Assistance!

[Aardvark]

Don't stand there gawping. Get me out of fucking here, you cunts. I am
stuck at the bottom of a fucking slimy well.


--
He is a wise man who does not grieve for the things which he has not, but
rejoices for those which he has.
- Epictetus AD 55 - AD 135

[Dances with Socks]

On 11/02/2012 06:56 PM, Aardvark wrote:
> Don't stand there gawping. Get me out of fucking here, you cunts. I am
> stuck at the bottom of a fucking slimy well.

I call the bearcunt- she is good with slime.
--
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate,
because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he
can understand. -Bertrand Russell
Registered Linux User #393236

[~BD~]

Dances with Socks wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 06:56 PM, Aardvark wrote:
>> Don't stand there gawping. Get me out of fucking here, you cunts. I am
>> stuck at the bottom of a fucking slimy well.
>
> I call the bearcunt- she is good with slime.

You *do* know that Jax is Jewish ..... don't you?

I had a long chat with her on Skype last evening. She seemed very nice
and remarkably well informed.

I believe folk should accept Jax into our group. She harms no-one.

[Dances with Socks]

On 11/02/2012 08:31 PM, ~BD~ wrote:
> Dances with Socks wrote:
>> On 11/02/2012 06:56 PM, Aardvark wrote:
>>> Don't stand there gawping. Get me out of fucking here, you cunts. I am
>>> stuck at the bottom of a fucking slimy well.
>>
>> I call the bearcunt- she is good with slime.
>
> You *do* know that Jax is Jewish ..... don't you?

and what has that to do with the price of rice?

> I had a long chat with her on Skype last evening. She seemed very nice
> and remarkably well informed.

and that means squat to me- a fucking rock would seem well informed to you

> I believe folk should accept Jax into our group. She harms no-one.

I believe you are your own worst enemy.

[Dances with Socks]

On 11/02/2012 08:43 PM, RonNNN wrote:
> In article <k71o34$or8$2...@dont-email.me>, maxp...@yahoo.com says...

>>
>> On 11/02/2012 06:56 PM, Aardvark wrote:
>>> Don't stand there gawping. Get me out of fucking here, you cunts. I am
>>> stuck at the bottom of a fucking slimy well.
>>
>> I call the bearcunt- she is good with slime.
>

> Definitely fits (her/it's?) style...
>

when I read the words slime and cunt used in the same sentence there are
certain someones who come to mind...

[~BD~]

Dances with Socks wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 08:43 PM, RonNNN wrote:
>> In article <k71o34$or8$2...@dont-email.me>, maxp...@yahoo.com says...
>>>
>>> On 11/02/2012 06:56 PM, Aardvark wrote:
>>>> Don't stand there gawping. Get me out of fucking here, you cunts. I am
>>>> stuck at the bottom of a fucking slimy well.
>>>
>>> I call the bearcunt- she is good with slime.
>>
>> Definitely fits (her/it's?) style...
>>
>
> when I read the words slime and cunt used in the same sentence there are
> certain someones who come to mind...

Makes me wonder if you should really be in charge of raising your
grandchildren, Max.

[~BD~]

RonNNN wrote:
> In article <k71olk$snd$1...@dont-email.me>, ~BD~@nomail.afraid.org says...

> What does being Jewish have to do with anything? Do you think there is no
> such thing as a Jewish troll?
>

Jax is no more a troll than you, dear boy!

[Dances with Socks]

On 11/02/2012 09:01 PM, ~BD~ wrote:

> Makes me wonder if you should really be in charge of raising your
> grandchildren, Max.

go fuck yourself

[~BD~]

Dances with Socks wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 09:01 PM, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> Makes me wonder if you should really be in charge of raising your
>> grandchildren, Max.
>
> go fuck yourself

Do your Social Services people know that you have this attitude problem,
Max?

It's not a good trait in those responsible for parenting. :-(

[Dances with Socks]

if I required your fucking opinion I would give it to you.

[Eagle]

~BD~ explained on 11/2/2012 :

> Jax is no more a troll than you, dear boy!

Ain't THAT the truth. I've yet to see a friendly, informative post from
porno boi.

--
Eagle
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy.
It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Chirchill.

[SeaNymph]

On 11/2/2012 11:31 PM, Eagle wrote:
> ~BD~ explained on 11/2/2012 :
>
>> Jax is no more a troll than you, dear boy!
>
> Ain't THAT the truth. I've yet to see a friendly, informative post from
> porno boi.
>

You are free to believe whatever you like. The fact remains that she is
a troll, bent on disruption and lies, all evidenced by her postings. I
believe that if one looked up the word "troll", her face would be right
there.

[BurfordTJustice]

"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:k71olk$snd$1...@dont-email.me...

You *do* know that Jax is Jewish ..... don't you?

--
How is it gonna play with your muslim butt buds
now that you are chasing a Jew?

Does Jax know you like boys/young men when no one is looking?

[BurfordTJustice]

"Dances with Socks" <maxp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k71qhp$5f9$1...@dont-email.me...

On 11/02/2012 09:01 PM, ~BD~ wrote:

> Makes me wonder if you should really be in charge of raising your
> grandchildren, Max.

go fuck yourself
--

He would if he could..but micro dick
has to enlist others to do it for him.

pcbutts????

[Bear]

Aardvark <nob...@slug.sluggish.net> wrote in
news:2f5c1dd0ae353c61...@slug.slugish.net:

>
> Don't stand there gawping. Get me out of fucking here, you cunts. I am
> stuck at the bottom of a fucking slimy well.

Aardie I would love to help you but there's something on tv! lol :)

Jax
--
Bear Bottoms
http://bearware.info

[Eagle]

And ron isn't, SN?

[SeaNymph]

On 11/3/2012 9:41 AM, Eagle wrote:
> SeaNymph wrote this on 11/3/2012 :
>> On 11/2/2012 11:31 PM, Eagle wrote:
>>> ~BD~ explained on 11/2/2012 :
>>>
>>>> Jax is no more a troll than you, dear boy!
>>>
>>> Ain't THAT the truth. I've yet to see a friendly, informative post from
>>> porno boi.
>>>
>>
>> You are free to believe whatever you like. The fact remains that she
>> is a troll, bent on disruption and lies, all evidenced by her
>> postings. I believe that if one looked up the word "troll", her face
>> would be right there.
>
> And ron isn't, SN?
>

You provoke Ron, with those really nasty things you've said. Ron
usually only responds as well, although sometimes he's get's his jab in
first. The 2 of you are more like small boys poking each other with a
stick, trying to get a response.

