Is it a miracle ?
Mike
◙ Wally☻☺☻
> Steven hasn't posted anything in almost six days.
It's January, Mike, many peoplez have still not returned from the
Chrissy Hols.
There's a 75% probability that he's on vacation.
HOOROO
WALLY
▬
Mike
"◙ Wally☻☺☻" <sgde...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:2a9c6c62-2421-40c0...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
It's the other 25% possibility that makes me wonder. Perhaps there is still
hope.
>
> HOOROO
>
> WALLY
>
> ▬
>
Woodswun
> Steven hasn't posted anything in almost six days.
I didn't catch that. I have noticed that Wolfy and Dani haven't been
posting, though. Also, Kim hasn't for a few days.
Woods
Steven Douglas
>
> "◙ Wally☻☺☻" <sgdec2...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> > On Jan 6, 1:25 pm, "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote:
> >> Steven hasn't posted anything in almost six days.
>
> > It's January, Mike, many peoplez have still not returned from the
> > Chrissy Hols.
>
> > There's a 75% probability that he's on vacation.
>
> It's the other 25% possibility that makes me wonder. Perhaps there is still
> hope.
Hope for what?
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:0af41f6a-1fec-43df...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Hope for the sake of hope itself.
Werewolfy
"Hope for the sake of hope itself"
Steven strikes me as a person who might well make 'New Year'
resolutions. This could be one of them?
Werewolfy
Mike
"Werewolfy" <Werew...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a695ec56-72b5-4abe...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
The thought crossed my mind also. That would be terrible for him to do that
to me!
>
> Werewolfy
Werewolfy
"The thought crossed my mind also. That would be terrible for him to
do that to me!"
It would Mike; a very bad resolution! But he still could be either
(a) Raptured or
(b) Taken by those little green men who plague the sky.
Or is that the same thing?
Werewolfy
Doc
"Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote in message news:nwS0n.1525$Ef7....@newsfe07.iad...
> Steven hasn't posted anything in almost six days.
He's running out of bullshit, Mike.
:))~
Jane
> "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote in messagenews:nwS0n.1525$Ef7....@newsfe07.iad...
> > Steven hasn't posted anything in almost six days.
>
> He's running out of bullshit, Mike.
>
> :))~
His timing was interesting, to say the least. Anyway, as Mike says, we
can hope.
Steven Douglas
Yes, I actually announced a New Year's resolution right here on the
group. I was hoping to break the cycle of inane, meaningless,
pointless taunting coming from one APN poster. Just when I thought it
had worked, I found out otherwise.
Steven Douglas
>
> On Jan 8, 4:17 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote in messagenews:nwS0n.1525$Ef7....@newsfe07.iad...
> > > Steven hasn't posted anything in almost six days.
>
> > He's running out of bullshit, Mike.
>
> > :))~
>
> His timing was interesting, to say the least.
Really? In what way? You haven't been posting, either. Does that say
anything about your timing?
>
> Anyway, as Mike says, we can hope.
Hope for what? Mike didn't say what he was hoping for. Maybe you can
explain it to me.
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:a35d0b7a-f75e-4498...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
I thought a News Years resolution was something YOU had to do Steven. I
don't make New Years resolutions because I don't need them. To the best of
knowledge, I'm not doing anything I don't want and there is nothing I need
to do that I'm not already doing. Besides, I don't remember your post. I
made no such agreement. Did anyone else? I must have missed that.
Mike
"Doc" <cmdr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hi87du$di$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I don't see how that could be possible!
>
> :))~
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:329f98bc-cf90-4e15...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
I thought I did explain that. You must have missed my post, but again I
will say. It feels good to have hope. Don't you think?
Steven Douglas
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > On Jan 7, 3:38 pm, Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> On 7 Jan, 05:09, "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Hope for the sake of hope itself"
>
> >> Steven strikes me as a person who might well make 'New Year'
> >> resolutions. This could be one of them?
>
> > Yes, I actually announced a New Year's resolution right here on the
> > group. I was hoping to break the cycle of inane, meaningless,
> > pointless taunting coming from one APN poster. Just when I thought it
> > had worked, I found out otherwise.
>
> I thought a News Years resolution was something YOU had to do Steven. I
> don't make New Years resolutions because I don't need them. To the best of
> knowledge, I'm not doing anything I don't want and there is nothing I need
> to do that I'm not already doing. Besides, I don't remember your post. I
> made no such agreement. Did anyone else? I must have missed that.
It was my New Year's resolution. It had nothing to do with you.
Steven Douglas
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> >> On Jan 8, 4:17 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote in
> >> > messagenews:nwS0n.1525$Ef7....@newsfe07.iad...
> >> > > Steven hasn't posted anything in almost six days.
>
> >> > He's running out of bullshit, Mike.
>
> >> > :))~
>
> >> His timing was interesting, to say the least.
>
> > Really? In what way? You haven't been posting, either. Does that say
> > anything about your timing?
>
> >> Anyway, as Mike says, we can hope.
>
> > Hope for what? Mike didn't say what he was hoping for. Maybe you can
> > explain it to me.
>
> I thought I did explain that. You must have missed my post, but again I
> will say. It feels good to have hope. Don't you think?
Hope for what?
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:e615780a-9bed-448a...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Why did you 'announce' it here then? Isn't that what you said above?
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e79b20f-9583-42c1...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Since what I hope for is hopeless, I wish for hope itself. Didn't I say?
Can't someone hope for hope? What's your problem with that?
Woodswun
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
I didn't see it, either, but I skip over a lot of Steven's posts, so
it's not a surprise that I would miss it.
