey, despite the fact that you've said a number of things to me that were clearly intended to hurt and insult, I don't hate you. I also don't like or respect you. It's bad enough that like many other visitors to this site you engage in personal attacks to hurt and punish those who've done nothing but express opinions you don't like. That really is a despicable way for anyone to behave. I think the whole point of this thread is that such behavior debases and degrades our freedom of expression, and you certainly have been guilty of it.

 

It's even worse that you cast aspersions on another poster simply because he's committed the unpardonable sin of agreeing with me about something (though disagreeing about other things, a point you're careful to avoid mentioning).

 

And what is all this really about? Despite your paragraphs about Shakespeare and Dante, what it's really about is that you don't like being reminded that prostitution is a crime and that you're in danger of being arrested when you engage in it. You're angry at me for bringing that up and for speaking of it in a way that seems to you to indicate a lack of sympathy for your situation. You don't seem to have it in you to discuss the subject without attacking people who don't agree with you. Dress it up in any way you wish, but that is all that's happening here.

[Guest cassius]

I had to laugh at your post, I picked this screen name because a character in Hannibal used a similar one to send emails he wasn't supposed to send and I thought it sounded cool. You are a perfect example of a poster who attacks others, you attacked me even though I never said anything about you so I guess you just enjoy doing it, which says a lot about your personality. Doesn't your review say that you are over 30? Aren't you embarrassed to be that old and still acting like a child?

[Guest shadow]

woah,

 

I'm away for a day and a half and there are some 12 or 13 replies.

 

Its going to take me a little time to go through them.

 

My next reply will probably be tommorrow since I am super busy today and have been since Monday evening. I'm not finished making my point yet. But bare with me, I will. The point that I'm trying to make is too important.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

Hot on the heels of the latest regulation post, it's a flash from cassius:

 

>>I had to laugh at your post...<<

 

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

 

>>I picked this screen name because a character in Hannibal used a similar one to send emails he wasn't supposed to send<<

 

Well your choice was more than appropriate, and just as telling. You picked a name from a movie about a cannibal, and in a seperate thread, 'regulation' made a crack about me being chopped into BITE-SIZED pieces. Although he didn't say anything about actually eating me, he can certainly still bite me (sorry to degenerate, but I couldn't resist that one.)

 

>>Doesn't your review say that you are over 30?<<

 

You've read my reviews! How thoughtful. Does this mean you're considering hiring me?

 

>>Aren't you embarrassed to be that old....?

 

Well, a little. But it's all I know. Sadly, I haven't been exposed to the same kind of educational and financial opportunuities that others have been, and so must resort to the selling of my body just to make ends meet. It's shameful, I know. But that's not the worst of it! A presumedly well intentioned (yet extremely agitated) fellow recently informed me that prostitution is actually against the law. I couldn't believe it. Now what am I gonna do? I'm torn between being a whore and obeying the law. Have you any advice for an old and confused hooker?

 

>>Aren't you embarrassed to be still acting like a child?<<

 

Not at all. I've actually used it to my advantage. My clients adore my childlike wonder at the world and some even benefit from the innocent relish with which I embrace each new day. My zest for life is contagious. However, I see that you're immune. Are you sure you want to hire me?

 

>>You are a perfect example...<<

 

Thanks, but if you think you can get me to lower my rates for you by flattering me, you can't.

 

>>...of a poster who attacks others, you attacked me even though I never said anything about you so I guess you just enjoy doing it, which says a lot about your personality<<

 

It's says I'm smart enough to see through your transparent efforts to find a voice that people won't immediately dismiss as another pointless and angry interjection. Why not just stick with 'regulation', who's merely disruptive, whereas cassius is both disruptive AND false. And I haven't yet attacked you (nor have I ever attacked anyone else- although I do admit to giving regulation the business.) In fact, I've already admitted to liking you more that I like 'regulation'. I've merely pointed a finger at you. Does the finger frighten you so? And if you don't like being compared to regulation, stop being so adamantly defensive, and stop constantly accusing everyone of attacking you. Any utterance at odds with yours/regulations' causes you to lash out in petulant indignation, and the only poster you've ever stood in support of is regulation. Look at your response to the following post from shadow:

 

>>>cassius, this is precisely my point. Stop for a moment. Calm down, and take another look at regulation's other threads. Before saying anything more, really take a look.<<<

>>I found your remarks to me about how I should "calm down" to be condescending and offensive.<<

 

You're kinda cute when you're angry and all, but if you can't calm down, at least try to lighten up. A hopefully non-offensive request.