But Ron isn't the point, and I don't consider Ron a troll. Jax is
completely different. Jax deliberately attacks, she goes after people,
even going so far as to ask others to send her any personal information
people had about myself and Aardvark, so she could publish it. She
disrupts this newsgroup when so many others are trying to make it a bit
more peaceful.

[SeaNymph]

On 11/3/2012 9:15 AM, Bear wrote:
> Aardvark <nob...@slug.sluggish.net> wrote in
> news:2f5c1dd0ae353c61...@slug.slugish.net:
>>
>> Don't stand there gawping. Get me out of fucking here, you cunts. I am
>> stuck at the bottom of a fucking slimy well.
>
> Aardie I would love to help you but there's something on tv! lol :)
>
> Jax
>

A troll responding to a troll, now that's just funny <g>

[Eagle]

SeaNymph formulated on Saturday :

> You provoke Ron, with those really nasty things you've said.

I had my reasons and you know what they were.

Go look in jennicam and tell me he doesn't instigate.

>But Ron isn't the point, and I don't consider Ron a troll.

To me ron is, and I do consider him a troll.

Troll;
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or
message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and
argument.

There are a few here that would fit this discription of the word
"troll", don't you think, SN?

[Eagle]

SeaNymph presented the following explanation :

> Ron usually only responds as well, although sometimes he's get's his jab in
> first.

Sometimes? I NEVER post to that goon. Most of the time I igg his
simple-minded jabs at Me.
ron enjoys the goofy way he insults people here. Having a decent QSO
with the folks here is not "exciting" enough for the punk, so he jabs
and looks for a response so he can return the response and do it more
than once.

[SeaNymph]

On 11/3/2012 9:58 AM, Eagle wrote:
> SeaNymph formulated on Saturday :
>> You provoke Ron, with those really nasty things you've said.
>
> I had my reasons and you know what they were.

All I can say is that you were the one who first posted the photo.

>
> Go look in jennicam and tell me he doesn't instigate.

The newsgroup you are referring to was not intended to be anything about
jenn at all, it was done for an entirely different reason, regardless of
whether you believe that or not.

And the fact remains that there some not too pleasant things said in the
group you participated in to hide from BD.

>
>> But Ron isn't the point, and I don't consider Ron a troll.
>
> To me ron is, and I do consider him a troll.

You're free to believe whatever you like, as I've said.

>
> Troll;
> One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or
> message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and
> argument.
>
> There are a few here that would fit this discription of the word
> "troll", don't you think, SN?
>

At one time, maybe, but now I think it's different. The fact is, jax
rarely posts anything that isn't designed to troll or insult or demean
or cause problems, at least for those she targets.

[SeaNymph]

On 11/3/2012 10:11 AM, Eagle wrote:
> SeaNymph presented the following explanation :
>> Ron usually only responds as well, although sometimes he's get's his
>> jab in first.
>
> Sometimes? I NEVER post to that goon. Most of the time I igg his
> simple-minded jabs at Me.
> ron enjoys the goofy way he insults people here. Having a decent QSO
> with the folks here is not "exciting" enough for the punk, so he jabs
> and looks for a response so he can return the response and do it more
> than once.
>

Well, that's your opinion. But once things took a turn for the majorly
out of line, something you instigated, it never recovered.

All I can say is that if you don't like him, ignore him. The constant
need to poke and provoke is what ultimately causes the problems. If no
one responds, there's no where for it to go, imo.

[Eagle]

SeaNymph explained on 11/3/2012 :

> On 11/3/2012 9:58 AM, Eagle wrote:
>> SeaNymph formulated on Saturday :
>>> You provoke Ron, with those really nasty things you've said.
>>
>> I had my reasons and you know what they were.
>
> All I can say is that you were the one who first posted the photo.

And ron posted the link in jennicam before I could remove the picture.

>
>>
>> Go look in jennicam and tell me he doesn't instigate.
>
> The newsgroup you are referring to was not intended to be anything about jenn
> at all, it was done for an entirely different reason, regardless of whether
> you believe that or not.

What was the purpose then?

>
> And the fact remains that there some not too pleasant things said in the
> group you participated in to hide from BD.

Not entirely true. That was blown way out of what that NG was about and
you know it.

>>
>>> But Ron isn't the point, and I don't consider Ron a troll.
>>
>> To me ron is, and I do consider him a troll.
>
> You're free to believe whatever you like, as I've said.

Thats what makes usenet so attractive. We all can say what we will, no
matter the consequences or who it involves, or if we should say it or
not.

>
>>
>> Troll;
>> One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or
>> message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and
>> argument.
>>
>> There are a few here that would fit this discription of the word
>> "troll", don't you think, SN?
>>
> At one time, maybe, but now I think it's different. The fact is, jax rarely
> posts anything that isn't designed to troll or insult or demean or cause
> problems, at least for those she targets.

I would like to hear from Jax regarding why She posts like She does.
"Denny Crane" did the same thing, but targeted a different group. Why
did he post like he did?

[Jenn]

On 11/3/2012 10:22 AM, SeaNymph wrote:
> On 11/3/2012 9:58 AM, Eagle wrote:
>> SeaNymph formulated on Saturday :
>>> You provoke Ron, with those really nasty things you've said.
>>
>> I had my reasons and you know what they were.
>
> All I can say is that you were the one who first posted the photo.
>
>>
>> Go look in jennicam and tell me he doesn't instigate.


> The newsgroup you are referring to was not intended to be anything about
> jenn at all, it was done for an entirely different reason, regardless of
> whether you believe that or not.

That group was used for nothing more than for Betty to whine and
complain about how bad a person she thought I was and the others who
joined in used it as an opportunity to attack me. If they had done that
to you, how would you have felt?



--
Jenn

[Eagle]

SeaNymph grinned and said :

> On 11/3/2012 10:11 AM, Eagle wrote:
>> SeaNymph presented the following explanation :
>>> Ron usually only responds as well, although sometimes he's get's his
>>> jab in first.
>>
>> Sometimes? I NEVER post to that goon. Most of the time I igg his
>> simple-minded jabs at Me.
>> ron enjoys the goofy way he insults people here. Having a decent QSO
>> with the folks here is not "exciting" enough for the punk, so he jabs
>> and looks for a response so he can return the response and do it more
>> than once.
>>
> Well, that's your opinion. But once things took a turn for the majorly out
> of line, something you instigated, it never recovered.

I disagree. Had the idiot not posted the link, none of the H&D between
us would be the same.

>
> All I can say is that if you don't like him, ignore him.

I do! I NEVER seek him out! Read the posts here from ron, you will see
that most all are aimed at Me.

>The constant need
> to poke and provoke is what ultimately causes the problems. If no one
> responds, there's no where for it to go, imo.

You might aim this at ron, SN, and see what the goon says.