Woods
Jane
wrote:
> On Jan 8, 5:18 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 4:17 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote in messagenews:nwS0n.1525$Ef7....@newsfe07.iad...
> > > > Steven hasn't posted anything in almost six days.
>
> > > He's running out of bullshit, Mike.
>
> > > :))~
>
> > His timing was interesting, to say the least.
>
> Really? In what way? You haven't been posting, either. Does that say
> anything about your timing?
You were caught taunting me quite blatantly after pretending to take
the high road all this time....but you knew what I meant, didn't you?
You're disappearance was a convenient way to avoid answering.
As for my timing, I have simply been busy and there have been no
inanities to respond to...until one of your ilk posted a his
incoherent rant about Richard Dawkins, that is.
Jane
wrote:
> On Jan 7, 3:38 pm, Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 7 Jan, 05:09, "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote:
>
> > "Hope for the sake of hope itself"
>
> > Steven strikes me as a person who might well make 'New Year'
> > resolutions. This could be one of them?
>
> Yes, I actually announced a New Year's resolution right here on the
> group.
Where? No one but you seems to have seen it.
I was hoping to break the cycle of inane, meaningless,
> pointless taunting coming from one APN poster.
You can end the cycle anytime. However, calling that person names,
implying that you will reveal their real name publicly and then
letting them know that you discuss them on e-mail with someone else
from the group...even making wagers...is hardly the way to end
anything.
Amazingly enough, Woods and I can see each other daily on facebook and
your name never even comes up. We don't feel the need to discuss you
(or anyone here) behind your back. We can say what we want to say
right here, to your face.
Steven, you are a very ugly, almost evil, person who masquerades as a
'christian' (as many of your ilk do). That is not a taunt; simply a
reality.
Steven Douglas
>
> On Jan 8, 8:29 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 5:18 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > His timing was interesting, to say the least.
>
> > Really? In what way? You haven't been posting, either. Does that say
> > anything about your timing?
>
> You were caught taunting me quite blatantly after pretending to take
> the high road all this time....
No, actually I did not pretend to take the high road all that time.
That was why I offered the New Year's resolution for both of us
(though I was the only one bound by it since I'm the one who offered
it). The taunting you referred to just above was just a statement of
fact, and it was before the New Year's resolution took effect.
>
> but you knew what I meant, didn't you?
> You're disappearance was a convenient way to avoid answering.
Answering what? I was gone for a few days during New Year's weekend.
When I got back, 90% of the posts I read were about me personally. No
topic of substance to respond to, just posts directed to me, and about
me. Even threads with my name in the title. So I decided to just
ignore all that petty crap.
>
> As for my timing, I have simply been busy and there have been no
> inanities to respond to...until one of your ilk posted a his
> incoherent rant about Richard Dawkins, that is.
My ilk?
>
> > > Anyway, as Mike says, we can hope.
>
> > Hope for what? Mike didn't say what he was hoping for. Maybe you can
> > explain it to me.
You still haven't explained what you're hoping for.
Steven Douglas
>
> On Jan 8, 8:28 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 7, 3:38 pm, Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 7 Jan, 05:09, "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Hope for the sake of hope itself"
>
> > > Steven strikes me as a person who might well make 'New Year'
> > > resolutions. This could be one of them?
>
> > Yes, I actually announced a New Year's resolution right here on the
> > group.
>
> Where? No one but you seems to have seen it.
It's in the archives. It was to you, and you responded to it.
>
> >I was hoping to break the cycle of inane, meaningless,
> > pointless taunting coming from one APN poster.
>
> You can end the cycle anytime. However, calling that person names,
> implying that you will reveal their real name publicly
I never did that, liar. Never. Ever.
>
> and then
> letting them know that you discuss them on e-mail with someone else
> from the group...even making wagers...is hardly the way to end
> anything.
There was no wager. It was simply my comment. I did not say the other
person was being friendly with me, you know. You assumed that. I get
emails from people all the time who disagree with what I post, but
they don't want to post their disagreement on the group.
>
> Amazingly enough, Woods and I can see each other daily on facebook and
> your name never even comes up. We don't feel the need to discuss you
> (or anyone here) behind your back. We can say what we want to say
> right here, to your face.
That's nice. I do remember when you did talk about people behind their
back.
>
> Steven, you are a very ugly, almost evil, person who masquerades as a
> 'christian' (as many of your ilk do). That is not a taunt; simply a
> reality.
No, it's a taunt. You're created the idea that I threatened to reveal
your name. When you invented that idea, you told me you would never
argue with me again. What did I do? Did I hold you to that? Did I
demand that you never argue with me again or I'd reveal your name? NO!
I didn't do that, and you know it. I did the exact opposite. I told
you to continue to argue, just keep it fair. Of course you can't keep
it fair. You don't know how to be fair.
Now you've invented in your own mind that I'm busy talking about you
behind your back. I made a comment to a person who wrote me to ARGUE
with me on email. You have no idea what you're talking about. The
"reality" you've created is warped.
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:8dd21c5c-025f-4a12...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> I get emails from people all the time who disagree with what I post, but
> they don't want to post their disagreement on the group.
Liar!!!
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:00a0ee3d-3597-4821...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 9, 4:38 am, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 8, 8:29 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 8, 5:18 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > His timing was interesting, to say the least.
>>
>> > Really? In what way? You haven't been posting, either. Does that say
>> > anything about your timing?
>>
>> You were caught taunting me quite blatantly after pretending to take
>> the high road all this time....
>
> No, actually I did not pretend to take the high road all that time.
