John Lemke has reached the bottom of the sea
Werewolfy
> Shall I dig out your past statements to the contrary? Perhaps the
> ones you emailed me?
You should know that an e mail is a sacrosanct communication, and
anyone making a 'threat' to publish same, has reached the ultimate
depth of contempt.
To respond; YOU e mailed ME. I replied.
I DO NOT e mail people in this group, other than Dani.
If you found my reply to be flattering, so much the better for you.
Opinions, like the fucking weather, can change quickly enough.
What cannot change is the contempt all people rightly reserve for
anyone making a suggestion such as yours above. Contempt of the lowest
order.
Do as you wish, I have no fear of any e mail response I sent you.
Just know this. A 'man' who makes a statement "Perhaps the ones you
emailed me?", can sink no lower...despite the fact there is nothing
whatsoever for me to be concerned with contained therein.
Let it be know by all...by any who communicate with Lemke via e mail;
Let it be known that he will hoard and later refer to any reply as a
form of betrayal and threat.
In my case, I say what is to be said in here. I have no concerns as to
my response to HIS e mails.
No wonder I estranged myself from you. Your true colours are showing.
Werewolfy
Jane
I can see your point, Wolfy. I know I felt the same way when I was
threatened in a similar matter. I am disappointed in John, because I
like John and didn't think he would make a comment like that. I hope
it was in the heat of the moment and that he didn't really mean it.
I know I have always revealed too much of myself. The pseudonym now is
more a buffer in case anyone I know in real were to stumble upon this
group, as I don't always express opinions in real that I do
here...particularly back when I used to discuss politics. Most of the
people I know are more liberal than me and life is too short to argue
politics. So I just shut up about and vote my way. I used to worry
about someone on here tracking me down, but I am so over that!
Werewolfy
" I used to worry about someone on here tracking me down, but I am so
over that!- "
It's natural enough for any female I think, Jane. Men should...well,
be men I suppose. Oddly, I am less...abrasive....in here, than I am in
real life. Here, one may consider a little before replying. Outside, I
have a rather impestuous way with people...;)
Of course, that all depends on 'the day', and how the world has been
reacting around me; some days are fair, others less so!
I rarely send an e mail to anyone..never answer the phone when it
rings, and when out, just go, do what I wanted to do, and return. My
wife is forever 'texting' people etc...I have the great pleasure to
say I don't have a mobile phone, and would probably throw it into the
river if I did, before I would ever use that painstaking and worthless
'texting' system. Beep bop bop beep ding dang bop beep....Bloody
things drive me mad.
Now there are people walking around, apparently talking to the air or
the trees. They have odd growths in one ear and look about as silly as
any Mediaval Court Jester, replete with little jingly bells, could
look.
But to me, you are, Jane..and it's right to adopt any level of privacy
you wish...and that should be understood and respected by all.
I do 'talk' with Dani from time to time. The bloody Spanish
Inquisitors wouldn't be able to get me to reveal the contents of her
messages to me. APN is an open forum. Private e mails are just that.
Private.
Ricky
Jane
I hate mobile phones, too, Wolfy. I have one, but it is usually turned
off. I use it occasionally to get in touch with my son (as he is
chained to his) and in case of emergency (thankfully, I have never had
one yet, but I do drive long distances on my own all the time). It is
turned off unless I am using, has few bells-and-whistles and costs a
grand total of $10/month.
John Lemke
> On 20 Jan, 12:58, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
>
> > Shall I dig out your past statements to the contrary? Perhaps the
>
> > ones you emailed me?
>
> You should know that an e mail is a sacrosanct communication, and
> anyone making a 'threat' to publish same, has reached the ultimate
> depth of contempt.
I didn't post anything of yours here. Nor did I intend to. I simply
caught you in another one of your inventions.
Now see if you can get your knickers out of their twist.
Werewolfy
"Shall I dig out your past statements to the contrary? �Perhaps the
ones you emailed me?"
On 21 Jan, 02:10, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
"I didn't post anything of yours here. �Nor did I intend to. �I simply
caught you in another one of your inventions.
Now see if you can get your knickers out of their twist."
You are the one who has been unmasked. The two posts above are clear,
precise, and unequivicable. You have not 'simply caught you in another
one of your inventions', as your blaise remark states.There they
stand..words from you to me. Words that all may see and consider.
You simply have no answer...and are apparently too small in height,
not enough of a man, to admit your foolishness; but attempt to
influence by using the word, 'invention'.
No invention. Fact, plain and simple.
True colours, John Lempke. True colours.
Werewolfy
Werewolfy
> I hate mobile phones, too, Wolfy. I have one, but it is usually turned
> off. I use it occasionally to get in touch with my son (as he is
> chained to his) and in case of emergency (thankfully, I have never had
> one yet, but I do drive long distances on my own all the time). It is
> turned off unless I am using, has few bells-and-whistles and costs a
> grand total of $10/month
That's their best and most practical use, Jane. A good safety net for
a woman..and I see you use the thing wisely.
I'm smiling a very 'knowing' smile at the '(as he is chained to his)
' Danielle is exactly the same. It's as important to her as a life
support system is to a patient in intensive care. She has one of those
'phones' that seem to do everything except make coffee. Camera,
internet, calculator, diary, photo albums, the time of day in Calcutta
and probably the spectral signature of every star in our Galaxy...;)
I wouldn't mind quite so much, if the vile things simply rang..no,
that's somehow not good enough. They have to ding and dong, beep and
boop, and they play the most stupid 'tunes' instead of ringing. They
even bloody move around when someone calls!
Werewolfy
Dani
"Werewolfy" <Werew...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9cc97866-7f14-42c8...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Oh you're too funny, Ricky.. ;)
Actually, it does have an option to just simply ring a normal, standard,
everyday ring. It's Danielle who must've set her phone up in such a way
that it makes those God-awful beeps etc.. that you don't like. She could
set it to just an everyday plain ring. And the "moving around" is when one
doesn't want the phone to ring (say if they're at work, school, a meeting
etc..), so they set it "Vibrate" in order to be alerted when someone is
calling....rather than to disturb everyone around them at an inappropriate
time.
I hate Texting and won't have any part of it. When people text me I never
text them back. If it's important, I will call them back. But the whole
Texting shyte is just too childish (IMO), it bothers me to no end. It is SO
much easier to simply call the person. I know people do it just because
'they can' ..because it's an option on the device. Have you ever tried
writing on a a telephone?? LOL! Oh Christ, try it sometime. It's
grueling. And people make NO SENSE when they Text, either. It appears
something to this effect:
"wuz up dani. what U up 2 today? text me back or hit me back, girl. ttyl"
I've literally looked at my phone and loudly said out loud, looking at the
thing:
"Ahhhh.. NOPE!"
Uuugghhhh!
The Camera part I do like, though. Because it allows you to take pictures
then send them straight to your computer (no matter where you are). But
other than that...like Jane, I own one for emergency situations mainly.
I like what you wrote:
"She has one of those 'phones' that seem to do everything except make
coffee"
..lol
Cheers,
Dani
Steven Douglas
I must have missed that. When did that happen?
Steven Douglas
>
> On 20 Jan, 20:06, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> " I used to worry about someone on here tracking me down, but I am so
> over that!- "
>
> It's natural enough for any female I think, Jane. Men should...well,
> be men I suppose.
