Crossing the Line (formerly "Hey Jeff"...)

[Sigel James Civ 10 ABW/LGCW <James.Sigel@usafa.af.mil>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Sigel James Civ 10 ABW/LGCW 
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 12:20 PM
To: 'Who List'
Subject: Crossing the Line



Okay, this is the last try and I'm done.  Mark old pal, if you still feel
the need to reply, be my guest; it's only fair that you get your two cents
in especially if the need to arises like a midnight trip to the john.

Paul, if you choose not to post this, it is your choice and I won't have a
problem with it, especially after your post last Friday.  After all, you are
Oz and I am just the cowardly lion according to Mark.  Follow the yellow
brick road.  After this, it's Who topics for me only, if any at all.  All
I'd like to do is clear the air, without malice, so Mark and Kev (VT) can
sleep better at night and the women on this list don't feel that they have
to look over both shoulders when posting because there is a stalker lurking
on the list.


I've already read today's post and obviously, that's a prevailing feeling.
Nicole even thinks that subversives like myself are justification for
abortion.  The irony is, never before in the years I've been on this list,
have I heard anything as cruel, childish and plain mean as that statement,
but I'm sure Nicole will go unchecked for saying such a thing.  She has
support here.  She's probably proud of it too; aren't I clever?  Hypocrites
do those kind of things (denounce and then go ahead and do what it is they
denounce), so I feel something has to be said.  So here goes...

Mark said -

>All I did was wonder why you decided to use words like 

>"big baby" for a nice fellow like Jeff, who's done you no harm at all. Why 

>you go into your sarcastic BS when I call you on it.

What do you mean, "use words like"???  Big baby?  Terrible profanity, I
know.  And that's yet another insinuation from you suggesting that I said
more than I actually did.  You're good; any lawyers in here?  Isn't he good?
However, "big baby" was the one and only thing I ever said about Jeff
leaving BEFORE (the word here is "before") I heard why he actually did.
Once I heard WHY Jeff left, nothing critical about him was said by me -
nothing.  I even recanted the "baby" comment.   Hey , what can I say, I'm a
sarcastic son of a bitch.

But I've got news for you - I talked to Jeff and Jeff doesn't have a problem
with what I said, so why do you?  Jeff's man enough to handle being referred
to as a "big baby" because he apparently understood the context of what I
meant, unlike you.  You still haven't illustrated to me where and when I
"attacked" poor old helpless, defenseless Jeff anyway.  Just as we all
suspected, Jeff was reading this list all along and from my brief discussion
with him, he took no offense, because no offense was sent, meant, or
implied.  He popped me a line letting me know how he's doing and I replied
well wishes back to him.  Not the kind of thing one does to an attacking
enemy, now is it?  Nor the kind of reply an attacker makes.  But your mind
is set, so let it be set.  

However, in the paragraph below, the undeniable facts speak for themselves.
If you don't agree with the chain, then go back and re-read the digests,
it's all in there.  I feel a need now, to save face with the list before I'm
exiled and to defend what I ACTUALLY did compared with how you described it
to the list.  So here's the old college try for the last time.  However you
take it after this post is beyond my caring:

Chain of events from where I came into it:  1.  I'm offline for two weeks.
When I came back, Jeff's gone.  2.  I ask, "where's Jeff" (at the time,
nobody really knew why he left, hence my "baby" comment as in, he's being a
baby for quitting).  3.  Keets replied the following day, "Jeff's got a baby
coming; doesn't have time for the digest lately."  4.  I say, "I think Jeff
should be concentrating on his family and good for Jeff", including the
direct quote, "I stand corrected" regarding the "baby" comment.

HERE IS THE KICKER:  #5.  Mark pegs me for attacking Jeff and worse yet,
informs the list that I was "waiting" for Jeff to split so I could attack
him.  I don't need to go into an explanation of the meaning behind that
statement or the insinuation behind it; it speaks for itself, and all of
Mark's crap about defending Jeff and not insulting me is rubbish.  YOU are
the attacker Mark; you attacked me in reaction to your misinterpretation of
my calling him a baby.  Because YOU told this list that I was a slithering
backstabbing pussy who waited until Jeff left before "attacking" him, which
is not only a lie, but a fucking lie.  THAT is why you got the "Mark is God"
reply from me; because you know it all, even when you don't.