> That was why I offered the New Year's resolution for both of us
> (though I was the only one bound by it since I'm the one who offered
> it). The taunting you referred to just above was just a statement of
> fact, and it was before the New Year's resolution took effect.
>>
>> but you knew what I meant, didn't you?
>> You're disappearance was a convenient way to avoid answering.
>
> Answering what? I was gone for a few days during New Year's weekend.
> When I got back, 90% of the posts I read were about me personally. No
> topic of substance to respond to, just posts directed to me, and about
> me. Even threads with my name in the title. So I decided to just
> ignore all that petty crap.
I thought you 'enjoyed' all the attention. You said that several times
before. Liar!
Jane
wrote:
> On Jan 9, 4:48 am, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 8:28 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 3:38 pm, Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On 7 Jan, 05:09, "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Hope for the sake of hope itself"
>
> > > > Steven strikes me as a person who might well make 'New Year'
> > > > resolutions. This could be one of them?
>
> > > Yes, I actually announced a New Year's resolution right here on the
> > > group.
>
> > Where? No one but you seems to have seen it.
>
> It's in the archives. It was to you, and you responded to it.
>
>
>
> > >I was hoping to break the cycle of inane, meaningless,
> > > pointless taunting coming from one APN poster.
>
> > You can end the cycle anytime. However, calling that person names,
> > implying that you will reveal their real name publicly
>
> I never did that, liar. Never. Ever.
>
hysterical women agreed with me. Inconsequential to a misogynist like
you. Not a taunt, a statement of fact.
>
> > and then
> > letting them know that you discuss them on e-mail with someone else
> > from the group...even making wagers...is hardly the way to end
> > anything.
>
> There was no wager. It was simply my comment. I did not say the other
> person was being friendly with me, you know. You assumed that. I get
> emails from people all the time who disagree with what I post, but
> they don't want to post their disagreement on the group.
>
admit you do your share of taunting yourself and be done with it.
>
> > Amazingly enough, Woods and I can see each other daily on facebook and
> > your name never even comes up. We don't feel the need to discuss you
> > (or anyone here) behind your back. We can say what we want to say
> > right here, to your face.
>
> That's nice. I do remember when you did talk about people behind their
> back.
>
the conversation was about the group and the people on it. I will
admit that. I didn't come on here and taunt them about, though.
>
> > Steven, you are a very ugly, almost evil, person who masquerades as a
> > 'christian' (as many of your ilk do). That is not a taunt; simply a
> > reality.
>
> No, it's a taunt. You're created the idea that I threatened to reveal
> your name. When you invented that idea, you told me you would never
> argue with me again. What did I do? Did I hold you to that? Did I
> demand that you never argue with me again or I'd reveal your name? NO!
> I didn't do that, and you know it. I did the exact opposite. I told
> you to continue to argue, just keep it fair.
If you want to keep it to the issues, I can keep it fair anytime.
Of course you can't keep
> it fair. You don't know how to be fair.
Pot...kettle...black.
>
> Now you've invented in your own mind that I'm busy talking about you
> behind your back. I made a comment to a person who wrote me to ARGUE
> with me on email. You have no idea what you're talking about. The
> "reality" you've created is warped.
>
There actually are only one, or at most, two people I can think of
here that would e-mail you NOT to argue, so I am not surprised.
However, you knew what you were implying and you did so deliberately.
Werewolfy
> There actually are only one, or at most, two people I can think of
> here that would e-mail you NOT to argue, so I am not surprised.
> However, you knew what you were implying and you did so deliberately.
I'm suprised at all of this. I never realised that people e mailed one-
another outside the forum. Seems a bit daft really, if there is
something to be said, it's better said 'loudly', for all to 'hear'.
I do contact Dani, and she me...but that's for personal reasons on
topics outside these discussions.
Perhaps I am naive? I really never thought that people 'talked' beyond
this forum.
Werewolfy
Doc
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:00a0ee3d-3597-4821...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jan 8, 8:29 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 5:18 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > His timing was interesting, to say the least.
>
> > Really? In what way? You haven't been posting, either. Does that say
> > anything about your timing?
>
> You were caught taunting me quite blatantly after pretending to take
> the high road all this time....
No, actually I did not pretend to take the high road all that time.
That was why I offered the New Year's resolution for both of us
(though I was the only one bound by it since I'm the one who offered
it). The taunting you referred to just above was just a statement of
fact, and it was before the New Year's resolution took effect.
OH shit...I've never heard of anyone who 'offered' a New Year's resolution
for another. You are weird. NYR's seldom work, anyway, if habitual
ingrained behavior is involved. A flip of the calender page doesn't do
anything special. It's more a self-delusion.
>
> but you knew what I meant, didn't you?
> You're disappearance was a convenient way to avoid answering.
Answering what? I was gone for a few days during New Year's weekend.
When I got back, 90% of the posts I read were about me personally. No
topic of substance to respond to, just posts directed to me, and about
me. Even threads with my name in the title. So I decided to just
ignore all that petty crap.
That'd be a first, but here you are, not ignoring it. LOL! You, in fact,
deal in pettiness, picking away at the smallest of things, until exhaustion
sets in.
Steven Douglas
>
> I thought you 'enjoyed' all the attention. You said that several times
> before. Liar!
When I returned from my New Year's weekend away, I was quite
entertained reading all the posts about me that were written while I
was gone. But I decided to try ignoring them and see what would
happen. And exactly what I thought would happen happened. Jane stopped
posting. So I waited a few more days to see what would happen. Silly
me, I actually thought she would stop the taunting. But she couldn't
help herself, and she started it up again even though I hadn't posted
in days. It's at a point now that I actually feel sorry for her, that
she's so caught up in her bitterness and hatred that she can't let go
even after days have passed without a post from me. Sad, really.