[Guest shadow]

>

>I found your remarks to

>me about how I should

>"calm down" to be condescending

>and offensive.

 

I'm sorry if I sounded rude and condescending. I'll get back to you tommorrow.

[Guest shadow]

>

>As for Shadow, he hasn't gotten

>over the fact that he

>didn't do too well in

>our brief colloquy on MTV's

>Matthew Shepard film.

 

I had time to take a quick look at this and I have to say that its news to me.

 

More later.

[Guest Hanover]

>But the truth is I haven't.

> The inference comes entirely

>from inside your head.

>But since I said nothing of

>the kind, your "inference" is

>attributable to you, not to

>me. You have repeatedly

>tried to attribute it to

>me, but I won't let

>you get away with it.

 

See below re. inferences.

 

>What authority can YOU cite to

>support your statement that the

>link is specious? How

>many studies on the subject

>have you read? How

>many experts have you consulted?

> If the answer in

>both cases is none, then

>you have nothing more to

>offer than a personal opinion

>-- just like mine.

 

YOU are the one who claimed that you restrict yourself to the facts and only comment on those subjects about which you have some expert knowledge. I made no such claim. (I think that is an unnecessarily high standard for a message board like this. It isn't an international scholarly conference after all.) I am simply holding you to the standard that you set for yourself, which you have obviously not satisfied. By your OWN standard, you should not have made any claims about the relationship between education and the proclivity to stick to the facts unless, of course, you are an expert in that field. Are you? In what does your expertise in this field consist? You are still evading this question. Or is it just a personal opinion? If so, then why do you fault others for expressing inexpert personal opinions? There appear to be two standards operating here: one for you and one for us mere mortals.

 

>You prove my point. Running

>short of facts, you once

>again resort to insults.

>Can you really do no

>better than that? No

>one is compelling you to

>infer anything. Your desire

>to make inferences about my

>educational background is entirely of

>your own making, since it's

>not a subject I have

>ever raised.

 

You seem to mistake criticism for insult, a tendency that you are quick to impute to others. All I've done is criticise you.

 

You also appear to think that making inferences about the views of others is invalid. EVERYONE does it. (Including you.) It is impossible not to. One cannot function without doing so. What matters is whether the inferences are (1) accurate; and (2)reasonable (even if inaccurate).

 

Re. 2: As any semiotician will tell you, one can make a reasonable inference from the actions/words of another EVEN IF that is not what was intended or implied by their remarks. Even if I did not accurately infer your intended implication, mine can still be a perfectly reasonable inference. In this particular case it was. (I invite other readers of your messages here to comment on whether mine was a reasonable inference. Only you can comment on its accuracy, and there is no independent way to verify your assessment.) You must distinguish between the intended message that was sent and the interpretation of the message as received by others given conventional usages of words. There can be a world of difference between them and the "mistaken" inference can still be perfectly reasonable. When the king of England said "rid me of this bothersome priest", he may not have been implying that he wanted Becket killed, but that was a perfectly reasonable inference, as mine was.

 

>I "mix up" nothing. You

>are not free to attribute

>statements to me that I

>have never made, then criticize

>me for making them or

>demand that I justify them

>-- not without a response

>from me. Each and

>every time you do it

>I will call you on

>it.

 

But you very clearly did mix them up. That is self-evident. Now you are making a quite different claim: that I am not free to make inaccurate statements "without a response from me". THAT is true, but it isn't what you originally said. This is a new version of your position. How many versions are there? Which one is the real version?

 

>I've always found redundancy an important

>tool in communicating with people

>who have difficulty grasping a

>point the first time it

>is made.