About hypocrisy now.  Mark, I won't use the "H" word that rhymes with
"syndicate" because I can tell it hits you hard.  So I won't.  That's dirty
pool to hit someone in their sore spot, but your actions/words do it for me.
If you don't want to be held accountable for obvious contradictions, then
you should stop doing things like this.  If you do, then I won't feel
compelled to call you an "H":

First Mark said this to me:

>Don't blame me if you can't keep up. I replied to your accusation as it 

>stood. I don't have time to read every post to the list, only the relevant 

>ones that interest me, so I must have missed your "I've been gone" bit.

Only to follow that statement up with this:

>Sorry I didn't know you were gone but even so most people 

>would read ALL of the notes before replying to an early one...

So what should I do then?  You say I'm supposed to read everything to catch
up before I comment, moments after you yourself say that you don't have time
to read everything and only read what "interests" you.  Which way is it?
You demand that I read it all, while you don't.  You don't see a
contradiction?  And you don't like the "H" word?  Truth hurts sometimes,
doesn't it?  If you feel you can give me advice, here's some from me to you:
Personally do what you demand of people and you won't get labeled for
hypocrisy.  Oh, but wait, there's more... 

In the same post, Mark said this:

>I didn't attack anyone, not even Kevin Mc, for starting the negativity that
has infected this list. 

>Of which you are now an active contributor.

Pretty heavy stuff right?  Mark is innocent ("I didn't attack anyone"), and
KevMc and I guilty of "infecting" the list with "negativity".  A statement
that's very ideological in the quest to denounce what Mark feels could be,
the Fall of The Who Digest.  Mark even took it a step further and noted to
me that it's his intolerance of such negativity that makes him liberal and
therefore so much better than I.  It is something that Mark is quite
obviously opposed to, as we all should be, right?  So I wonder why he
included all of the following negativity if he thinks it's so bad:

>or if I was speaking with your voice: The King of crap...  AND

>(apparently lost on your giant mental capacity)...AND

>Wow, what a man you are. Kicking ass, taking names...after they're gone and
it's safe for you...AND

>It appears to me you're just a chump,..AND last but not least,

>It's a pretty cowardly act. But don't turn on ME because you screwed the
pooch.

Infection is a good word.  And, Mr. Hypocr... um, Mark , YOU are obviously
as infected as those you denounce.  Your own words say so.  At least I took
the time to acknowledge and apologize for my comments directly after Keets
informed me of Jeff's reasons for leaving AND for the apparent "venom" in
the Mark is God post.  In other words, at least I give it straight and stand
by what I do and say.  I give you the opportunity to reply/infect without
further response from me.  You may have the proverbial, "last word" because
I'm finished with this insane volleying.

If this isn't clear enough for you and you can't get over my alleged attack
on Jeff, perhaps you ought to email Jeff and find out what he thinks.  That
sounds like a pretty good idea.  Jeff is smart enough to understand sarcasm
and satire so perhaps he can explain to you what I actually said, since I
have failed in my attempts to do so.  He of course didn't take anything I
said as a personal attack because, even though he's never met me face to
face, he's read enough posts from me to get the context of what I say, when
I say it.  I don't expect everyone to understand silly satire (remember
Nicole thought I was actually a fan of Charles Manson) and your reactionism
only confirms the "not everyone gets it" theory.  And that's okay.  If you
thought I was attacking Jeff, then it's pretty commendable of you for coming
to his aid.  But that's all that's commendable from your end.