Steven Douglas
>
> On Jan 9, 10:32 am, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 9, 4:48 am, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 8:28 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 7, 3:38 pm, Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 7 Jan, 05:09, "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Hope for the sake of hope itself"
>
> > > > > Steven strikes me as a person who might well make 'New Year'
> > > > > resolutions. This could be one of them?
>
> > > > Yes, I actually announced a New Year's resolution right here on the
> > > > group.
>
> > > Where? No one but you seems to have seen it.
>
> > It's in the archives. It was to you, and you responded to it.
>
> > > >I was hoping to break the cycle of inane, meaningless,
> > > > pointless taunting coming from one APN poster.
>
> > > You can end the cycle anytime. However, calling that person names,
> > > implying that you will reveal their real name publicly
>
> > I never did that, liar. Never. Ever.
>
> I am not the only one who saw it that way. Oh...just the shrill,
> hysterical women agreed with me.
That's right, the same shrill shrieking women who had NOTHING to say
when the man named Amy posted BOTH your initials. You see, it was just
perfectly fine for the man named Amy to post BOTH your initials, but
when I posted ONE initial, I'm the devil. Yes, I understand that.
And for the record, I think you completely dodged the man named Amy's
point when he posted BOTH your initials. You probably don't even
remember what his point was, do you? It wasn't that he was threatening
to reveal you name, despite your paranoia.
>
> Inconsequential to a misogynist like
> you. Not a taunt, a statement of fact.
The fact is that the shrill shrieking women did not have a thing to
say about the man named Amy posting BOTH your initials. In fact, I'm
sure they approved.
>
> > > and then
> > > letting them know that you discuss them on e-mail with someone else
> > > from the group...even making wagers...is hardly the way to end
> > > anything.
>
> > There was no wager. It was simply my comment. I did not say the other
> > person was being friendly with me, you know. You assumed that. I get
> > emails from people all the time who disagree with what I post, but
> > they don't want to post their disagreement on the group.
>
> Anyone reading it would take the same message from it I did. Just
> admit you do your share of taunting yourself and be done with it.
The point was that I would stop if you would stop. So I stopped
anyway, and you didn't. And each time you refused to stop, I admit I
joined the cycle again. But it's been me EACH and EVERY time who has
offered to stop this, and you refuse EACH and EVERY time.
>
> > > Amazingly enough, Woods and I can see each other daily on facebook and
> > > your name never even comes up. We don't feel the need to discuss you
> > > (or anyone here) behind your back. We can say what we want to say
> > > right here, to your face.
>
> > That's nice. I do remember when you did talk about people behind their
> > back.
>
> Hard not to when communicating with you outside the group. The bulk of
> the conversation was about the group and the people on it. I will
> admit that. I didn't come on here and taunt them about, though.
Uh, your memory is that bad? Or are you just being disingenuous?
>
> > > Steven, you are a very ugly, almost evil, person who masquerades as a
> > > 'christian' (as many of your ilk do). That is not a taunt; simply a
> > > reality.
>
> > No, it's a taunt. You're created the idea that I threatened to reveal
> > your name. When you invented that idea, you told me you would never
> > argue with me again. What did I do? Did I hold you to that? Did I
> > demand that you never argue with me again or I'd reveal your name? NO!
> > I didn't do that, and you know it. I did the exact opposite. I told
> > you to continue to argue, just keep it fair.
>
> If you want to keep it to the issues, I can keep it fair anytime.
Let's start now. I did not post for several days, and the first post
you came up with last night was to taunt me -- even while I wasn't
posting. I was going to post that Dubai/rape article anyway, and see
what would happen. But you were already hear taunting away.
Incredible.
>
> >Of course you can't keep
> > it fair. You don't know how to be fair.
>
> Pot...kettle...black.
Not really, but if it makes you feel better to believe that, go ahead.
But let's stop the taunting once and for all. If you can. Can you?
>
> > Now you've invented in your own mind that I'm busy talking about you
> > behind your back. I made a comment to a person who wrote me to ARGUE
> > with me on email. You have no idea what you're talking about. The
> > "reality" you've created is warped.
>
> There actually are only one, or at most, two people I can think of
> here that would e-mail you NOT to argue, so I am not surprised.
> However, you knew what you were implying and you did so deliberately.
I wan't implying anything. I was making a point that you'd start the
taunting again, and you proved me right. And the other person knows
it.
Steven Douglas
Yes, imagine that. Some people of APN communicate with each other
outside the forum. Others who never (or rarely) post communicate with
me via email. My email address is good, for anyone who ever cares to
send me an email.
Jane
because you enjoy every minute of it. It's who you are.
Jane
wrote:
Actually, Steven, I feel sorry for you. You are so out of touch with
reality that it is scary.
Steven Douglas
>
> Oh, grow up. Just ignore me if it bothers you so much.
I did ignore you. Then you accused me of not answering something. At
other times you accuse me of always having to have the last word. I'm
wrong when I do and wrong when I don't -- ignore you. You're
completely unreasonable, and you know it; and you don't care, because
you *think* your new friends will back you up no matter what you say,
or how unreasonable you are.
>
> You won't,
> because you enjoy every minute of it. It's who you are.
Projection (did someone say pot/kettle/black?). Don't worry, at some
point I will ignore your taunts. It's just a real shame that you have
no self-control. I've finally realized there is no point in asking you
to stop, because you're unable to stop.
Steven Douglas
> reality that it is scary.