Jane has always had her husband to protect her. But that's not really
the point. When I saw Tony's address posted on this group by a good
little liberal, I made a decision right then and there that I'd do
everything in my power to prevent that from happening to me. If it
happened to him, why wouldn't it happen to me?
But again, it's not about Tony himself, it was about the danger that
posed to his family. I'm not going to let that happen to me or my
family, and I don't care who doesn't like it.
Jane
wrote:
You're supposed to be ignoring me, remember? Who has the obsession
now...?
Jane
wrote:
> On Jan 20, 3:07 pm, Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 20 Jan, 20:06, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > " I used to worry about someone on here tracking me down, but I am so
> > over that!- "
>
> > It's natural enough for any female I think, Jane. Men should...well,
> > be men I suppose.
>
> Jane has always had her husband to protect her.
?????
You really can't control your misogynist nature, can you?
But that's not really
> the point. When I saw Tony's address posted on this group by a good
> little liberal, I made a decision right then and there that I'd do
> everything in my power to prevent that from happening to me. If it
> happened to him, why wouldn't it happen to me?
>
> But again, it's not about Tony himself, it was about the danger that
> posed to his family.
By your own logic, Tony's family was never in any danger, because they
had Tony to *protect* them.
Steven Douglas
I said I'd ignore you until you restarted the taunting. But in this
case, I'm sincerely concerned that you were threatened "in a similar
manner" to the way John threatened Ricky. Who would do such a thing?
Seriously, I'd like to know who it was.
Steven Douglas
>
> On Jan 21, 11:46 am, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 3:07 pm, Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 20 Jan, 20:06, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > " I used to worry about someone on here tracking me down, but I am so
> > > over that!- "
>
> > > It's natural enough for any female I think, Jane. Men should...well,
> > > be men I suppose.
>
> > Jane has always had her husband to protect her.
>
> ????? You really can't control your misogynist nature, can you?
Actually, it was Ricky who said it's natural for a female to want to
prevent people from tracking you down, but men should be men. Well,
you have a man, so in that case, why should you have ever been
concerned?
Jane
Nice try, but it doesn't fly.
You forgot to address Tony not being able to *protect* his wife.
Steven Douglas
Actually, it does fly since I was responding to Ricky's parameters.
But of course you'll ignore what he wrote and go straight to my reply.
Jane
I know what Ricky wrote. It still doesn't fly.
Steven Douglas
Yes, and you're perfectly willing to ignore that I was responding to
his parameters. I'd have never made the comment I did other than as a
comment on what Ricky wrote.
>
> It still doesn't fly.
It flies, but you're being your usual obstinate self.
Jane
Give me a break! You're obviously obsessed with me and can't help
yourself...even after publicly announcing your intention to ignore me.
Steven Douglas
I wrote a response to Ricky -- understand, it was to Ricky -- and you
jumped all over it. As I said in that response, the fact your husband
could have protected you was not really my point. Nor was it my point
that Tony could have protected his family. My point was that there's
nothing wrong with someone wanting to prevent his or her address from
being revealed, whether the person is a woman or a man.
Jane
No, where you said, "I must have missed that. When did that happen?",
you were clearly responding to MY post! THAT is when I asked you why
you weren't ignoring me and you gave me some horseshit about being
concerned.
You have proven you can't comprehend what you read, but sheesh! While
the comment about my husband protecting me was to Ricky, you had
already responded to *me* in the post just above it, breaking your vow
to ignore me in...what?...less than a day?
Steven Douglas
Oh yes, that! I almost forgot about that after you jumped all over my
comment to Ricky.
Yes, now that you've reminded me, I am concerned that there's a person
who posts here who threatened you "in a similar manner" to the way
John threatened Ricky. Since you brought it up, I'd like to know who
that person is.
>
> You have proven you can't comprehend what you read, but sheesh!
No, that would be you, since I said I would ignore you unless you
restarted the taunting.
>
> While
> the comment about my husband protecting me was to Ricky, you had
> already responded to *me* in the post just above it, breaking your vow
> to ignore me in...what?...less than a day?
It wasn't a vow, but it was also qualified with "unless you restart
the taunting" ...
Jane
Which I did not do...oh, dear, I forgot...EVERYTHING, no matter how
innocuous is a taunt to you, if I say it. You know, if you weren't so
overwhelmingly obsessed with me, you could ignore me no matter what I
said. Your qualifier was just a convenient way to not have to really
ignore me at all.
I challenge you to REALLY ignore me for a week!
Steven Douglas
Why won't you say who threatened you "in a similar manner" to the way
John threatened Ricky? It's not a difficult question, you know.
>
> You know, if you weren't so
> overwhelmingly obsessed with me, you could ignore me no matter what I
> said. Your qualifier was just a convenient way to not have to really
> ignore me at all.
Each and every time I've said I'll stop the taunting if you will
(including times you agreed to it), you restarted the taunting. Every
single time.
>
> I challenge you to REALLY ignore me for a week!
I will IF you stop the taunting. Now, before I start ignoring you
again, why don't you just tell everyone who it was who threatened you
Jane
Frankly, it's none of your business.
Now, show me you really can ignore me. Surely, if I *taunt* you and
get no response, I will soon get bored...no?
Steven Douglas
I see. So you're indicting someone with your accusation of threatening
you "in a similar manner" to the way John threatened Ricky, but you
don't have the guts to actually name the person. What a coward.
>
> Now, show me you really can ignore me. Surely, if I *taunt* you and
> get no response, I will soon get bored...no?
Each time I've said I'll ignore you, it was in the context of I'll
stop the taunting if you stop the taunting. That still stands. Stop
the taunting, and I'll definitely ignore you.
Jane
I'm sure all you nee to know is in the archives.
>
>
> > Now, show me you really can ignore me. Surely, if I *taunt* you and
> > get no response, I will soon get bored...no?
>
> Each time I've said I'll ignore you, it was in the context of I'll
> stop the taunting if you stop the taunting. That still stands. Stop
> the taunting, and I'll definitely ignore you.
I did not taunt and still you did not ignore. You can't ignore me.
Steven Douglas
I thought of that. I looked, it's not in there. It doesn't exist. You
made it up.
>
> > > Now, show me you really can ignore me. Surely, if I *taunt* you and
> > > get no response, I will soon get bored...no?
>
> > Each time I've said I'll ignore you, it was in the context of I'll
> > stop the taunting if you stop the taunting. That still stands. Stop
> > the taunting, and I'll definitely ignore you.
>
> I did not taunt and still you did not ignore. You can't ignore me.
You threw out a fictional indictment (in other words, a lie). Somehow
I can't get past the idea your lie was about me. That's why I was
hoping you'd have the guts to name the person you accused. But you
refuse. Coward.
Steven Douglas
I see no reason why I should ignore your lies, liar. There was no
threat that was "in a similar manner" to the way John threatened
Ricky. You're a liar and a coward. You know it, and everyone else
knows it now.
Jane
Well, it gave you something to do tonight.
>
> > > > Now, show me you really can ignore me. Surely, if I *taunt* you and
> > > > get no response, I will soon get bored...no?
