[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V9 #84
Your POSTS are way too F*CKING long guys! Give us a break will ya!!!!!! If we
want Soap F*cking operas we'll tune in to "These are the Days of our
wives"..thank you :) Mike
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:19:52 -0700
> From: Sigel James Civ 10 ABW/LGCW <James.Sigel@usafa.af.mil>
> 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. 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. But, 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, 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. We 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. Now, the floor is yours. Take the
> ball and run with it if you choose.
>
> 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.
>
> 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??? 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.
>
> But 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.
> Mark said some things that goes way beyond simple disagreement and way
> beyond the common insult to a person's intellect. 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!"