Uh, it's you who has created the false "reality" that I threatened to
reveal your name. It's you who created the false reality that you were
the "victim" of supposedly friendly email conversations I had with
someone else, during which we talked about you behind your back. It's
you who created the false impression of yourself that you keep it
fair. I just wish you had the ability to stop with the taunts. You
couldn't stop even when I ignored you for days. Sad case.
Jane
wrote:
Blah, blah, blah...let it go. No one cares...least of all, me.
Jane
wrote:
> On Jan 9, 3:48 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Oh, grow up. Just ignore me if it bothers you so much.
>
> I did ignore you. Then you accused me of not answering something. At
> other times you accuse me of always having to have the last word. I'm
> wrong when I do and wrong when I don't -- ignore you. You're
> completely unreasonable, and you know it; and you don't care, because
> you *think* your new friends will back you up no matter what you say,
> or how unreasonable you are.
My 'new friends' can back me up or not...entirely up to them.
I'm sure they won't if I am being unreasonable.
>
> > You won't,
> > because you enjoy every minute of it. It's who you are.
>
> Projection (did someone say pot/kettle/black?). Don't worry, at some
> point I will ignore your taunts.
Please do. My latest 'taunts' (as I said before, your definition of a
taunt is so broad as to be absurd) were in response to what Mike
posted.
It's just a real shame that you have
> no self-control. I've finally realized there is no point in asking you
> to stop, because you're unable to stop.
Apparently, neither are you, or you would have ignored the silly
comments I made to Mike.
JTEM
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:c8fe6174-0977-432a...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
So it wasn't the 75% chance that you weren't on vacation as some thought,
but the other 25% I talked about and suspected?
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:00a0ee3d-3597-4821...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Answering what? I was gone for a few days during New Year's weekend.
> When I got back, 90% of the posts I read were about me personally. No
> topic of substance to respond to, just posts directed to me, and about
> me.
>Even threads with my name in the title.
I didn't see any threads with your name in the title since you left for a
few days. What post are you referring to? Are you fabricating things again
Steven?
Jane
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:00a0ee3d-3597-4821...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Answering what? I was gone for a few days during New Year's weekend.
> > When I got back, 90% of the posts I read were about me personally. No
> > topic of substance to respond to, just posts directed to me, and about
> > me.
> >Even threads with my name in the title.
>
> I didn't see any threads with your name in the title since you left for a
> few days. What post are you referring to? Are you fabricating things again
> Steven?
I was wondering the same thing, Mike.
Woodswun
>
> news:00a0ee3d-3597-4821...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Answering what? I was gone for a few days during New Year's weekend.
> > When I got back, 90% of the posts I read were about me personally. No
> > topic of substance to respond to, just posts directed to me, and about
> > me.
> >Even threads with my name in the title.
>
> I didn't see any threads with your name in the title since you left for a
> few days. What post are you referring to? Are you fabricating things again
> Steven?
Sure looks that way ...
Woods
Steven Douglas
>
> On Jan 10, 6:42 am, "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote:
>
> > "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > When I got back, 90% of the posts I read were about me personally. No
> > > topic of substance to respond to, just posts directed to me, and about
> > > me.
> > >Even threads with my name in the title.
>
> > I didn't see any threads with your name in the title since you left for a
> > few days. What post are you referring to? Are you fabricating things again
> > Steven?
>
> I was wondering the same thing, Mike.
There was another one just the other day. Just because you don't see
something doesn't mean it didn't happen. And for the record, I don't
fabricate things. Ever. If anyone (such as Mike) thinks he can show
something I fabricated, I invite him to show it. Otherwise, he will
have proven himself to be a liar.
Steven Douglas
>
> On Jan 10, 6:42 am, "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote:
>
> > "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > When I got back, 90% of the posts I read were about me personally. No
> > > topic of substance to respond to, just posts directed to me, and about
> > > me.
> > >Even threads with my name in the title.
>
> > I didn't see any threads with your name in the title since you left for a
> > few days. What post are you referring to? Are you fabricating things again
> > Steven?
>
> Sure looks that way ...
Said the blind woman.
Woodswun
wrote:
You mean, like when you lied about being able to get Canadian TV
networks from your dish satellite service if you wanted to pay for it?
Woods
Jane
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 6:42 am, "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > Answering what? I was gone for a few days during New Year's weekend.
> > > > When I got back, 90% of the posts I read were about me personally. No
> > > > topic of substance to respond to, just posts directed to me, and about
> > > > me.
> > > >Even threads with my name in the title.
>
> > > I didn't see any threads with your name in the title since you left for a
> > > few days. What post are you referring to? Are you fabricating things again
> > > Steven?
>
> > I was wondering the same thing, Mike.
>
> There was another one just the other day.
Link?
The only thread I remember is this one. I remember thinking when Mike
posted it that I wished he hadn't. You are already so full of yourself
that it would have been better for no one to notice your absence. Now
you are all puffed up again thinking every post is about *you*!
For the record, it was not because of your resolution suggestion that
I had not posted (it made so little impact on me that I forgot all
about it until you reminded me). There were basically three reasons,
none of them having anything to do with you; 1. Nobody posted anything
I cared to respond to until Mike; 2. Nothing happened in the world
that I cared to post myself; and 3. I have a Mafia Wars habit (that
Woods can attest to) that takes up a good deal of my online time.
Sorry, Steven, I know you think everyone's universe revolves around
you, but mine does not. Not even close.
Jane
I'd say that's a 'taunt' by Steven's own definition, Woods.
Steven Douglas
I did not lie. But you just did. I said nothing about getting Canadian
TV from MY dish satellite service. I did say, however, that it is
possible to get Canadian TV in the United States if you want to pay
for it. There are many ex-pat Canadians who do that down here, whether
you're aware of it or not. And, of course, you're not. It's obvious
that you're not aware of many things.