 

I've always found pointing out redundancies an important tool in communicating with people who have difficulty grasping that they are just stating the obvious.

 

> The truth is, the

>acrimony is on your part

>and on the part of

>others who have never learned

>how to disagree with someone

>without actually being disagreeable.

 

This seems like a textbook case of what Freud called "projection".

 

>At least you were honest

>enough to admit that I

>am never the first to

>introduce insults and personal attacks

>into any conversation.

 

I never said "never"; I said "more or less". (You commonly fault others for inaccurately reporting your comments, yet you make the same mistake yourself at times.) It is obvious to me that you are sometimes the target of unwarranted hostility for your views. (Although much less often than you appear to think.) But it is no less obvious to me (and to others) that you are sometimes gratuitously and unwarrantedly offensive in the manner in which you make your points in the first place. This provokes hostility, to which you often respond with a degree of sarcasm and condescension that is out of all proportion to the "insult".

 

In general, you do not seem to live up to the high standards you set for others, which severely undermines the credibility of your criticisms. If you did live up to those standards, I very much doubt you would attractive so much animosity.

[Guest Nice Guy]

I started to read the responses to this post..... and it all just got far to heavy.

BOTTOM line, People who live in glass houses......etc.

I know a lot of escorts......and I MEAN ALOT. Some are a little screwed up, some are not. That is not the point.... because the bottom line is "WE" have no place to talk. We do what we do for a whole range of reasons, just as the escorts do.

And to try and intellectuallize this whole profession is just a little pathetic. WE the "johns" are just as big of messes as the gents we hire....... SO again bottom line..... JUST ENJOY and save the heavy stuff for poor George W!!!! LOLOL The economy is on the skids and the gents would be well advised to save their pennies for a REAL>>>>>>LONG>>>>>>WINTER!!!!

NG

[Guest cassius]

>>>I picked this screen name because a character in Hannibal used a similar one to send emails he wasn't supposed to send<<

>

>Well your choice was more than

>appropriate, and just as telling.

>You picked a name from

>a movie about a cannibal,

>and in a seperate thread,

>'regulation' made a crack about

>me being chopped into BITE-SIZED

>pieces. Although he didn't say

>anything about actually eating me,

>he can certainly still bite

>me (sorry to degenerate, but

>I couldn't resist that one.)

>

 

I have to wonder about you, you seem to spend a lot of thought and energy dreaming up complicated ways of insulting anybody who has the nerve to disagree with you. First you had a theory about how I was the same as the other poster because my screen name came from a Roman general! Now you say it's because my screen name came from a story in which another character is a cannibal and the other poster used the word "bite-sized." Don't you have anything else going on in your life?

 

>

>>>Doesn't your review say that you are over 30?<<

>

>You've read my reviews! How thoughtful.

>Does this mean you're considering

>hiring me?

>

 

No, it means I wanted to find out something about a person who behaves in such a strange way as you do. After seeing how nasty you are to other people I'd be afraid to hire you. If I said anything you didn't agree with you might go off on me the way you did on the other poster and make some kind of scene, nobody who hires escorts wants someone who acts that way.

 

any advice for an

>old and confused hooker?

>

 

Sure, grow up and get a job like everybody else.

 

>>>You are a perfect example...<<

>>...of a poster who attacks others, you attacked me even though I never said anything about you so I guess you just enjoy doing it, which says a lot about your personality<<

>

>It's says I'm smart enough to

>see through your transparent efforts

>to find a voice that

>people won't immediately dismiss as

>another pointless and angry interjection.

>Why not just stick with

>'regulation', who's merely disruptive, whereas

>cassius is both disruptive AND

>false. And I haven't yet

>attacked you (nor have I

>ever attacked anyone else- although

>I do admit to giving

>regulation the business.)

 

You're lying about both things, I am no one but myself and you did attack me by saying that my responses were childish and

in several other ways. I don't know why you want to lie about that when it's right on the board for anyone to read.