[SeaNymph]

On 11/3/2012 10:41 AM, Eagle wrote:
> SeaNymph explained on 11/3/2012 :
>> On 11/3/2012 9:58 AM, Eagle wrote:
>>> SeaNymph formulated on Saturday :
>>>> You provoke Ron, with those really nasty things you've said.
>>>
>>> I had my reasons and you know what they were.
>>
>> All I can say is that you were the one who first posted the photo.
>
> And ron posted the link in jennicam before I could remove the picture.

That's not true. At one point, he responded to a post you have made
that included the link, and he didn't remove the link. That was an
oversight on his part, and he said as much.

>
>>
>>>
>>> Go look in jennicam and tell me he doesn't instigate.
>>
>> The newsgroup you are referring to was not intended to be anything
>> about jenn at all, it was done for an entirely different reason,
>> regardless of whether you believe that or not.
>
> What was the purpose then?

The group was about BD, Jenn found it and inserted herself there. Truth
is, a lot of crap was thrown around by all involved.

>>
>> And the fact remains that there some not too pleasant things said in
>> the group you participated in to hide from BD.
>
> Not entirely true. That was blown way out of what that NG was about and
> you know it.

I know it to be true. I read the group before anyone every made is
"public". There was crap about BD and references to "the peanut gallery".

>>>
>>>> But Ron isn't the point, and I don't consider Ron a troll.
>>>
>>> To me ron is, and I do consider him a troll.
>>
>> You're free to believe whatever you like, as I've said.
>
> Thats what makes usenet so attractive. We all can say what we will, no
> matter the consequences or who it involves, or if we should say it or not.

I'll disagree with that. I don't believe that's true, although I
believe there are people who do exactly that.

>>
>>>
>>> Troll;
>>> One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or
>>> message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and
>>> argument.
>>>
>>> There are a few here that would fit this discription of the word
>>> "troll", don't you think, SN?
>>>
>> At one time, maybe, but now I think it's different. The fact is, jax
>> rarely posts anything that isn't designed to troll or insult or demean
>> or cause problems, at least for those she targets.
>
> I would like to hear from Jax regarding why She posts like She does.
> "Denny Crane" did the same thing, but targeted a different group. Why
> did he post like he did?

Denny said he had been lurking for some time. He knew what was going
on, and said so. Jax, on the other hand, claims she just showed up out
of the blue. That being said, there is no excuse for the crap jax has
posted and continues to post.

The bottom line, at least for me, is this...2 groups of people went off
to their "secret" little hideaways. They both got found out, either
deliberately or not. It's over, it's done, it's just not worth
rehashing, imo.

>

[SeaNymph]

Jenn, I'm not going to get into this again. Whatever Betty says is her
business, and the fact is, you weren't too nice to her either. Who
cares? It's over and done with and best left behind, imo.

I would prefer common interest topics, like we had before BD ruined it
with his trolling.

[Eagle]

Jenn expressed precisely :

They took delight in insulting you, Jenn. ron said as much recently.
The crap that came out of Betty's keyboard was some of the most hateful
posting I've ever seen. She made george look like a choir boy.

[SeaNymph]

On 11/3/2012 10:50 AM, Eagle wrote:
> SeaNymph grinned and said :
>> On 11/3/2012 10:11 AM, Eagle wrote:
>>> SeaNymph presented the following explanation :
>>>> Ron usually only responds as well, although sometimes he's get's his
>>>> jab in first.
>>>
>>> Sometimes? I NEVER post to that goon. Most of the time I igg his
>>> simple-minded jabs at Me.
>>> ron enjoys the goofy way he insults people here. Having a decent QSO
>>> with the folks here is not "exciting" enough for the punk, so he jabs
>>> and looks for a response so he can return the response and do it more
>>> than once.
>>>
>> Well, that's your opinion. But once things took a turn for the
>> majorly out of line, something you instigated, it never recovered.
>
> I disagree. Had the idiot not posted the link, none of the H&D between
> us would be the same.

You posted the link Eagle. Anything that results from what you posted
ultimately comes back to you.

>>
>> All I can say is that if you don't like him, ignore him.
>
> I do! I NEVER seek him out! Read the posts here from ron, you will see
> that most all are aimed at Me.

I don't read much of what's posted lately, I just don't have the time or
the interest.

>
>> The constant need to poke and provoke is what ultimately causes the
>> problems. If no one responds, there's no where for it to go, imo.
>
> You might aim this at ron, SN, and see what the goon says.
>

Ron has always said he responds to you. Ron hardly posts at all, and he
used to be an interesting and integral part of this group. This really
went downhill after you said that disgusting thing about his wife, that
was totally uncalled for.

Look, I'm done with this. I just call it like I see it. People don't
have to agree, it's all the same to me.

[Jenn]

On 11/3/2012 10:50 AM, SeaNymph wrote:
> On 11/3/2012 10:41 AM, Eagle wrote:
>> SeaNymph explained on 11/3/2012 :
>>> On 11/3/2012 9:58 AM, Eagle wrote:
>>>> SeaNymph formulated on Saturday :
>>>>> You provoke Ron, with those really nasty things you've said.
>>>>
>>>> I had my reasons and you know what they were.
>>>
>>> All I can say is that you were the one who first posted the photo.
>>
>> And ron posted the link in jennicam before I could remove the picture.
>
> That's not true. At one point, he responded to a post you have made
> that included the link, and he didn't remove the link. That was an
> oversight on his part, and he said as much.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Go look in jennicam and tell me he doesn't instigate.
>>>
>>> The newsgroup you are referring to was not intended to be anything
>>> about jenn at all, it was done for an entirely different reason,
>>> regardless of whether you believe that or not.
>>
>> What was the purpose then?


> The group was about BD, Jenn found it and inserted herself there. Truth
> is, a lot of crap was thrown around by all involved.

No .. that group was aimed at me when they made me the topic of their hate.


--
Jenn

[Jenn]

On 11/3/2012 10:51 AM, SeaNymph wrote:
> On 11/3/2012 10:44 AM, Jenn wrote:
>> On 11/3/2012 10:22 AM, SeaNymph wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2012 9:58 AM, Eagle wrote:
>>>> SeaNymph formulated on Saturday :
>>>>> You provoke Ron, with those really nasty things you've said.
>>>>
>>>> I had my reasons and you know what they were.
>>>
>>> All I can say is that you were the one who first posted the photo.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Go look in jennicam and tell me he doesn't instigate.
>>
>>
>>> The newsgroup you are referring to was not intended to be anything about
>>> jenn at all, it was done for an entirely different reason, regardless of
>>> whether you believe that or not.
>>
>> That group was used for nothing more than for Betty to whine and
>> complain about how bad a person she thought I was and the others who
>> joined in used it as an opportunity to attack me. If they had done that
>> to you, how would you have felt?
>>


> Jenn, I'm not going to get into this again.