Steven Douglas
>
> On Jan 10, 11:35 am, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 10, 5:34 am, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 10, 6:42 am, "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > Answering what? I was gone for a few days during New Year's weekend.
> > > > > When I got back, 90% of the posts I read were about me personally. No
> > > > > topic of substance to respond to, just posts directed to me, and about
> > > > > me.
> > > > >Even threads with my name in the title.
>
> > > > I didn't see any threads with your name in the title since you left for a
> > > > few days. What post are you referring to? Are you fabricating things again
> > > > Steven?
>
> > > I was wondering the same thing, Mike.
>
> > There was another one just the other day.
>
> Link?
Sheesh, it's right there on the list of threads on Google. Incredible.
>
> The only thread I remember is this one. I remember thinking when Mike
> posted it that I wished he hadn't. You are already so full of yourself
> that it would have been better for no one to notice your absence. Now
> you are all puffed up again thinking every post is about *you*!
Uh, when I got back from my New Year's weekend away, there were an
inordinate number of posts about me, even though I hadn't posted all
weekend. So I decided to see how long that would go on. It became more
sporadic, and I started thinking maybe I'd just sit back for awhile
and see what happens. And then Mike started this thread. And then
others joined in. And then you made your first post in days, and it
was about me. Incredible.
>
> For the record, it was not because of your resolution suggestion that
> I had not posted (it made so little impact on me that I forgot all
> about it until you reminded me). There were basically three reasons,
> none of them having anything to do with you; 1. Nobody posted anything
> I cared to respond to until Mike;
About me.
>
> 2. Nothing happened in the world
> that I cared to post myself; and 3. I have a Mafia Wars habit (that
> Woods can attest to) that takes up a good deal of my online time.
>
> Sorry, Steven, I know you think everyone's universe revolves around
> you, but mine does not. Not even close.
I've always told everyone on this group who hates me, just ignore me
and I'll get bored and go away. But that never happens. This is what
happens, every time. This very post from you is dedicated to me. Thank
you. And as long as all of you want to talk about me, I'll stick
around and respond to all the falsehoods that are routinely told about
me.
Steven Douglas
No, it's just an observation to her "looks that way" remark, since
it's plainly obvious that there were new threads titled with my name
in them. Only a blind person would flat out deny that.
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:0213848d-0a43-4f7b...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
I don't need to show you ANYTHING!
Steven Douglas
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > On Jan 10, 5:34 am, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Jan 10, 6:42 am, "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote:
>
> >> > "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > > Answering what? I was gone for a few days during New Year's weekend.
> >> > > When I got back, 90% of the posts I read were about me personally. No
> >> > > topic of substance to respond to, just posts directed to me, and
> >> > > about
> >> > > me.
> >> > >Even threads with my name in the title.
>
> >> > I didn't see any threads with your name in the title since you left for
> >> > a
> >> > few days. What post are you referring to? Are you fabricating things
> >> > again
> >> > Steven?
>
> >> I was wondering the same thing, Mike.
>
> > There was another one just the other day. Just because you don't see
> > something doesn't mean it didn't happen. And for the record, I don't
> > fabricate things. Ever. If anyone (such as Mike) thinks he can show
> > something I fabricated, I invite him to show it. Otherwise, he will
> > have proven himself to be a liar.
>
> I don't need to show you ANYTHING!
Of course you don't! You can lie about me, and all the other liars
here will back you up! And you'll all think you're right because it's
three or four to one! But a lie is still a lie, liar. I have not
fabricated anything, and you've proven it by your lack of ability to
show an example. You've proven yourself to be a liar. And soon, the
other liars will come running to your defense!
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:5881939b-bcfc-4db1...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I don't know about the others, but I can't see any reason why I would want
to send you a private e-mail. Also I can't understand why you are inviting
us all to send you personal emails. What do you want us to write you about?
Steven Douglas
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
I don't care if you want to send me private emails or not. All I said
is that my email address is good, for anyone who does care to send me
a private email. There are people reading this who never post, whether
you're aware of that or not.
Jane
Of course. When anyone else makes a similar observation about you,
it's a taunt. Grow up.
Jane
Uh...there weren't an inordinate number of posts about *anything*.
That's why Doc made his post about APN needing resuscitation.
even though I hadn't posted all
> weekend. So I decided to see how long that would go on. It became more
> sporadic, and I started thinking maybe I'd just sit back for awhile
> and see what happens. And then Mike started this thread. And then
> others joined in. And then you made your first post in days, and it
> was about me. Incredible.
>
>
>
> > For the record, it was not because of your resolution suggestion that
> > I had not posted (it made so little impact on me that I forgot all
> > about it until you reminded me). There were basically three reasons,
> > none of them having anything to do with you; 1. Nobody posted anything
> > I cared to respond to until Mike;
>
> About me.
So what? That gives you a little thrill?
>
> > 2. Nothing happened in the world
> > that I cared to post myself; and 3. I have a Mafia Wars habit (that
> > Woods can attest to) that takes up a good deal of my online time.
>
> > Sorry, Steven, I know you think everyone's universe revolves around
> > you, but mine does not. Not even close.
>
> I've always told everyone on this group who hates me, just ignore me
> and I'll get bored and go away. But that never happens. This is what
> happens, every time. This very post from you is dedicated to me.
'Dedicated to you'. Get over yourself. I could just as easily say that
your post is dedicated to me.