>
> > > Each time I've said I'll ignore you, it was in the context of I'll
> > > stop the taunting if you stop the taunting. That still stands. Stop
> > > the taunting, and I'll definitely ignore you.
>
> > I did not taunt and still you did not ignore. You can't ignore me.
>
> You threw out a fictional indictment (in other words, a lie).
Nope. Something similar did happen. Not exactly the same situation (no
one threatened to reveal an e-mail; but they did hint about revealing
other personal details).
Somehow
> I can't get past the idea your lie was about me. That's why I was
> hoping you'd have the guts to name the person you accused. But you
> refuse. Coward.
Your egomania has reached an extreme. If you * knew* that you had
never threatened me AND I did not actually accuse anyone of anything,
since I didn't name them, why the hell would you go digging through
archives and obsessing about this all evening? Either you feel guilty
for some reason or you have OCD.
Seek help.
Steven Douglas
>
> On Jan 21, 8:53 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 21, 5:26 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 21, 7:51 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 21, 4:48 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 21, 7:15 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 21, 4:07 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I challenge you to REALLY ignore me for a week!
>
> > > > > > I will IF you stop the taunting. Now, before I start ignoring you
> > > > > > again, why don't you just tell everyone who it was who threatened you
> > > > > > "in a similar manner" to the way John threatened Ricky.
>
> > > > > Frankly, it's none of your business.
>
> > > > I see. So you're indicting someone with your accusation of threatening
> > > > you "in a similar manner" to the way John threatened Ricky, but you
> > > > don't have the guts to actually name the person. What a coward.
>
> > > What's it to you? I was talking to Ricky. If you are that interested,
> > > I'm sure all you nee to know is in the archives.
>
> > I thought of that. I looked, it's not in there. It doesn't exist. You
> > made it up.
>
> Well, it gave you something to do tonight.
I didn't have to. There was no need since it doesn't exist. You made
the whole thing up.
>
> > > > > Now, show me you really can ignore me. Surely, if I *taunt* you and
> > > > > get no response, I will soon get bored...no?
>
> > > > Each time I've said I'll ignore you, it was in the context of I'll
> > > > stop the taunting if you stop the taunting. That still stands. Stop
> > > > the taunting, and I'll definitely ignore you.
>
> > > I did not taunt and still you did not ignore. You can't ignore me.
>
> > You threw out a fictional indictment (in other words, a lie).
>
> Nope. Something similar did happen. Not exactly the same situation (no
> one threatened to reveal an e-mail; but they did hint about revealing
> other personal details).
Who did that? I'm the only person you've falsely accused of anything
even remotely like that. So if you're not talking about me, just say
so and end this.
>
> >Somehow
> > I can't get past the idea your lie was about me. That's why I was
> > hoping you'd have the guts to name the person you accused. But you
> > refuse. Coward.
>
> Your egomania has reached an extreme. If you * knew* that you had
> never threatened me AND I did not actually accuse anyone of anything,
> since I didn't name them, why the hell would you go digging through
> archives and obsessing about this all evening?
I didn't. The only reason I think you *might* have invented this new
fiction is because of the other times you've falsely accused me of
threatening you.
>
> Either you feel guilty
> for some reason or you have OCD.
Neither. I don't like being lied about by liars, liar.
>
> Seek help.
I don't need help. What I'd like is for you to stop lying about me.
Jane
Well, either you looked or you didn't. You said you did. I have posts
here going back to 2002. Must have kept you awfully busy.
>
> > > > > > Now, show me you really can ignore me. Surely, if I *taunt* you and
> > > > > > get no response, I will soon get bored...no?
>
> > > > > Each time I've said I'll ignore you, it was in the context of I'll
> > > > > stop the taunting if you stop the taunting. That still stands. Stop
> > > > > the taunting, and I'll definitely ignore you.
>
> > > > I did not taunt and still you did not ignore. You can't ignore me.
>
> > > You threw out a fictional indictment (in other words, a lie).
>
> > Nope. Something similar did happen. Not exactly the same situation (no
> > one threatened to reveal an e-mail; but they did hint about revealing
> > other personal details).
>
> Who did that? I'm the only person you've falsely accused of anything
> even remotely like that.
Actually, that is not true. Anyway, I was not alone in perceiving it
as a threat, albeit a mild one. Surely you remember the 'shrill,
shrieking' women?
So if you're not talking about me, just say
> so and end this.
I am ending it. Now. I wasn't talking to you and it is none of your
business.
Steven Douglas
No, typing in a few appropriate key words takes about a minute.
There's nothing there. You made it all up. You're a liar.
>
> > > > > > > Now, show me you really can ignore me. Surely, if I *taunt* you and
> > > > > > > get no response, I will soon get bored...no?
>
> > > > > > Each time I've said I'll ignore you, it was in the context of I'll
> > > > > > stop the taunting if you stop the taunting. That still stands. Stop
> > > > > > the taunting, and I'll definitely ignore you.
>
> > > > > I did not taunt and still you did not ignore. You can't ignore me.
>
> > > > You threw out a fictional indictment (in other words, a lie).
>
> > > Nope. Something similar did happen. Not exactly the same situation (no
> > > one threatened to reveal an e-mail; but they did hint about revealing
> > > other personal details).
>
> > Who did that? I'm the only person you've falsely accused of anything
> > even remotely like that.
>
> Actually, that is not true. Anyway, I was not alone in perceiving it
> as a threat, albeit a mild one. Surely you remember the 'shrill,
> shrieking' women?
The shrill shrieking liars? Of course I remember them. They now know
they were wrong, too. I never threatened you, in any way. But you've
enjoyed playing the poor little delicate flower, haven't you? You've
enjoyed playing the victim of the big bad man who "threatened" you.
How pathetic.
>
> >So if you're not talking about me, just say
> > so and end this.
>
> I am ending it. Now. I wasn't talking to you and it is none of your
> business.
Still can't bring yourself to admit what you were doing, can you
cowardly liar? You really are pathetic.
Jane
You're insane. I named no one; I accused no one by name.
Werewolfy
> On Jan 22, 12:31�am, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
As a certified lunatic and family guidance advisor, may I interject
and suggest that you don't marry Steven, Jane....and Steven, you don't
marry Jane?.......;)
The prospect makes WW3 pale into insignificance!
Ricky
Steven Douglas
I know. That's why it's so cowardly. You left it hanging out there as
an unnamed indictment of *someone* without naming the person. But
since I'm the *only* possible candidate for your cowardly lie, it's an
indictment of me. Oh, you could have cleared it up and said you
weren't talking about me, but you refused. So once again, let me clear
it up for anyone who might still wonder: I did not threaten you "in a
manner similar" to the way John threatened Ricky. It was *wrong* for
you to make that lying accusation, but you're too much of a coward to
admit it.
Steven Douglas
>
> On 22 Jan, 13:20, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 22, 12:31 am, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> As a certified lunatic and family guidance advisor, may I interject
> and suggest that you don't marry Steven, Jane....and Steven, you don't
> marry Jane?.......;)
Not a chance of that ever happening, but I do appreciate the good
advice.
Dani
"Werewolfy" <Werew...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e699585e-2533-420f...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> I do 'talk' with Dani from time to time. The bloody Spanish
> Inquisitors wouldn't be able to get me to reveal the contents of her
> messages to me.