You are getting into this again.

> Whatever Betty says is her
> business, and the fact is, you weren't too nice to her either. Who
> cares? It's over and done with and best left behind, imo.

If it's over and done with, why are you talking about it now?

> I would prefer common interest topics, like we had before BD ruined it
> with his trolling.
>

I prefer common interest topics, too.

--
Jenn

[Jenn]

On 11/3/2012 10:56 AM, Eagle wrote:
> Jenn expressed precisely :
>> On 11/3/2012 10:22 AM, SeaNymph wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2012 9:58 AM, Eagle wrote:
>>>> SeaNymph formulated on Saturday :
>>>>> You provoke Ron, with those really nasty things you've said.
>>>>
>>>> I had my reasons and you know what they were.
>>>
>>> All I can say is that you were the one who first posted the photo.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Go look in jennicam and tell me he doesn't instigate.
>>
>>
>>> The newsgroup you are referring to was not intended to be anything about
>>> jenn at all, it was done for an entirely different reason, regardless of
>>> whether you believe that or not.


>> That group was used for nothing more than for Betty to whine and
>> complain about how bad a person she thought I was and the others who
>> joined in used it as an opportunity to attack me. If they had done
>> that to you, how would you have felt?


> They took delight in insulting you, Jenn. ron said as much recently.
> The crap that came out of Betty's keyboard was some of the most hateful
> posting I've ever seen. She made george look like a choir boy.
>

Who held her responsible for her behavior? Seems some delighted in it.

--
Jenn

[Jenn]

Ron has never actually participated in discussions when people are
getting along. He only jumps in when he can poke a stick at someone.

--
Jenn

[Eagle]

SeaNymph grinned and said :

> On 11/3/2012 10:41 AM, Eagle wrote:
>> SeaNymph explained on 11/3/2012 :
>>> On 11/3/2012 9:58 AM, Eagle wrote:
>>>> SeaNymph formulated on Saturday :
>>>>> You provoke Ron, with those really nasty things you've said.
>>>>
>>>> I had my reasons and you know what they were.
>>>
>>> All I can say is that you were the one who first posted the photo.
>>
>> And ron posted the link in jennicam before I could remove the picture.
>
> That's not true. At one point, he responded to a post you have made that
> included the link, and he didn't remove the link. That was an oversight on
> his part, and he said as much.

You believe what you will Lady L. ron posted that link for a reason.

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Go look in jennicam and tell me he doesn't instigate.
>>>
>>> The newsgroup you are referring to was not intended to be anything
>>> about jenn at all, it was done for an entirely different reason,
>>> regardless of whether you believe that or not.
>>
>> What was the purpose then?
>
> The group was about BD, Jenn found it and inserted herself there. Truth is,
> a lot of crap was thrown around by all involved.

On this point we agree.

>
>
>>>
>>> And the fact remains that there some not too pleasant things said in
>>> the group you participated in to hide from BD.
>>
>> Not entirely true. That was blown way out of what that NG was about and
>> you know it.
>
> I know it to be true. I read the group before anyone every made is "public".
> There was crap about BD and references to "the peanut gallery".

You don't have all the "facts", Lady L, so we will have to agree to
disagree. There was one other party involved.

>
>
>>>>
>>>>> But Ron isn't the point, and I don't consider Ron a troll.
>>>>
>>>> To me ron is, and I do consider him a troll.
>>>
>>> You're free to believe whatever you like, as I've said.
>>
>> Thats what makes usenet so attractive. We all can say what we will, no
>> matter the consequences or who it involves, or if we should say it or not.
>
> I'll disagree with that. I don't believe that's true, although I believe
> there are people who do exactly that.

Well this point isn't worth dragging out, so I'll reserve comment.

>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Troll;
>>>> One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or
>>>> message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and
>>>> argument.
>>>>
>>>> There are a few here that would fit this discription of the word
>>>> "troll", don't you think, SN?
>>>>
>>> At one time, maybe, but now I think it's different. The fact is, jax
>>> rarely posts anything that isn't designed to troll or insult or demean
>>> or cause problems, at least for those she targets.
>>
>> I would like to hear from Jax regarding why She posts like She does.
>> "Denny Crane" did the same thing, but targeted a different group. Why
>> did he post like he did?
>
> Denny said he had been lurking for some time. He knew what was going on, and
> said so. Jax, on the other hand, claims she just showed up out of the blue.
> That being said, there is no excuse for the crap jax has posted and continues
> to post.

I watched both posters from the start, just as you have. The only
difference is that DC is not posting now.
I would like to see Jax stop the way She posts to you, Mz L. Maybe She
will get the hint and change Her posting style.

>
> The bottom line, at least for me, is this...2 groups of people went off to
> their "secret" little hideaways. They both got found out, either
> deliberately or not. It's over, it's done, it's just not worth rehashing,
> imo.

Well it's been aired out here again, so maybe it will finally be put to
rest.

[Jenn]

On 11/3/2012 11:08 AM, Eagle wrote:
> SeaNymph grinned and said :
>> On 11/3/2012 10:41 AM, Eagle wrote:
>>> SeaNymph explained on 11/3/2012 :
>>>> On 11/3/2012 9:58 AM, Eagle wrote:
>>>>> SeaNymph formulated on Saturday :
>>>>>> You provoke Ron, with those really nasty things you've said.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had my reasons and you know what they were.
>>>>
>>>> All I can say is that you were the one who first posted the photo.
>>>
>>> And ron posted the link in jennicam before I could remove the picture.
>>
>> That's not true. At one point, he responded to a post you have made
>> that included the link, and he didn't remove the link. That was an
>> oversight on his part, and he said as much.
>
> You believe what you will Lady L. ron posted that link for a reason.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Go look in jennicam and tell me he doesn't instigate.
>>>>
>>>> The newsgroup you are referring to was not intended to be anything
>>>> about jenn at all, it was done for an entirely different reason,
>>>> regardless of whether you believe that or not.
>>>
>>> What was the purpose then?


>> The group was about BD, Jenn found it and inserted herself there.
>> Truth is, a lot of crap was thrown around by all involved.


> On this point we agree.

I've yet to see an apology from any of the people involved in attacking
me on that group.

--
Jenn

[Eagle]

SeaNymph formulated on Saturday :

>> I disagree. Had the idiot not posted the link, none of the H&D between
>> us would be the same.
>
> You posted the link Eagle. Anything that results from what you posted
> ultimately comes back to you.

I posted the link here, you warned me about posting family pictures,
ron posted in jennicam with my link, the rest is history.