 

 

In fact,

>I've already admitted to liking

>you more that I like

>'regulation'. I've merely pointed a

>finger at you. Does the

>finger frighten you so? And

>if you don't like being

>compared to regulation, stop being

>so adamantly defensive, and stop

>constantly accusing everyone of attacking

>you.

 

So, first you say I am the same as him and now you say I am not. I guess one of the problems of telling a lot of lies is it can get hard to keep track of all of them.

 

Any utterance at odds

>with yours/regulations' causes you to

>lash out in petulant indignation,

>and the only poster you've

>ever stood in support of

>is regulation.

 

Maybe that's because I don't like seeing other people including you gang up on someone because you can't stand it when they say what's on their mind.

 

 

Look at your

>response to the following post

>from shadow:

>

>>>>cassius, this is precisely my point. Stop for a moment. Calm down, and take another look at regulation's other threads. Before saying anything more, really take a look.<<<

>>>I found your remarks to me about how I should "calm down" to be condescending and offensive.<<

>

>You're kinda cute when you're angry

>and all, but if you

>can't calm down, at least

>try to lighten up. A

>hopefully non-offensive request.

 

I think it's pretty dishonest of you to criticize anybody for "lashing out" after all the insulting things you've said to other posters here including me and regulation, didn't you call me childish and him fascist, hypocrite, pinhead and a lot of other insulting things? Are you going to lie about that too and deny it? Did you think nobody would notice if you yelled at other people for behaving exactly the way you behave? It all comes down to what I said above, which is if you think it's wrong to insult others don't do it, if you think it's okay for you to do it don't complain when others do it. If there's anybody on this board who has no right to complain about angry and insulting behavior it sure is you.

[Guest Daddy-In-Training]

BOYS!

 

CT Dick is correct....So unless you want to be send to your room without dinner, I would suggest that you follow his advise and "attack the issue, not the person".

 

My tolerance is close to exhausted. It is a sad day when a few people have hijacked the tread to simply have a "Mine is bigger than yours" contest. The original poster had a valid point, that has been amply demonstrated.

 

AND I Don't want to hear any excuses! I'm on my way to get the REALLY big paddle!

 

--Daddy

[Guest cassius]

It's no big deal, but before you call others rude you might want to think about how the stuff you write sounds to them. The whole point of this thread is to communicate without getting personal and I'm all for that. The very first post I made on any of these threads I got an insult in response and as you can see above I've gotten some others since then. Like I said it's easy to say you disagree with someone without insulting him or his opinions, the only reason to do it is that you enjoy hurting people.

[Guest allansmith63]

...getting a bit carried away on "bottom", aren't we, NG!

 

...ROTFLMAO on our other commonality....

 

Allan

[Guest Bitchboy]

Only at a site that has deteriorated to the degree this one has, can you find a post about being kind to one another followed by dozens of hateful and childish insults hurled around indiscriminately. Every time I come back here I remember so quickly why I went away to begin with. It's a horrible place to spend any time.

[Guest shadow]

This is WAY off the subject, but daddy, since I've got your attention, you've never answered my post in "Daddy's Place".

 

Come on, help me out

[Guest shadow]

Cassius,

 

Maybe we should finish talking over e-mail. Out here everything gets twisted and mis-understood.

[Justice]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-01 AT 11:01PM (EST)[p]There's a certain poster that constantly expresses views that are contrary to most of the people on this board. To add insult to injury he HAS to have the last word. IMHO, we'd all be much better off, if people would stop encouraging him by NOT responding to his posts.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

Justice, after reading the latest slurs aimed at me, I'm bursting at the seams to reply with a smile (alright - a devilish grin), but I won't. Rather, I extend my apologies to any innocent bystanders who may have been offended by my brand of discourse in this particular thread. I'm ashamed to admit that I find myself as unable to resist lampooning reggies' posts as he apparently finds himself unable to resist... well, nevermind (almost did it again - sorry reg). And really, a sincere apology to those who find this tiresome. I'll just bow out of this thread now....   - jc -

[Justice]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-01 AT 06:47AM (EST)[p]Joey,

 

You have NOTHING to apologize for. You're posts are always right on the money. I enjoy hearing from you.

 

Justice