.. ;)
Same here, Ricky. Same here.
All the best,
Dani
Dani
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:32ecc7c1-d4a7-49e9...@r19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, now that you've reminded me, I am concerned that there's a person
> who posts here who threatened you "in a similar manner" to the way
> John threatened Ricky.
Alright, I'm lost here. I haven't been keeping up with the group lately,
unfortunately.
Someone please fill me in here...John threatened Ricky? Where? When? In
what sense etc..?
I know that Ricky is afraid of no man (or woman for that matter), I know
that much. But I know nothing of a "threat" being posed to him?
Thanks in advance.
Dani
Steven Douglas
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Yes, now that you've reminded me, I am concerned that there's a person
> > who posts here who threatened you "in a similar manner" to the way
> > John threatened Ricky.
>
> Alright, I'm lost here. I haven't been keeping up with the group lately,
> unfortunately.
>
> Someone please fill me in here...John threatened Ricky? Where? When? In
> what sense etc..?
>
> I know that Ricky is afraid of no man (or woman for that matter), I know
> that much. But I know nothing of a "threat" being posed to him?
>
> Thanks in advance.
Ricky is not afraid of anything. Read the first two posts in this
thread. It will explain all the commotion taking place in this thread.
Dani
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c305be7-8cd1-49a2...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 22, 10:50 am, "Dani" <purplewildflo...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > Yes, now that you've reminded me, I am concerned that there's a person
>> > who posts here who threatened you "in a similar manner" to the way
>> > John threatened Ricky.
>>
>> Alright, I'm lost here. I haven't been keeping up with the group lately,
>> unfortunately.
>>
>> Someone please fill me in here...John threatened Ricky? Where? When?
>> In
>> what sense etc..?
>>
>> I know that Ricky is afraid of no man (or woman for that matter), I know
>> that much. But I know nothing of a "threat" being posed to him?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
> Ricky is not afraid of anything.
I know...I just said that!
>Read the first two posts in this
> thread. It will explain all the commotion taking place in this thread.
Why can't you just quickly sum it up for me?
Whatever. I'll go read it.
Thanks for nuthin'
Dani
Dani
"Dani" <purplewi...@live.com> wrote in message
news:m-mdnSlo3L1qa8TW...@giganews.com...
Okay, Steven. All that I've gathered is that John threatened to publicly
post something Ricky wrote to him in private? Is that the scoop? But I
don't see a post where John states that...which is why I initially wrote;
"Where?"
Forget it. Hopefully someone else will answer me.
Dani
Steven Douglas
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > On Jan 22, 10:50 am, "Dani" <purplewildflo...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > Yes, now that you've reminded me, I am concerned that there's a person
> >> > who posts here who threatened you "in a similar manner" to the way
> >> > John threatened Ricky.
>
> >> Alright, I'm lost here. I haven't been keeping up with the group lately,
> >> unfortunately.
>
> >> Someone please fill me in here...John threatened Ricky? Where? When?
> >> In
> >> what sense etc..?
>
> >> I know that Ricky is afraid of no man (or woman for that matter), I know
> >> that much. But I know nothing of a "threat" being posed to him?
>
> >> Thanks in advance.
> > Ricky is not afraid of anything.
>
> I know...I just said that!
>
> >Read the first two posts in this
> > thread. It will explain all the commotion taking place in this thread.
>
> Why can't you just quickly sum it up for me?
>
> Whatever. I'll go read it.
>
> Thanks for nuthin'
Why should I sum it up when you can go read what actually happened?
Steven Douglas
>
> "Dani" <purplewildflo...@live.com> wrote in message
Maybe John will show you. And maybe Jane will show everyone where she
was threatened "in a similar manner." But I doubt it, since in Jane's
case, it never happened to her. She made the whole thing up.
Dani
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b248644-36d2-4081...@k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
What the fuckin' hell are you talking about? "Made-up" what? I asked about
Ricky getting a threat. And you're talking about Jane??
Fuck it. Maybe I don't want to know.
Dani
Steven Douglas
Jane wrote the second post in this thread. That's why I told you to
read the first two posts. Jane expressed her disappointment in John
while saying she had been threatened "in a similar manner." Except she
has never been threatened in a similar manner, and though she says
it's in the archives, she's wrong. It doesn't exist. She made the
whole thing up.
Jane
> "Dani" <purplewildflo...@live.com> wrote in message
>
> news:m-mdnSlo3L1qa8TW...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
John said something to Ricky about revealing something Ricky had sent
him in an e-mail. Ricky wrote a post (the first one in this thread) on
what a low thing it is to threaten to take private e-mails public.
That is basically the gist of it.
The extra crap Steven is talking about is just his imagination run
amok. Or he feels guilty.
Jane
>
> news:m-mdnSlo3L1qa8TW...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
I forgot to answer about the post where John says that. I don't think
Wolfy made it really clear. It may be that John e-mailed the threat (?)
Jane
> On 22 Jan, 13:20, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 22, 12:31 am, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> As a certified lunatic and family guidance advisor, may I interject
> and suggest that you don't marry Steven, Jane....and Steven, you don't
> marry Jane?.......;)
And here I am, with my dress all picked out, :) :)!
Jane
*Only* possible! Once again, get over yourself. I've had many fights
with people here before...eric, Amy, TW, Chris, Doc...even Dani, Woods
and Mike in the past. Like I say, I was posting here before you were
and if you sifted through every post ever made by me or about me, you
really do need a hobby! Or a life...
Dani
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:5d44ebf6-d383-4bd0...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Hmmm.. maybe because it's a long thread, I've been absent and I asked a
FAVOR??
Forget it.
Werewolfy
The thread called "Brother Oral can't wait for you to join him in
heaven, Pat " Fourth post from the bottom, Dani.
We had been talking about how well I should burn in Hell. Umm not
quite true, John had been talking about that.
Grins...Ricky
Jane
What was that old book? "How to Make Friends and Influence People"
That's Steven's other bible, dontcha know!
Steven Douglas
>
> On Jan 22, 2:10 pm, "Dani" <purplewildflo...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > "Dani" <purplewildflo...@live.com> wrote in message
>
I have nothing to feel guilty about. But it is interesting that you
think I do. What is it, exactly, that you think I should feel guilty
about?
Steven Douglas
>
> On Jan 22, 11:23 am, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 22, 5:20 am, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 22, 12:31 am, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 21, 7:34 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 21, 9:15 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >So if you're not talking about me, just say
> > > > > > so and end this.
>
> > > > > I am ending it. Now. I wasn't talking to you and it is none of your
> > > > > business.
>
> > > > Still can't bring yourself to admit what you were doing, can you
> > > > cowardly liar? You really are pathetic.
>
> > > You're insane. I named no one; I accused no one by name.
>
> > I know. That's why it's so cowardly. You left it hanging out there as
> > an unnamed indictment of *someone* without naming the person. But
> > since I'm the *only* possible candidate for your cowardly lie, it's an
> > indictment of me.
>
> *Only* possible! Once again, get over yourself. I've had many fights
> with people here before...eric, Amy, TW, Chris, Doc...even Dani, Woods
> and Mike in the past.