Since I do respect Paul's wishes (and since this post may never see the
light of day) I humbly step down to your response Mark, whatever it may be,
if at all.  I refuse to say another word and as soon as I hit "send", this
thread is over for me.  Silent I will be as far as personal "venom" is
concerned from this point forward.  But Mark, I can't stop you from making
another false character assassination attempt on me, and frankly, there
isn't a damn thing I can do about it anyway.  I've addressed what you've
said now, and I'm satisfied, but if I hear it from you like that again, I
won't forget.  And who knows, maybe sometime our paths may cross and I can
address it face to face with you, man to man.  And don't think I won't.
People travel to see the Who on this list, so be careful the next time you
feel the need to bypass a disagreement and go for the throat.  Some people
fight back.  You may call me crazy, misguided, retarded, stupid, or any
other adjective you wish (thanks Nicole, "abortion" was one I didn't
expect), I can take it.  I just consider the source from where it came from
and I'm not offended.

But when you start accusing me of what you did, not only are you blindly
swinging in the dark, but you have also crossed a dangerous line.  Provoked
or unprovoked, it doesn't matter.  This isn't about disagreement, Mark.  You
made a point to tell this list (not once, but twice) that I am the kind of
person who lurks in the dark, preying on the weak and defenseless.  That is
the equivalent of calling me a rapist or stalker, and friend, asses have
been severely kicked for much less.  Most all have made personal comments
here; some more harshly than others, but character assassination is way
beyond anything that I've run across in my years on this list.  Now that I'm
the target, you're fooling yourself if you think I'm just going to sit and
take it.  Especially when the attempt in question is so obviously uninformed
and reactionary

You have used the words "attacked" and "accusations" in regards to my
comment on Jeff, which I only said ONE time.  Here is what I said verbatim:
"...if that is why Jeff left, then he's being a big baby."  There is no
attack or accusation when you preface a statement with the word "if".  It
doesn't go any further than that concept.  By saying "if", the entire
statement is prefaced with the disclaimer saying "IF this is what happened,
then THIS is what I think.  But only "if".  And when I was corrected by
Keets, I struck the baby statement and said that I was wrong - without your
help.  In that, I've done NO wrong.  For you to call me a snake for that,
says more about YOU than it does me.  Now, the floor is yours.  Take the
ball and run with it if you choose.  

Kevin in VT said:

>An apology to Mark for your "venomous responses" sounds mighty agreeable to
me.

Are you insane?  Apologize to Mark for what?  For taking offense to Mark's
informing the list that I'm not only wrong, but a despicable human being as
well???  A statement, I might add, that was completely unwarranted?  Should
I apologize to Nicole for her sick remark too?  There ain't no way in Heaven
or Hell that I'm going to actually apologize to Mark for being labeled a
snake by him.  If anyone owes an apology, it's Mark for his reactionary
response.  Not that I even want one or expect one from him.

For you to tell me that I'm supposed to apologize for having my character
assaulted by Mark, for an innocuous remark about Jeff - THAT JEFF HIMSELF
DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH - you're even crazier than Mark is.  I suppose
you think Lincoln should apologize to J.W. Booth too.  Stay in Tune Kevin.

Paul, I am honestly sorry for keeping this thread alive.  From me, it is the
last.  I felt as though the personal attacks that have been criticized
recently by most everyone, crossed a line in regard to Mark's insinuations
and comments.  I do not feel the need to defend myself to Mark in the
slightest, but I do feel the need to defend myself to the LIST as a whole.
Nicole's idiotic remarks indicate that I do so.  Mark said some things that
goes way beyond simple disagreement and way beyond the common insult to a
person's intellect or beliefs .  I cannot sit idly by while someone
incorrectly informs other people of my personal intentions and exaggerates a
harmless comment into a far more sinister intention.  That is all I have to
say about it and I hope you understand.  Again, if you don't post this, I
still believe that you gave me a fair shake.  Thanks.  Hopefully, after the
smoke clears, the digest community can enjoy the list as it once was and we
can focus on what brought us here in the first place - The Who.

Jim in Colo Springs

"To quote the Moody Blues: Don't you feel small?"

No.  But I got one better:  To quote Mel Brooks:  "I'm surrounded by
assholes!"