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:0bc2d76d-56ab-474c...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Ignoring you has little effect Steven. I ignored you for many months, when I
got back, you were still frantically cranking out endless repetitive posts
everyday. Seems to me that you are the one with no self control. Don't you
think?
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8e0c15d-4002-4259...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Sounds like I might make a good politician! Don't you think?
Steven Douglas
No, a taunt is making something up -- such as "praying over smallpox
infested blankets" -- which you admitted you used to "goad" me (goad
being your word). A taunt is something unconnected to the topic under
discussion, such as "grow up." Have I ever used taunts? Of course, but
I haven't targeted one person and made 75% (or more) of my posts
*about* that one person.
Steven Douglas
Look back at the period of January 1 to about January 3 or so. Tell me
all about it.
>
> That's why Doc made his post about APN needing resuscitation.
Yes, that was after I got back and still hadn't posted for a few days.
You people didn't know what to do with yourselves without me. It was
actually funny! And what made it funnier was when *you* decided to
write your first post in days, it was *about* me. It was not about
some world topic under discussion, it was about me.
>
> >even though I hadn't posted all
> > weekend. So I decided to see how long that would go on. It became more
> > sporadic, and I started thinking maybe I'd just sit back for awhile
> > and see what happens. And then Mike started this thread. And then
> > others joined in. And then you made your first post in days, and it
> > was about me. Incredible.
>
> > > For the record, it was not because of your resolution suggestion that
> > > I had not posted (it made so little impact on me that I forgot all
> > > about it until you reminded me). There were basically three reasons,
> > > none of them having anything to do with you; 1. Nobody posted anything
> > > I cared to respond to until Mike;
>
> > About me.
>
> So what? That gives you a little thrill?
No, actually I was hoping you would stop this endless taunting. I was
hoping you would ignore me. But since you've chosen exactly the
opposite of that, I'll play along.
>
> > > 2. Nothing happened in the world
> > > that I cared to post myself; and 3. I have a Mafia Wars habit (that
> > > Woods can attest to) that takes up a good deal of my online time.
>
> > > Sorry, Steven, I know you think everyone's universe revolves around
> > > you, but mine does not. Not even close.
>
> > I've always told everyone on this group who hates me, just ignore me
> > and I'll get bored and go away. But that never happens. This is what
> > happens, every time. This very post from you is dedicated to me.
>
> 'Dedicated to you'. Get over yourself. I could just as easily say that
> your post is dedicated to me.
Uh, you started it. As you always do. I'd have ignored you forever if
you could have resisted the urge to keep taunting me, even when I
hadn't posted in days.
>
Steven Douglas
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0bc2d76d-56ab-474c...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 3:48 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Oh, grow up. Just ignore me if it bothers you so much.
>
> > I did ignore you. Then you accused me of not answering something. At
> > other times you accuse me of always having to have the last word. I'm
> > wrong when I do and wrong when I don't -- ignore you. You're
> > completely unreasonable, and you know it; and you don't care, because
> > you *think* your new friends will back you up no matter what you say,
> > or how unreasonable you are.
>
> >> You won't,
> >> because you enjoy every minute of it. It's who you are.
>
> > Projection (did someone say pot/kettle/black?). Don't worry, at some
> > point I will ignore your taunts. It's just a real shame that you have
> > no self-control. I've finally realized there is no point in asking you
> > to stop, because you're unable to stop.
>
> Ignoring you has little effect Steven.
Yes, all it does is encourage me to stop posting, as I did for days
until you started this thread.
>
> I ignored you for many months, when I
> got back, you were still frantically cranking out endless repetitive posts
> everyday.
It's not just about you, Mike. It's about all the others here who want
to make me the focus of their lives. Who probably can't stop thinking
about me even when they're away from their computers.
>
> Seems to me that you are the one with no self control. Don't you
> think?
No, as I've said repeatedly, I'll get bored and stop posting if
everyone here ignored me. But even when I'm not posting for days, I'm
the continuing subject of discussion here. So I see no reason why I
shouldn't join the discussion, do you?
Jane
You called Woods 'blind'. I don't think she is blind. You made that
up; ergo, you taunted her.
-- such as "praying over smallpox
> infested blankets"
Why? Did I say that you did that? I prefaced it with 'they
probably...', so anyone with ANY reading comprehension skills at all
KNEW I was making it up. Yeah, to goad you, but so what? Have you
always been that overly-sensitive? I suggest you avoid 'Yuk Yuks', or,
at least, sit far in the back.
You've never said anything to goad anyone else on here? You know what
they say about glass houses and logs in the eye.
-- which you admitted you used to "goad" me (goad
> being your word). A taunt is something unconnected to the topic under
> discussion, such as "grow up." Have I ever used taunts? Of course, but
> I haven't targeted one person and made 75% (or more) of my posts
> *about* that one person.
No, you're an equal-opportunity pain in the ass. Just ask Doc. If you
add the posts you direct at me and at him together, you might get your
75%. But, then, I don't the time or inclination to go count them.
Apparently, you do.
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5f9a874-271f-4057...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
How come I could just stop posting (at will) and you have to have all these
countless conditions met to control yourself? Why is that? I think you are
just saying that but there is no evidence that that would work. I don't even
think you understand yourself as others do.
Steven Douglas
I was responding to her apparent inability to see the obvious. "Said
the blind woman" is an appropriate response to someone who purposely
puts out false information.
>
> > -- such as "praying over smallpox
> > infested blankets"
>
> Why? Did I say that you did that? I prefaced it with 'they
> probably...',
And I asked for your evidence of that.
>
> so anyone with ANY reading comprehension skills at all
> KNEW I was making it up.
Why would you do that? Please explain.