>
>>>
>>> All I can say is that if you don't like him, ignore him.
>>
>> I do! I NEVER seek him out! Read the posts here from ron, you will see
>> that most all are aimed at Me.
>
> I don't read much of what's posted lately, I just don't have the time or the
> interest.

How's David doing? Is He healing?

>
>>
>>> The constant need to poke and provoke is what ultimately causes the
>>> problems. If no one responds, there's no where for it to go, imo.
>>
>> You might aim this at ron, SN, and see what the goon says.
>>
> Ron has always said he responds to you. Ron hardly posts at all, and he used
> to be an interesting and integral part of this group. This really went
> downhill after you said that disgusting thing about his wife, that was
> totally uncalled for.

So is what ron said to me. That was a fight between him and I and it
ended quickly. I don't care for the goon, and I'm sure the feeling is
mutual between us. If we all hung onto the past, nothing would heal. We
fixed our issues, and I'm very glad we did.

>
> Look, I'm done with this. I just call it like I see it. People don't have
> to agree, it's all the same to me.

I'm good with that. Let the fun times roll!

By the way...Tucker is now house broke. We blocked off the hallway so
He had access to the kitchen, livingroom, entry, andthrough the other
door, our bedroom and bath. He had a few accidents, but now goes out to
the lawn for #1 and 2!
Now to work on the new cat....

[Eagle]

Jenn formulated on Saturday :

:/

[Eagle]

Jenn submitted this idea :

Like taking a picture of Tucker and working it? :D

[~BD~]

Eagle wrote:
> By the way...Tucker is now house broke. We blocked off the hallway so He
> had access to the kitchen, livingroom, entry, andthrough the other door,
> our bedroom and bath. He had a few accidents, but now goes out to the
> lawn for #1 and 2!
> Now to work on the new cat....

Great news, Dave Eagle! :-)

I've owned a dog for much of my life so do have /some/ clue about their
behaviour. In *my* experience they spend most of their adult life, when
out for walks, sniffing out their pee-mail and closely inspecting the
poo of other animals!

http://askville.amazon.com/SearchRequests.do?search=dogs-sniffing-place-pee-poop

[~BD~]

ASCII wrote:

> SeaNymph wrote:
>> Jax is
>> completely different. Jax deliberately attacks, she goes after people,
>> even going so far as to ask others to send her any personal information
>> people had about myself and Aardvark, so she could publish it. She
>> disrupts this newsgroup when so many others are trying to make it a bit
>> more peaceful.
>

> I don't find that to be the case, she's a refreshing and welcome addition to
> an increasingly boring (neener-neener) venue.

IAWTP :-)

[Eagle]

on 11/3/2012, ~BD~ supposed :

It's a little irritating when a dog will stick his nose in your ass or
crotch, but it's maddening when they lift their leg and piss on you.
:-?

[BurfordTJustice]

"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:k73n2l$kfv$1...@dont-email.me...

*my* experience they spend most of their adult life, when
out for walks, sniffing out their pee-mail and closely inspecting the
poo of other

--
Like you while in the Navy,eh??

[Jenn]

On 11/3/2012 1:50 PM, Eagle wrote:
> on 11/3/2012, ~BD~ supposed :
>> Eagle wrote:
>>> By the way...Tucker is now house broke. We blocked off the hallway so He
>>> had access to the kitchen, livingroom, entry, andthrough the other door,
>>> our bedroom and bath. He had a few accidents, but now goes out to the
>>> lawn for #1 and 2!
>>> Now to work on the new cat....
>>
>> Great news, Dave Eagle! :-)
>>
>> I've owned a dog for much of my life so do have /some/ clue about
>> their behaviour. In *my* experience they spend most of their adult
>> life, when out for walks, sniffing out their pee-mail and closely
>> inspecting the poo of other animals!
>>
>> http://askville.amazon.com/SearchRequests.do?search=dogs-sniffing-place-pee-poop
>>
>
> It's a little irritating when a dog will stick his nose in your ass or
> crotch, but it's maddening when they lift their leg and piss on you. :-?
>

Girl dogs don't do that! LOL

--
Jenn

[SeaNymph]

Well, I'll tell you the same thing I told Eagle, that being that you are
free to believe whatever you like. It was not set up for you, you
inserted yourself in there and started fighting because you didn't like
what was going on. Then you brought it into SE for no reason at all.

It's over and done with.

[SeaNymph]

On 11/3/2012 11:08 AM, Eagle wrote:

> SeaNymph grinned and said :
>> On 11/3/2012 10:41 AM, Eagle wrote:
>>> SeaNymph explained on 11/3/2012 :
>>>> On 11/3/2012 9:58 AM, Eagle wrote:
>>>>> SeaNymph formulated on Saturday :
>>>>>> You provoke Ron, with those really nasty things you've said.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had my reasons and you know what they were.
>>>>
>>>> All I can say is that you were the one who first posted the photo.
>>>
>>> And ron posted the link in jennicam before I could remove the picture.
>>
>> That's not true. At one point, he responded to a post you have made
>> that included the link, and he didn't remove the link. That was an
>> oversight on his part, and he said as much.
>
> You believe what you will Lady L. ron posted that link for a reason.

Again, you're the one that posted the photo. Who knows what happened to
it after you posted it. No one.

>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Go look in jennicam and tell me he doesn't instigate.
>>>>
>>>> The newsgroup you are referring to was not intended to be anything
>>>> about jenn at all, it was done for an entirely different reason,
>>>> regardless of whether you believe that or not.
>>>
>>> What was the purpose then?
>>
>> The group was about BD, Jenn found it and inserted herself there.
>> Truth is, a lot of crap was thrown around by all involved.
>
> On this point we agree.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> And the fact remains that there some not too pleasant things said in
>>>> the group you participated in to hide from BD.
>>>
>>> Not entirely true. That was blown way out of what that NG was about and
>>> you know it.
>>
>> I know it to be true. I read the group before anyone every made is
>> "public". There was crap about BD and references to "the peanut
>> gallery".
>
> You don't have all the "facts", Lady L, so we will have to agree to
> disagree. There was one other party involved.

I honestly don't care. I read what was said. That's all I needed to
see. But it's old news.

I don't think so. She fabricates crap much in the same way that BD
does. I'll continue to call her on it.

>>
>> The bottom line, at least for me, is this...2 groups of people went
>> off to their "secret" little hideaways. They both got found out,
>> either deliberately or not. It's over, it's done, it's just not worth
>> rehashing, imo.
>
> Well it's been aired out here again, so maybe it will finally be put to
> rest.
>

I hope so.

[SeaNymph]

And my guess is that you never will. Truth is Jenn, you are not
blameless in all that went on. I don't recall ever having seen you
apologize for the things you've said and done to others.

Time to move along, imo.