How many of them did you exchange emails with, and which of those
threatened you "in a similar manner" to the way John threatened Ricky?
>
> Like I say, I was posting here before you were
> and if you sifted through every post ever made by me or about me, you
> really do need a hobby! Or a life...
I didn't have to sift through every post. A few key words showed there
was nothing "in a similar manner" to John threatening Ricky.
Steven Douglas
I will. You didn't ask me for a favor. You posted a general question
to the group, and I'm the one who responded. No one else did, so since
I did, I'm the one you're angry with. Makes a lot of sense. I'd have
been better of saying nothing to you.
Steven Douglas
>
> On 22 Jan, 19:32, "Dani" <purplewildflo...@live.com> asked;
>
> The thread called "Brother Oral can't wait for you to join him in
> heaven, Pat " Fourth post from the bottom, Dani.
That's not good enough, Ricky. You have to tell her what happened so
she doesn't have to go look at the actual post. Of course that's what
you did in the first post in this thread, which is why I told her to
go look at what you wrote.
Steven Douglas
>
> On Jan 22, 2:32 pm, "Dani" <purplewildflo...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
One thing about me, when I'm someone's friend, I'm loyal. I don't turn
on them like a snake.
Jane
can assure you. As for the 'who' and the 'when', that is none of your
business.
>
> > Like I say, I was posting here before you were
> > and if you sifted through every post ever made by me or about me, you
> > really do need a hobby! Or a life...
>
> I didn't have to sift through every post. A few key words showed there
> was nothing "in a similar manner" to John threatening Ricky.
>
That is not necessarily true. A threat could be any number of things.
Steven Douglas
Sure, but what is my business is that you've falsely accused me of
threatening you in the not so distant past. You haven't done that to
any of those other people you conveniently mentioned. So all you have
to do is say you were referring to one of them when you said you were
threatened "in a similar manner" to the way John threatened Ricky.
Otherwise, by refusing to rule me out, I'm still the primary candidate
for your unnamed (and false) indictment.
>
> > > Like I say, I was posting here before you were
> > > and if you sifted through every post ever made by me or about me, you
> > > really do need a hobby! Or a life...
>
> > I didn't have to sift through every post. A few key words showed there
> > was nothing "in a similar manner" to John threatening Ricky.
>
> That is not necessarily true. A threat could be any number of things.
Since you think I have something to feel guilty for (which I don't),
have you ever explained what I would have had to gain from supposedly
threatening you? Seriously, I'd like to know exactly what you think I
stood to gain by (supposedly) threatening you. Why don't you explain
to the group for the first time ever.
Jane
information?
Steven Douglas
Nice deflection. This has nothing to do with your false accusations
that I ever threatened you. Randy told Ricky he was listed (he is) if
Ricky wanted to look him up. But Ricky didn't know where Randy lives,
so all I asked Randy for was permission to give Ricky the name of
Randy's city. Randy never responded, and I did not post the name of
his city. This has NOTHING to do with your false accusations about me
supposedly threatening you "in a similar manner" to the way John
threatened Ricky. But nice try (not really).
Steven Douglas
> information?
You know, it occurs to me that you're implying that I threatened
Randy. But you're conveniently ignoring Randy's bravdo when he
*invited* Ricky to look him up. I did not threaten Randy with
anything. I asked permission, which I did not receive, and then took
no further action.
But your distraction has nothing to do with the fact you have
repeatedly (and falsely) accused me of threatening you, the latest
being that I threatened you "in a similar manner" to the way John
threatened Ricky. You've tapped danced your way around it, but you
refuse to say you weren't talking about me. You could do that, you
know (but you'd be lying). You could say you were talking about one of
a number of other possibilities (but you'd be lying).
You could explain what you think I had to gain by supposedly
threatening you (but you'd be lying). The fact is, I had nothing to
gain. When you falsely thought you'd been threatened, you said you'd
never argue with me again. But I said no, please continue to argue,
just keep it fair. You've never kept it fair, yet you thought you were
threatened. Yet you continued to argue even though you felt
threatened. You've continued to falsely accuse me of threatening you,
even though you continue to lie about me though you think I've
threatened you. Do you see how ridiculous you are? Seriously. You are.
Ridiculous.
Dani
"Jane" <pushl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43ddd2e9-ef04-4982...@14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
lol! Yeah, he seems rather "edgy" doesn't he? I think he's mad at me! Ah
well. I'm not feeling good these days so I'm not putting up with any
bullshit.
Cheers,
Dani
Dani
"Jane" <pushl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:886c3501-2303-403a...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
> I forgot to answer about the post where John says that. I don't think
> Wolfy made it really clear. It may be that John e-mailed the threat (?)
Okay, thanks, Jane. I haven't been keeping up which is why I asked.
Cheers,
Dani
Werewolfy
wrote:
Randy's bravdo when he
> *invited* Ricky to look him up. I did not threaten Randy with
> anything. I asked permission, which I did not receive, and then took
> no further action.
True Jane. Steven would not reveal confidential matters.
Ricky
.
Jane
> "Jane" <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I'm sorry to hear you aren't feeling well, :(. I hope you get better
soon!
Jane
I have never said he would. I didn't like him playing games with my
real name, true enough, but all the rest of this is just a figment of
his imagination.
And, yes, when he asked Randy that question, I did read it as a
threat, but I hoped he would not follow through and he didn't.
Werewolfy
> And, yes, when he asked Randy that question, I did read it as a
> threat, but I hoped he would not follow through and he didn't.
It was a culmination of a very long period of childish attacks, in
concert, by Randy and Steven. I don't mean ordinary verbal exchanges;
no, these were the sort of things I would expect from that idiot JTEM.
Worse even, they had no meaning to an adult. Straight from a school
playground.
It was so bad, I felt bound to say something about it. It really was a
childish and silly session of post after post, especially from Randy.
Steven remained above the childish darts aimed at him.
Steven simply placed that remark in one response, as he said. Mind,
there was no doubt an undertone of retaliation hidden there; but
nothing to speak of as serious at all.
Despite the constant jibes from Randy, Steven would not reveal
personal details. In his asking Randy, it was more of a 'I know, shall
I tell him, Randy?' sort of question. He wouldn't have done...just a
minor reminder to Randy about the silliness of several weeks child-
like behaviour.
Just felt I should explain that part, Jane.
Ricky
Jane
OK. I understand that you feel differently about Steven than I do,
which is fine. I am sure he wouldn't actually reveal anything, but I
think he did use what he knew about me as a weapon. That is fine; I
hit below the belt sometimes, too.
Steven is very one-dimensional. He believes in blind loyalty "America:
Love it or leave it". He feels the same way about friendship.
Steven Douglas
A weapon for what? What did I hope to gain by using this imagined
weapon? Seriously, if you're going to continue to make these false
accusations, shouldn't there come a time when you finally explain it?
>
> That is fine; I
> hit below the belt sometimes, too.
You're so sure I threatened you, yet you're comfortable hitting below
the belt. Can't you see that none of this makes sense? You've used
this "damsel in distress" bit to the hilt, and it's not playing. No
one believes you anymore.
>
> Steven is very one-dimensional. He believes in blind loyalty "America:
> Love it or leave it".
Where have I ever used those words? Show the post from which you're
quoting.
