[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Monsters and Gods



>From: "Jim M"
>Subject: Re: Monsters and Gods
>
>I'm guessing she proably didn't like you making up condescending nicknames
for her.

Oh, that was condescending?
Please.

> Weren't you trying to piss her off? I assumed you were.

There's that assume word....you know the rest.
No, Jim, I wasn't trying to piss her off, thank you.
I was assigning a character, as she had done to the rest of us with her Star
Trek post.
And, given Jo's tendencies to flounder between being rough on list and down
right fragile, I felt it was appropriate.
Consistency is something we should all be working toward.

>I think you also were incredibly insensitive to use the sentence where she
reveals having been abused as an opportunity to make a juvenile joke.

That's called trying to lighten the mood, there Jim-m-m-m-m.
And, ya know...I don't give a rats ass what you think.
If people want to expose their deepest emotional and most personal things on
this list, then fine.
But, understand that not all enjoy coming here and reading about them.
Dare I say that some even get uncomfortable.
It sets a very dark and deep mood, the type most come here to escape.
So, fuck my ass to pieces for trying to bring the list back to a more
humorous place.
What, was I supposed to make a post of "I am sooooo sorry for what has
happened to you"?
Is that it?
Someone posts about something bad in their lives, and we're now all
obligated to give out apologies??

Fuck that.
I would sincerely hope that wasn't Jo's motivation for sharing that with us.
She has my sympathy, as does anyone who has had anything bad happen to them.
That should be a given.

>Not that I don't like juvenile jokes, but, as the acne sufferer once said,
you've got to pick your spots. (see)

I got a spot you can pick.

>What a shock that she might want to flip you off right about now!

I, for one, didn't see it coming. and feel it was out of line.
I'm sooooo sorry it offended your delicate sensibilities.
Here's a thought, why don't you butt out?

>She must be bipolar! Uh, huh.

Just pointing out the obvious tendency of Jo's to fly from one extreme to
the other.
It gets a bit old and angering to be approached off list and begged to be
friends and friendly and to "not turn away", to then agree, and then to be
flipped the bird on list.

Getting the idea that there's more here than meets your eye, Jim?
Again, butt out seems to be good advise.

>Agreed. We can't pretend he didn't.

Some apparently want to.

>That's how it comes across to me, too,

Yes, and we know how you've got your finger on the pulse of things around
here.
What was that word you used?
Ohhhh, yeah, ....assumption.

>when people try to pick apart comments looking to discover technical
inconsistencies

Discover?  You mean point out obvious inconsistencies.

>that might indicate Pete's lying.

I believe my very first (the first!) post about this stated "I'm not saying
anyone is lying or anything."
I've been around here long enough to know how some will take simple inquiry.
I had my disclaimer ready at the onset.
So,  SIT DOWN!

<snip>

Jim, you have your opinion, and that's fine.
You've shown from day one of this whole ordeal, that you have no interest in
really understanding the situation.
And, that's fine too.
But, some of us care enough about it to want to understand.
That's our right, and it's not something being done in an attempt to
implicate Pete.

So, now, before you go pointing the finger at me for thinking things are
unclear, go read Alan's most recent post.
That's all I've ever said.
Why didn't this info. come out in the original statements, or even
statements soon afterwards, or even months afterwards.
It paints a completely different picture, one that wouldn't have been
pounced on by the entire world.

How's the view from up there...on your high horse?

Kevin in VT