[SeaNymph]

On 11/3/2012 11:01 AM, Jenn wrote:
> On 11/3/2012 10:51 AM, SeaNymph wrote:
>> On 11/3/2012 10:44 AM, Jenn wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2012 10:22 AM, SeaNymph wrote:
>>>> On 11/3/2012 9:58 AM, Eagle wrote:
>>>>> SeaNymph formulated on Saturday :
>>>>>> You provoke Ron, with those really nasty things you've said.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had my reasons and you know what they were.
>>>>
>>>> All I can say is that you were the one who first posted the photo.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Go look in jennicam and tell me he doesn't instigate.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The newsgroup you are referring to was not intended to be anything
>>>> about
>>>> jenn at all, it was done for an entirely different reason,
>>>> regardless of
>>>> whether you believe that or not.
>>>
>>> That group was used for nothing more than for Betty to whine and
>>> complain about how bad a person she thought I was and the others who
>>> joined in used it as an opportunity to attack me. If they had done that
>>> to you, how would you have felt?
>>>
>
>
>> Jenn, I'm not going to get into this again.
>
> You are getting into this again.

I didn't start this conversation Jenn.

>
>
>> Whatever Betty says is her
>> business, and the fact is, you weren't too nice to her either. Who
>> cares? It's over and done with and best left behind, imo.
>
> If it's over and done with, why are you talking about it now?

Because when I believe that incorrect information is put out there, I'm
going to say something. So I did.

>
>
>> I would prefer common interest topics, like we had before BD ruined it
>> with his trolling.
>>
>
>
> I prefer common interest topics, too.
>

Well then, let's start one up. I do have a question for you though.
Last summer you were talking about using carpeting for weed control.
I'm still curious about how that worked out.

[SeaNymph]

The simple fact is that some people don't like some other people.
That's just the way it is. There's no point in getting all upset over
something you can't control.

[SeaNymph]

That's not always been the way it was. Ron used to participate quite a
bit, and he was a good conversationalist.

[~BD~]

Eagle wrote:
> Now to work on the new cat....

FYI http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/31uKpp/www.oscci.com/great-friends/

[Eagle]

~BD~ formulated on Saturday :

> Eagle wrote:
>> Now to work on the new cat....
>
> FYI http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/31uKpp/www.oscci.com/great-friends/

<G> This is how Gus and Tucker get along. It's a crackup watching them!

[Eagle]

SeaNymph laid this down on his screen :

>> You believe what you will Lady L. ron posted that link for a reason.
>
> Again, you're the one that posted the photo. Who knows what happened to it
> after you posted it. No one.

I know what happened to it, and what ron did with it. I will never
forget that.:-@
It's over so time to let it die.

[~BD~]

Eagle wrote:
> ~BD~ formulated on Saturday :
>> Eagle wrote:
>>> Now to work on the new cat....
>>
>> FYI http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/31uKpp/www.oscci.com/great-friends/
>
> <G> This is how Gus and Tucker get along. It's a crackup watching them!

Maybe you'll enjoy this?

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1Urhua/theoatmeal.com/comics/cats_actually_kill/

[Eagle]

After serious thinking SeaNymph wrote :

I've never seen ron be a interesting poster, 99.5% of his posts are
insults to whom ever is on the hot spot at the time, so you'll have to
provide a mid, SN.

[Eagle]

~BD~ grinned and said :

Well, Gus IS hard on the lizards around here....

[~BD~]

Eagle wrote:
> ~BD~ grinned and said :
>> Eagle wrote:
>>> ~BD~ formulated on Saturday :
>>>> Eagle wrote:
>>>>> Now to work on the new cat....
>>>>
>>>> FYI http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/31uKpp/www.oscci.com/great-friends/
>>>
>>> <G> This is how Gus and Tucker get along. It's a crackup watching them!
>>
>> Maybe you'll enjoy this?
>>
>> http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1Urhua/theoatmeal.com/comics/cats_actually_kill/
>>
>
> Well, Gus IS hard on the lizards around here....

It was just a bit of fun! ;-P

[Jenn]

I did not *insert* myself in there. I exposed their hate for what it
was ... if they had done that to you, I imagine you'd never stop talking
about it.

> It's over and done with.
>

Is it? Why do people keep bringing it up, then?

--
Jenn

[Jenn]

I didn't set up a hate group and slam one person like Betty did.

> Time to move along, imo.
>

It would be nice, 'cept you keep expressing your opinion.

--
Jenn

[Jenn]

On 11/3/2012 3:43 PM, SeaNymph wrote:
> On 11/3/2012 11:01 AM, Jenn wrote:
>> On 11/3/2012 10:51 AM, SeaNymph wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2012 10:44 AM, Jenn wrote:
>>>> On 11/3/2012 10:22 AM, SeaNymph wrote:
>>>>> On 11/3/2012 9:58 AM, Eagle wrote:
>>>>>> SeaNymph formulated on Saturday :
>>>>>>> You provoke Ron, with those really nasty things you've said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had my reasons and you know what they were.
>>>>>
>>>>> All I can say is that you were the one who first posted the photo.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go look in jennicam and tell me he doesn't instigate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The newsgroup you are referring to was not intended to be anything
>>>>> about
>>>>> jenn at all, it was done for an entirely different reason,
>>>>> regardless of
>>>>> whether you believe that or not.
>>>>
>>>> That group was used for nothing more than for Betty to whine and
>>>> complain about how bad a person she thought I was and the others who
>>>> joined in used it as an opportunity to attack me. If they had done that
>>>> to you, how would you have felt?
>>>>
>>
>>
>>> Jenn, I'm not going to get into this again.


>> You are getting into this again.
>
> I didn't start this conversation Jenn.

You sure are keeping it going, tho.

>>> Whatever Betty says is her
>>> business, and the fact is, you weren't too nice to her either. Who
>>> cares? It's over and done with and best left behind, imo.
>>
>> If it's over and done with, why are you talking about it now?


> Because when I believe that incorrect information is put out there, I'm
> going to say something. So I did.

Likewise. That's why I've spoken up .. to correct wrong information.

>>> I would prefer common interest topics, like we had before BD ruined it
>>> with his trolling.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I prefer common interest topics, too.


> Well then, let's start one up. I do have a question for you though.
> Last summer you were talking about using carpeting for weed control. I'm
> still curious about how that worked out.