>
> He feels the same way about friendship.
Misplaced loyalty is very disappointing.
Jane
wrote:
I have NEVER played damsel in distress! I have pointed out that you
are a misogynist, and other women have agreed with me. The world is
full of misogynists. That doesn't mean that I can't take care of
myself.
Objecting to someone implying that they will break a trust does not
make one a damsel in distress...except to a misogynist such as
yourself.
and it's not playing. No
> one believes you anymore.
>
So now you speak for everyone??? That takes the cake!
>
> > Steven is very one-dimensional. He believes in blind loyalty "America:
> > Love it or leave it".
>
> Where have I ever used those words? Show the post from which you're
> quoting.
>
I know you like to feign being obtuse. That expression goes back at
least to the Vietnam era. Who knows who said it first? I never said I
was quoting you; that is just what you project. In fact, I can quite
plausibly picture you at a counter-protest in the late 60s holding a
sign with those very words on it!
>
> > He feels the same way about friendship.
>
> Misplaced loyalty is very disappointing.
Blind loyalty is dangerous, on many levels.
Steven Douglas
Then why do you continue to whine that I threatened you? You're
comfortable enough with me to occasionally hit me below the belt (as
you admitted), yet you're so concerned that I threatened you. No, the
answer is that you know I'll never reveal your name, or anything else
you told me via email. You're just enjoying playing this little game
of "damsel in distress" against the big bad man. You enjoyed the
backing of the other women until they finally saw through you (again).
>
> Objecting to someone implying that they will break a trust does not
> make one a damsel in distress...except to a misogynist such as
> yourself.
I implied nothing of the sort. You imagined it, and you've been
playing "damsel in distress" tot the hilt ever since. But it's wearing
thin now. No one is backing you anymore. They all know I never
threatened you now. They know I would never reveal any personal
information about you. And you know it too, but you continue to lie
about me because you're a shallow, angry, and bitter little person.
>
> >and it's not playing. No one believes you anymore.
>
> So now you speak for everyone??? That takes the cake!
They're free to speak for themselves.
>
> > > Steven is very one-dimensional. He believes in blind loyalty "America:
> > > Love it or leave it".
>
> > Where have I ever used those words? Show the post from which you're
> > quoting.
>
> I know you like to feign being obtuse. That expression goes back at
> least to the Vietnam era. Who knows who said it first? I never said I
> was quoting you;
You associated those words with me, and put them in quotation marks as
if I'd said them.
>
> that is just what you project. In fact, I can quite
> plausibly picture you at a counter-protest in the late 60s holding a
> sign with those very words on it!
Then you'd be as wrong about me as you've been with your other false
accusations. You're a vicious, bitter, angry liar.
>
> > > He feels the same way about friendship.
>
> > Misplaced loyalty is very disappointing.
>
> Blind loyalty is dangerous, on many levels.
You're right, I should have seen this coming. All the time I was
defending you while you were being attacked on this group, they were
right about you all along, and I was wrong. It was blind misplaced
loyalty that caused me to defend you. I was wrong.
Jane
I don't expect constant support from others, women included. Woods and
Dani are rarely here and I would expect them to find more interesting
things to read than these tedious debates between you and I. As far as
everyone suddenly supporting you...I wouldn't count on it....but if
they do, so be it. Wolfy was on your side against Randy and John, so I
wasn't surprised to read that post from him at all. Nor does it upset
me in any way.
No one ever thought of me as a damsel in distress. You were the only
one using the 'delicate little flower' terminology.
Anyway, as I said...and I have said before...these threads are
tedious. You stated that you will ignore me, but you are unable to, so
I will ignore you. I may have things to say about you to other people,
should it be pertinent to the discussion or should you be involved in
the thread somehow. However, I will no longer respond to your posts. I
acknowledge that will be very difficult, as I have the same
pathological need as you do to have the last word. However, I intend
to prove that the 'damsel' is stronger than you are. Ciao!
Dani
"Jane" <pushl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59795166-539c-47de...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> I'm sorry to hear you aren't feeling well, :(. I hope you get better
> soon!
Thank you, Jane! .. :) That is very sweet of you!
All the best,
Dani
Steven Douglas
I didn't say anything about anyone supporting me. They're just no
longer supporting you because they've now seen you for what you are
(having been correct about you long ago when I was still defending
you).
>
> Wolfy was on your side against Randy and John,
Rightly so. Even while you told me you weren't taking sides. For the
record, that thing with Randy and John included their taunts at Ricky,
not just me.
>
> so I
> wasn't surprised to read that post from him at all. Nor does it upset
> me in any way.
Why would it? You didn't take his side during that thing with Randy
and John.
>
> No one ever thought of me as a damsel in distress. You were the only
> one using the 'delicate little flower' terminology.
Oh, Woods kept saying I was toying with you, as if you were some poor
defenseless delicate little flower.
>
> Anyway, as I said...and I have said before...these threads are
> tedious. You stated that you will ignore me, but you are unable to, so
> I will ignore you.
Good. And if you truly ignore me, that means you'll no longer be lying
about me. You'll no longer start the taunting as you've done every
single time this has happened.
>
> I may have things to say about you to other people,
Oh, then you really won't be ignoring me, will you?
>
> should it be pertinent to the discussion or should you be involved in
> the thread somehow.
And if you continue to lie about me, I will respond. Keep it fair, and
I'll be happy to ignore you forever. I doubt that will happen, though,
since I'm 100% sure you'll be lying about me within days, if not
hours.
>
> However, I will no longer respond to your posts. I
> acknowledge that will be very difficult, as I have the same
> pathological need as you do to have the last word.
I only want the last word when I've been lied about. But you'll notice
that I didn't respond to some posts of yours a while back, and you
accused me of dodging or avoiding them or something. I was letting you
have the last word, and even with that you had to find a way to
criticize me. You're a real piece of work.
>
> However, I intend
> to prove that the 'damsel' is stronger than you are. Ciao!
Stop lying about me, stop with the taunts. Of course you won't, you
can't.
Woodswun
> On 20 Jan, 23:24, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I hate mobile phones, too, Wolfy. I have one, but it is usually turned
> > off. I use it occasionally to get in touch with my son (as he is
> > chained to his) and in case of emergency (thankfully, I have never had
> > one yet, but I do drive long distances on my own all the time). It is
> > turned off unless I am using, has few bells-and-whistles and costs a
> > grand total of $10/month
>
> That's their best and most practical use, Jane. A good safety net for
> a woman..and I see you use the thing wisely.
>
> I'm smiling a very 'knowing' smile at the '(as he is chained to his)
> ' Danielle is exactly the same. It's as important to her as a life
> support system is to a patient in intensive care. She has one of those
> 'phones' that seem to do everything except make coffee. Camera,
> internet, calculator, diary, photo albums, the time of day in Calcutta
> and probably the spectral signature of every star in our Galaxy...;)
> I wouldn't mind quite so much, if the vile things simply rang..no,
> that's somehow not good enough. They have to ding and dong, beep and
> boop, and they play the most stupid 'tunes' instead of ringing. They
> even bloody move around when someone calls!
