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

Re: insults

> > I mentioned it as a joke two years ago, simply
> relating in a jocular way the stupid things I
> sometimes do when drunk.
> Mc:
> You might want to let someone give you an objective
> point of view on that, someday, before you jump at
> shadows.

Objective view on what?  That it was made in a jocular tone not to be taken seriously?  EVERYONE here except you views it this way, which is why you are the only one who uses it to cut me down.
>It's no insult so you've got no case. Stop
> trying to make more of it than there is. As Eddie
> Murphy said about Michael Jackson, you're so
> sensative.

It seems YOU might want to get an objective view on that.  You continually use it to belittle me in absence of legitimate arguments with intelligent content.  You don't frame it in terms of good-natured ribbing, making it insulting.  The sensitive one is you, considering all I did is disagree with an assertion of yours over the Who and you attack with a recycled face-punching insult from two years ago.

> > I have moved on, why can't you?
> Did I miss something? Did you not say something about
> my reply? Did I mention you in any way? No? So it
> seems YOU are the one who's living in the past, as Ian
> Anderson would say.

So there's a new rule here that if one disagrees with a post, he can't mention the name of who he is responding to?  I simply mentioned my hesitation in disagreeing with you.   Looks like my concerns were entirely warranted as you went on the personal attack rather than addressing the issue of The Who.  No surprise.  

No worry, I will never respond to one of your "on topic" posts ever again.