I found a roll of indoor/outdoor carpet that was sold in 10'x 12'
sections. I bought garden staples that are like 6 inches long. The
look like big wire 'U's. First, I cut the grass where I wanted to put
the carpet, and then I layed generic black garden barrier on top of the
grass and on top of that I layed the pcs of indoor/ourdoor carpet. I'd
staple down the edges with the wire 'U's and then lay the next piece
overlapping the previous one and just continued to staple them to the
ground with the garden staples. My entire walk way in my raised bed
garden is carpeted. Any Bermuda grass or weeks that peek through the
edges I just kill off with round-up. It's GREAT! The previous year
before I did that, the bermuda grass took over everything and when the
110ￜ heat hit in the summer time and I couldn't get out to cut the grass
... it turned into a gigantic jungle. This year I only had some grass
around the edges and some would come up in the raised beds, but it was
easily taken care of ...


--
Jenn

[Jenn]

You should have told Betty that ...

--
Jenn

[Jenn]

On 11/3/2012 5:02 PM, SeaNymph wrote:

Since when? I've never seen him as a conversationalist. He's only
jumped into discussions to tell someone what he doesn't like.

--
Jenn

[SeaNymph]

On 11/3/2012 6:14 PM, Eagle wrote:
> ~BD~ formulated on Saturday :
>> Eagle wrote:
>>> Now to work on the new cat....
>>
>> FYI http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/31uKpp/www.oscci.com/great-friends/
>
> <G> This is how Gus and Tucker get along. It's a crackup watching them!
>

That's so cute!

[SeaNymph]

You have no control over who people like or don't like so why do you
worry about it? There is no person that is universally loved and
respected, and it's not going to be you or me or anyone.

I don't care.

>
>> It's over and done with.
>>
>
> Is it? Why do people keep bringing it up, then?

Why don't you ask the person who brought it up, yet again?

>

[SeaNymph]

I never cease to be amazed at how adamant you are about making things
about you, even when they aren't. Think about it, you were involved in
the setting up a group so that you could ditch your alleged "friend". I
don't see how that makes you any better.

>
>
>> Time to move along, imo.
>>
>
> It would be nice, 'cept you keep expressing your opinion.

I'm responding to you. You have no obligation to respond, but you
freely choose to do that. :)

>

[SeaNymph]

On 11/3/2012 6:23 PM, Eagle wrote:
> SeaNymph laid this down on his screen :
>>> You believe what you will Lady L. ron posted that link for a reason.
>>
>> Again, you're the one that posted the photo. Who knows what happened
>> to it after you posted it. No one.
>
> I know what happened to it, and what ron did with it. I will never
> forget that.:-@
> It's over so time to let it die.
>

But you don't. You've latched onto Ron because he responded to your
post with the link. But, hang onto it if that's what you want to do.

[SeaNymph]

I chose to respond. You have that same choice and your choice has been
to keep responding. That's on you, not me.

>
>
>>>> Whatever Betty says is her
>>>> business, and the fact is, you weren't too nice to her either. Who
>>>> cares? It's over and done with and best left behind, imo.
>>>
>>> If it's over and done with, why are you talking about it now?
>
>
>> Because when I believe that incorrect information is put out there, I'm
>> going to say something. So I did.
>
>
> Likewise. That's why I've spoken up .. to correct wrong information.

Not at all, you're expressing an opinion that is not backed up by any
known facts.

[SeaNymph]

On 11/3/2012 8:45 PM, Jenn wrote:

I was fascinated by this idea when you first posted it and it sounds
like it worked really well. I just wish you'd thought of this when I
was still back in Indiana and had gardens!

I know weed control is a big problem when gardening, especially as
extensively as you did and this seems like a rather easy solution. So
is it carpet still there?

[SeaNymph]

No one can control what others say or think or feel. There's really no
point in telling anyone that because people still seem to think they
have the power to change that sort of thing. Most people react, and
I've seen some really negative things posted, by you, about Betty. So,
it seems to me the 2 of you are reacting. And that's just human nature
I guess, even though it is counter productive, imo.

[SeaNymph]

Well no, I don't. You're going to believe whatever suits you and you've
ignored or dismissed information I've provided in the past. So, it's
not a situation worth trying to change, at least not for me.

[SeaNymph]

Well, like I told Eagle, the 2 of you have firmly decided how you feel
about Ron and that's your choice. Not my place to try and change your
mind, especially when there are some things that simply can't be changed.

[Jenn]

If you don't care, why keep injecting your opinion?

>>> It's over and done with.
>>>
>>
>> Is it? Why do people keep bringing it up, then?
>
> Why don't you ask the person who brought it up, yet again?
>
>>
>

--
Jenn

[Jenn]

They made that group 'about' me when they made me the topic of their
discussion there.

> Think about it, you were involved in
> the setting up a group so that you could ditch your alleged "friend". I
> don't see how that makes you any better.

Never happened. At which point in time have I stopped talking to my
*friend*, or turned a group into a hate fest so I could dis any one
person for my own personal satisfaction?

>>> Time to move along, imo.
>>>
>>
>> It would be nice, 'cept you keep expressing your opinion.


> I'm responding to you. You have no obligation to respond, but you
> freely choose to do that. :)

As I'm responding to you to which you have no obligation to respond,

but you freely choose to do that.

--
Jenn

[Jenn]

You mean as you hang onto various things you have against BD?

--
Jenn

[Jenn]

As you keep responding giving your slant on various events.

>>>>> Whatever Betty says is her
>>>>> business, and the fact is, you weren't too nice to her either. Who
>>>>> cares? It's over and done with and best left behind, imo.
>>>>
>>>> If it's over and done with, why are you talking about it now?
>>


>>> Because when I believe that incorrect information is put out there, I'm
>>> going to say something. So I did.


>> Likewise. That's why I've spoken up .. to correct wrong information.


> Not at all, you're expressing an opinion that is not backed up by any
> known facts.

You speak up because you believe that *incorrect info* is being put out
there, but when I speak up I'm just expressing an opinion?? I don't
think so.

I've spoken up to correct wrong information.



--
Jenn

[Jenn]

yes .. it's still there doing it's job. :)

--
Jenn

[Jenn]

If there's *no point in telling anyone that* why are you telling me?

> Most people react, and
> I've seen some really negative things posted, by you, about Betty. So,
> it seems to me the 2 of you are reacting. And that's just human nature
> I guess, even though it is counter productive, imo.

I've seen some really negative things posted by you about many people
over a long period of time, so it seems to me that you react to others,
a lot, too, which is human nature, I guess, and counter productive.

Why you say things like this surprises me, because it is true about
yourself, too, yet you never apply what you say to me to yourself.

That's part of why you and I clash at times. I wish you'd change the
way you respond to BD and Jax so this place can make more of a turn
around. You might even influence Aardvark to change his ways, too, and
we all could get back to having better discussions like we used to have
here.


--
Jenn

[Jenn]

Ron has done nothing but approach me with negative comments, therefore,
my response to him is going to be negative.

> Not my place to try and change your
> mind, especially when there are some things that simply can't be changed.