>
> Werewolfy
I'm afraid I'm guilty of being hooked to my cellphone. I do a lot of
texting, sending media messages, photos, etc. I find texting to be
very good when there's a need to be quiet or you don't want to have
anyone overhear your conversation. I love my cell phone, but don't
like to talk on it too much, because that's kind of a pain in the
neck.
Woods
Woodswun
> "Werewolfy" <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:9cc97866-7f14-42c8...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 20 Jan, 23:24, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I hate mobile phones, too, Wolfy. I have one, but it is usually turned
> >> off. I use it occasionally to get in touch with my son (as he is
> >> chained to his) and in case of emergency (thankfully, I have never had
> >> one yet, but I do drive long distances on my own all the time). It is
> >> turned off unless I am using, has few bells-and-whistles and costs a
> >> grand total of $10/month
>
> > That's their best and most practical use, Jane. A good safety net for
> > a woman..and I see you use the thing wisely.
>
> > I'm smiling a very 'knowing' smile at the '(as he is chained to his)
> > ' Danielle is exactly the same. It's as important to her as a life
> > support system is to a patient in intensive care. She has one of those
> > 'phones' that seem to do everything except make coffee. Camera,
> > internet, calculator, diary, photo albums, the time of day in Calcutta
> > and probably the spectral signature of every star in our Galaxy...;)
> > I wouldn't mind quite so much, if the vile things simply rang..no,
> > that's somehow not good enough. They have to ding and dong, beep and
> > boop, and they play the most stupid 'tunes' instead of ringing. They
> > even bloody move around when someone calls!
>
>
> Actually, it does have an option to just simply ring a normal, standard,
> everyday ring. It's Danielle who must've set her phone up in such a way
> that it makes those God-awful beeps etc.. that you don't like. She could
> set it to just an everyday plain ring. And the "moving around" is when one
> doesn't want the phone to ring (say if they're at work, school, a meeting
> etc..), so they set it "Vibrate" in order to be alerted when someone is
> calling....rather than to disturb everyone around them at an inappropriate
> time.
>
> I hate Texting and won't have any part of it. When people text me I never
> text them back. If it's important, I will call them back. But the whole
> Texting shyte is just too childish (IMO), it bothers me to no end. It is SO
> much easier to simply call the person. I know people do it just because
> 'they can' ..because it's an option on the device. Have you ever tried
> writing on a a telephone?? LOL! Oh Christ, try it sometime.
Most people who do a lot of texting have a phone that has a qwerty
keyboard on it. On the extremely few occasions that I *had* to text
(couldn't make any noise) and was on a regular phone, it was
unbearable!
> It's
> grueling. And people make NO SENSE when they Text, either. It appears
> something to this effect:
>
> "wuz up dani. what U up 2 today? text me back or hit me back, girl. ttyl"
>
> I've literally looked at my phone and loudly said out loud, looking at the
> thing:
>
> "Ahhhh.. NOPE!"
>
> Uuugghhhh!
>
> The Camera part I do like, though. Because it allows you to take pictures
> then send them straight to your computer (no matter where you are). But
> other than that...like Jane, I own one for emergency situations mainly.
You can send them to other phones, too, as media.
Woods
>
> I like what you wrote:
>
> "She has one of those 'phones' that seem to do everything except make
> coffee"
>
> ..lol
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dani
Woodswun
> On Jan 21, 11:46 am, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 3:07 pm, Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 20 Jan, 20:06, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > " I used to worry about someone on here tracking me down, but I am so
> > > over that!- "
>
> > > It's natural enough for any female I think, Jane. Men should...well,
> > > be men I suppose.
>
> > Jane has always had her husband to protect her.
>
> ?????
Yeah, my reaction was along those lines, too, but more like "!?!?!?".
>
> You really can't control your misogynist nature, can you?
>
> But that's not really
>
> > the point. When I saw Tony's address posted on this group by a good
> > little liberal, I made a decision right then and there that I'd do
> > everything in my power to prevent that from happening to me. If it
> > happened to him, why wouldn't it happen to me?
>
> > But again, it's not about Tony himself, it was about the danger that
> > posed to his family.
>
> By your own logic, Tony's family was never in any danger, because they
> had Tony to *protect* them.
Good point, Jane.
Woods
>
> I'm not going to let that happen to me or my
>
> > family, and I don't care who doesn't like it.
Woodswun
> On Jan 21, 7:15 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 4:07 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 21, 6:54 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 21, 3:27 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 21, 5:55 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 21, 2:11 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 21, 12:52 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jan 21, 9:47 am, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jan 21, 11:42 am, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 20, 12:06 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 20, 10:27 am, Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 20 Jan, 12:58, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Shall I dig out your past statements to the contrary? Perhaps the
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ones you emailed me?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > You should know that an e mail is a sacrosanct communication, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > anyone making a 'threat' to publish same, has reached the ultimate
> > > > > > > > > > > > depth of contempt.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > To respond; YOU e mailed ME. I replied.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I DO NOT e mail people in this group, other than Dani.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you found my reply to be flattering, so much the better for you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Opinions, like the fucking weather, can change quickly enough.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > What cannot change is the contempt all people rightly reserve for
> > > > > > > > > > > > anyone making a suggestion such as yours above. Contempt of the lowest
> > > > > > > > > > > > order.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Do as you wish, I have no fear of any e mail response I sent you.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Just know this. A 'man' who makes a statement "Perhaps the ones you
> > > > > > > > > > > > emailed me?", can sink no lower...despite the fact there is nothing
> > > > > > > > > > > > whatsoever for me to be concerned with contained therein.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let it be know by all...by any who communicate with Lemke via e mail;
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let it be known that he will hoard and later refer to any reply as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > form of betrayal and threat.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In my case, I say what is to be said in here. I have no concerns as to
> > > > > > > > > > > > my response to HIS e mails.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > No wonder I estranged myself from you. Your true colours are showing.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Werewolfy
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I can see your point, Wolfy. I know I felt the same way when I was
> > > > > > > > > > > threatened in a similar matter.
>
> > > > > > > > > > I must have missed that. When did that happen?
>
> > > > > > > > > You're supposed to be ignoring me, remember? Who has the obsession
> > > > > > > > > now...?
>
> > > > > > > > I said I'd ignore you until you restarted the taunting. But in this
> > > > > > > > case, I'm sincerely concerned that you were threatened "in a similar
> > > > > > > > manner" to the way John threatened Ricky. Who would do such a thing?
> > > > > > > > Seriously, I'd like to know who it was.
>
> > > > > > > Give me a break! You're obviously obsessed with me and can't help
> > > > > > > yourself...even after publicly announcing your intention to ignore me.
>
> > > > > > I wrote a response to Ricky
>
> > > > > No, where you said, "I must have missed that. When did that happen?",
> > > > > you were clearly responding to MY post! THAT is when I asked you why
> > > > > you weren't ignoring me and you gave me some horseshit about being
> > > > > concerned.
>
> > > > Oh yes, that! I almost forgot about that after you jumped all over my
> > > > comment to Ricky.
> > > > Yes, now that you've reminded me, I am concerned that there's a person
> > > > who posts here who threatened you "in a similar manner" to the way
> > > > that person is.
>
> > > > > You have proven you can't comprehend what you read, but sheesh!
>
> > > > No, that would be you, since I said I would ignore you unless you
> > > > restarted the taunting.