Yet, you still interject your opinion on the subject vs not saying
anything at all where you could instead discuss something more uplifting.

--
Jenn

[John Karras]

Jenn wrote:

> I wish you'd change the way you respond to BD and Jax

I wish you'd change the way you ignore your friends the King and Queen of
Slime and don't chastise them when they do their dastardly slimy deeds.

But no... it's *okay with you* when they slime people who are not your
*friends*. But it's *NOT* okay with you when the people slimed respond to
it.

[SeaNymph]

This is usenet, anyone can post anything. What I'm not concerned about
is whether or not people like me.

And of course, that just begs the question, why do you keep responding?

[SeaNymph]

You continue to miss the point and I can't help you there. You want it
to be about you, you want everything to be about you, good, bad or
otherwise.

>
>
>> Think about it, you were involved in
>> the setting up a group so that you could ditch your alleged "friend". I
>> don't see how that makes you any better.
>
> Never happened. At which point in time have I stopped talking to my
> *friend*, or turned a group into a hate fest so I could dis any one
> person for my own personal satisfaction?
>

Yes, it did happen. There were people looking to post in a "BD free
zone" and you were part and parcel to that. I didn't say you "stopped
talking to you friend". And what satisfaction did you get from
participating in a group that was set up specifically to avoid your
"friend"?

>
>>>> Time to move along, imo.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It would be nice, 'cept you keep expressing your opinion.
>
>
>> I'm responding to you. You have no obligation to respond, but you
>> freely choose to do that. :)
>
> As I'm responding to you to which you have no obligation to respond,
> but you freely choose to do that.
>
>

You're the one complaining, not me :)

[SeaNymph]

I think the situations are a bit different. BD stole from me, he
illegally violated my posted copyright, even after being told he could
not repost the photo. Additionally, by his own admission, he
deliberately set out to attempt to hurt me by making light of my
struggle with cancer, and he did that because you asked him to help,
again, by his own admission.

Hardly the same scenario I believe.

[SeaNymph]

Well, you can't ask for any better than that. It worked and is still
working and hopefully will continue working. I'm assuming the carpet is
in places where you have no interest in grass growing?

[~BD~]

So ..... have you forgiven me yet, SeaNymph?

[Eagle]

SeaNymph grinned and said :

You said a few times you didn't want to bring up this garbage, yet here
you are doing exactly that.
Let it go already.

--
Eagle
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy.
It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Chirchill.

[Eagle]

John Karras submitted this idea :

Talk about starting a slime fest, here's john karras sliming away in a
thread that should shut down, not be continued.
SN, tell this fool to let it go.

[Eagle]

SeaNymph has brought this to us :

I understand. It is a hard one to find.
You are reverting to what we were a few short weeks ago, Mz L. If that
is the case, let me know so I don't continue treating you like a Woman
I enjoy posting with. 8-o

[Eagle]

After serious thinking SeaNymph wrote :

You can't come up with at least ONE friendly post from ronNNN Mz L?

[SeaNymph]

And why should I do that? You have never expressed any remorse over any
of your actions, other than to say that your attempt to hurt me might
have been a bit "over the top".

And since you continue to do the same sort of thing, I see no reason to
forgive you. Not forgiving you doesn't bother me at all, considering
that, as I mentioned, you continue to do the same things.

[SeaNymph]

On 11/4/2012 9:30 AM, Eagle wrote:
> SeaNymph grinned and said :
>> On 11/3/2012 6:23 PM, Eagle wrote:
>>> SeaNymph laid this down on his screen :
>>>>> You believe what you will Lady L. ron posted that link for a reason.
>>>>
>>>> Again, you're the one that posted the photo. Who knows what happened
>>>> to it after you posted it. No one.
>>>
>>> I know what happened to it, and what ron did with it. I will never
>>> forget that.:-@
>>> It's over so time to let it die.
>>>
>>
>> But you don't. You've latched onto Ron because he responded to your
>> post with the link. But, hang onto it if that's what you want to do.
>
> You said a few times you didn't want to bring up this garbage, yet here
> you are doing exactly that.
> Let it go already.
>

I'm merely responding to Jenn's incessant need to keep this thing alive.
Why aren't you telling her that? I didn't bring this up to begin with
now, did I?

[SeaNymph]

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. AFAIK, it just is what it is and
will most likely never change. Always easier to blame others I guess.

[SeaNymph]

I notice that you and Jenn both are trying to tell me what I should be
doing, yet no mention of what others do, or have done, or even what you
and Jenn do.

I don't want this to be the big defining issue. So, I guess I will
truly move along. But, like others have mentioned, I would like to see
a little more "across the board" from some posters, meaning, if
something isn't right for one, it shouldn't be okay for anyone else, imo.

[Jenn]

... because you keep interjecting details I disagree with.


--
Jenn

[SeaNymph]

Why are you continuing to blame me for something I didn't even bring up,
but merely responded to? You certainly haven't "not said anything".
You could have ignored it, but you didn't and instead decided to blame
me. That's just wrong.

This is nothing more than another pointless circular attempt at
discussion with you.

[SeaNymph]

I'm not going to bother. I don't save every post, don't remember the
details of every conversation, and frankly, don't want to.

[Jenn]

On 11/4/2012 9:16 AM, SeaNymph wrote:
> On 11/4/2012 8:15 AM, Jenn wrote:
>> On 11/4/2012 7:23 AM, SeaNymph wrote:



>>> I never cease to be amazed at how adamant you are about making things
>>> about you, even when they aren't.
>>
>>
>> They made that group 'about' me when they made me the topic of their
>> discussion there.


> You continue to miss the point and I can't help you there. You want it
> to be about you, you want everything to be about you, good, bad or
> otherwise.

Wrong again. A group of people were specifically attacking me. THEY
made that group about me. That is the point.

>>> Think about it, you were involved in
>>> the setting up a group so that you could ditch your alleged "friend". I
>>> don't see how that makes you any better.
>>
>> Never happened. At which point in time have I stopped talking to my
>> *friend*, or turned a group into a hate fest so I could dis any one
>> person for my own personal satisfaction?


> Yes, it did happen.

No, it did not happen.

>>>>> Time to move along, imo.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would be nice, 'cept you keep expressing your opinion.
>>
>>
>>> I'm responding to you. You have no obligation to respond, but you
>>> freely choose to do that. :)
>>
>> As I'm responding to you to which you have no obligation to respond,
>> but you freely choose to do that.
>>
>>
> You're the one complaining, not me :)
>

You're complaining .. I'm correcting you.

--
Jenn

[Jenn]

You've set out to deliberately hurt me over a period of years. You
deserved everything you ever got, imo, and more.




--
Jenn