>
> > > > > While
> > > > > the comment about my husband protecting me was to Ricky, you had
> > > > > already responded to *me* in the post just above it, breaking your vow
> > > > > to ignore me in...what?...less than a day?
>
> > > > It wasn't a vow, but it was also qualified with "unless you restart
> > > > the taunting" ...
>
> > > Which I did not do...oh, dear, I forgot...EVERYTHING, no matter how
> > > innocuous is a taunt to you, if I say it.
>
> > Why won't you say who threatened you "in a similar manner" to the way
> > John threatened Ricky? It's not a difficult question, you know.
>
> > > You know, if you weren't so
> > > overwhelmingly obsessed with me, you could ignore me no matter what I
> > > said. Your qualifier was just a convenient way to not have to really
> > > ignore me at all.
>
> > Each and every time I've said I'll stop the taunting if you will
> > (including times you agreed to it), you restarted the taunting. Every
> > single time.
>
> > > I challenge you to REALLY ignore me for a week!
>
> > I will IF you stop the taunting. Now, before I start ignoring you
> > again, why don't you just tell everyone who it was who threatened you
> > "in a similar manner" to the way John threatened Ricky.
>
>
> Now, show me you really can ignore me. Surely, if I *taunt* you and
> get no response, I will soon get bored...no?
I don't think he's capable of doing that ....
Woods
Woodswun
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > Yes, now that you've reminded me, I am concerned that there's a person
> > who posts here who threatened you "in a similar manner" to the way
> > John threatened Ricky.
>
> unfortunately.
>
> Someone please fill me in here...John threatened Ricky? Where? When? In
> what sense etc..?
>
> I know that Ricky is afraid of no man (or woman for that matter), I know
> that much. But I know nothing of a "threat" being posed to him?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
John indicated that he would remind Wolfy of something he'd said in an
email.
Woods
Werewolfy
> I'm afraid I'm guilty of being hooked to my cellphone. �I do a lot of
> texting, sending media messages, photos, etc. �I find texting to be
> very good when there's a need to be quiet or you don't want to have
> anyone overhear your conversation. �I love my cell phone, but don't
> like to talk on it too much, because that's kind of a pain in the
> neck.
Shrieeeeeeeeeeeek.....a mobile phone afficianado! 'Texting' as well!
Never have understood a 'text' message. If I want to say something, I
ring the person up and say it. My wife sends and receives text things,
and they are all mundane nonsense, such as 'I'm here now' or something
equally frivolous. She then might text back, 'Is it raining
there?'.....and text follows damned text, all making dong bang bong
noises.
One thing I really hate, is talking to someone and their damned phone
rings. One stands like an idiot half-way through a conversation,
whilst the person answers the call. God, That's annoying. Often
enough, the call ends, the question discussed is half forgotten, and
just as you start to ask again, the bloody thing rings a second time.
I feel like grabbing the mobile and hurling it across the road.
I don't even answer the house phone when it rings, Woodsy. Whoever it
is, doesn't want me, or is selling something, or is a wrong
number...so I let the damned thing ring.
Werewolfy
Woodswun
> On 25 Jan, 01:32, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid I'm guilty of being hooked to my cellphone. I do a lot of
> > texting, sending media messages, photos, etc. I find texting to be
> > very good when there's a need to be quiet or you don't want to have
> > anyone overhear your conversation. I love my cell phone, but don't
> > like to talk on it too much, because that's kind of a pain in the
> > neck.
>
> Shrieeeeeeeeeeeek.....a mobile phone afficianado! 'Texting' as well!
>
> Never have understood a 'text' message. If I want to say something, I
> ring the person up and say it.
It's easier for me to text. I'm hoping that once I figure out my
stupid bluetooth gadgets, it won't be quite as much of a hassle to
talk on the phone, but I'm still pretty loud, so I'll continue to text
in places where I don't want everyone around me to hear everything.
>My wife sends and receives text things,
> and they are all mundane nonsense, such as 'I'm here now' or something
> equally frivolous. She then might text back, 'Is it raining
> there?'.....and text follows damned text, all making dong bang bong
> noises.
>
> One thing I really hate, is talking to someone and their damned phone
> rings. One stands like an idiot half-way through a conversation,
> whilst the person answers the call. God, That's annoying.
Oh, that's really rude! I generally don't answer my cell phone if I'm
talking to someone, unless there's some kind of emergency going on and
I'm waiting for a call back, which is (thankfully!) almost never.
>Often
> enough, the call ends, the question discussed is half forgotten, and
> just as you start to ask again, the bloody thing rings a second time.
> I feel like grabbing the mobile and hurling it across the road.
>
> I don't even answer the house phone when it rings, Woodsy. Whoever it
> is, doesn't want me, or is selling something, or is a wrong
> number...so I let the damned thing ring.
I don't answer my house phone, either, since our caller ID unit got
fried. I let them leave a message, and I'll take a look online to see
who called, then call back. I can talk fairly easily on our house
phone, so I prefer that to texting.
Woods
>
> Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
I've already done it. And then I was criticized for failing to respond
to something I'd ignored. Incredible.
Steven Douglas
>
> On Jan 21, 12:51 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 21, 11:46 am, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 20, 3:07 pm, Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On 20 Jan, 20:06, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > " I used to worry about someone on here tracking me down, but I am so
> > > > over that!- "
>
> > > > It's natural enough for any female I think, Jane. Men should...well,
> > > > be men I suppose.
>
> > > Jane has always had her husband to protect her.
>
> > ?????
>
> Yeah, my reaction was along those lines, too, but more like "!?!?!?".
The proper context was that I was responding to Ricky's comment, in
which he said women should be careful about revealing where they live,
but men should be men. Can't you see that my comment was in the
context of his remark? Of course you can't.
>
> > You really can't control your misogynist nature, can you?
>
> > But that's not really
>
> > > the point. When I saw Tony's address posted on this group by a good
> > > little liberal, I made a decision right then and there that I'd do
> > > everything in my power to prevent that from happening to me. If it
> > > happened to him, why wouldn't it happen to me?
>
> > > But again, it's not about Tony himself, it was about the danger that
> > > posed to his family.
>
> > By your own logic, Tony's family was never in any danger, because they
> > had Tony to *protect* them.
>
> Good point, Jane.
No, it wasn't, since Tony protecting his family was never my point. In
fact, my point was that Tony's address should never have been posted
here (by a "good" little liberal). If my point had actually been that
a man can protect his family, why would I have made a comment that
Tony's address should never have been posted here? Sheesh, incredible.
Woodswun
Steven Douglas
Yeah, whatever. Who cares if you're lying about me? Surely you don't.
JTEM
Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Never have understood a 'text' message.
You're being modest, psycho brain. There's lots
and lots of things you never understood, and
never will understand, being a moron.
Werewolfy
Ah... maybe I am 'Miss Understood'?
Woodswun
You can be "lying" about an observation - it's an observation.
Another observation of mine is that you are deeply in denial.
Woods
Steven Douglas
Yes, and you are.
>
> it's an observation.
A lying observation.
>
> Another observation of mine is that you are deeply in denial.
An observation of mine is that you've been deeply and factually wrong,
on a near constant basis, for years upon years.