>
> Yeah, to goad you,
Of course!
>
> but so what?
It perfectly demonstrates what has become your number one obsession on
this group.
>
> Have you
> always been that overly-sensitive? I suggest you avoid 'Yuk Yuks', or,
> at least, sit far in the back.
>
> You've never said anything to goad anyone else on here? You know what
> they say about glass houses and logs in the eye.
Yes, but again -- please listen carefully -- I don't target *one*
poster and make that poster the main reason I post on the group.
>
> >-- which you admitted you used to "goad" me (goad
> > being your word). A taunt is something unconnected to the topic under
> > discussion, such as "grow up." Have I ever used taunts? Of course, but
> > I haven't targeted one person and made 75% (or more) of my posts
> > *about* that one person.
>
> No, you're an equal-opportunity pain in the ass. Just ask Doc. If you
> add the posts you direct at me and at him together, you might get your
> 75%.
All I do is respond to posts addressed to me ... or can you show me
all the posts where I've initiated some contact with you or Doc? Of
course you can't, they don't exist. I respond to YOUR posts, and I
respond to Doc's posts. Get it?
>
> But, then, I don't the time or inclination to go count them.
> Apparently, you do.
No, I haven't counted them. But it wouldn't be difficult to count your
posts from this year (2010), and find out what percentage of them are
about me. Should we do that?
Steven Douglas
Did everyone keep talking about you when you left? I don't remember
that.
>
> Why is that? I think you are
> just saying that but there is no evidence that that would work. I don't even
> think you understand yourself as others do.
Uh, since you all spend so much time talking about me, and dedicating
posts to me (as you just did with this one), maybe you just *think*
you understand me better than I understand myself. You're lying to
yourself if you truly believe that. But then you are a liar, so maybe
that's why you're lying to yourself.
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:e05e3b01-ef5d-49a7...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
The reason for that should be obvious. You are the ONLY ONE having an
apposing view to the rest of us (a radical terrorist in a way). One black
dot will stand out in a sea of white dots, or a white pixel will become
visible against black background. Can't you figure out something so simple?
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <dst...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:75a63118-b390-454c...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Since there is no physical way to prove that, I must rely on my own feelings
that I trust way more than I trust you.
Steven Douglas
And when I stopped posting for a few days, you couldn't stop talking
about me. Neither could Doc, nor Jane, nor others as well.
Steven Douglas
>
> "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Uh, since you all spend so much time talking about me, and dedicating
> > posts to me (as you just did with this one), maybe you just *think*
> > you understand me better than I understand myself.
>
> Since there is no physical way to prove that, I must rely on my own feelings
> that I trust way more than I trust you.
Yes, always go with your *feelings* -- never go with actual facts.
You're likely to be wrong quite often that way.
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <dst...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:7cdb23f9-7163-453b...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
I post about you because I like to demonstrates your weaknesses. I have
absolute confidence I could stop posting or make any discision, if I wanted
to. I deliberately stopped posting for about eight months (because of you)
and nothing changed. Do you have any *different* suggestions that might
work?
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <dst...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:3db6d024-b0b3-4e4a...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps that is the way it works for you, but I believe the opposite. That
is why I have less 'enemies' than you. Who are your friends here? Can't you
see?
Jane
Exactly, Mike. Exactly.
Werewolfy
> Uh, since you all spend so much time talking about me, and dedicating
> posts to me (as you just did with this one),
All?
Werewolfy
Mike
"Jane" <pushl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f1896c5-07c0-48ff...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Steven is so amusing. That is why I like him.
Jane
I talked about you once, in response to Mike. I once stayed away for
two years and only talked to you when *you* e-mailed me. How long have
you ever stayed away, Steven? Admit it, this is the center of your
life.
Jane
>
> > > -- such as "praying over smallpox
> > > infested blankets"
>
> > Why? Did I say that you did that? I prefaced it with 'they
> > probably...',
>
> And I asked for your evidence of that.
>
>
>
> > so anyone with ANY reading comprehension skills at all
> > KNEW I was making it up.
>
> Why would you do that? Please explain.
Why wouldn't I? I didn't present it as fact.
>
>
>
> > Yeah, to goad you,
>
> Of course!
>
>
>
> > but so what?
>
> It perfectly demonstrates what has become your number one obsession on
> this group.
>
LOL. As Mike said, you are the only one who regularly posts inanities
in here. You'll note that I did challenge JTEM when he said something
stupid, too. (Specifically, while he was in 'human' mode. Since he has
reverted to his true, sub-human self, I don't bother with him).
>
> > Have you
> > always been that overly-sensitive? I suggest you avoid 'Yuk Yuks', or,
> > at least, sit far in the back.
>
> > You've never said anything to goad anyone else on here? You know what
> > they say about glass houses and logs in the eye.
>
> Yes, but again -- please listen carefully -- I don't target *one*
> poster and make that poster the main reason I post on the group.
>
Uh...the reason is obvious. You have many to choose from. The rest of
us don't.
>
> > >-- which you admitted you used to "goad" me (goad
> > > being your word). A taunt is something unconnected to the topic under
> > > discussion, such as "grow up." Have I ever used taunts? Of course, but
> > > I haven't targeted one person and made 75% (or more) of my posts
> > > *about* that one person.
>
> > No, you're an equal-opportunity pain in the ass. Just ask Doc. If you
> > add the posts you direct at me and at him together, you might get your
> > 75%.
>
> All I do is respond to posts addressed to me ... or can you show me
> all the posts where I've initiated some contact with you or Doc? Of
> course you can't, they don't exist. I respond to YOUR posts, and I
> respond to Doc's posts. Get it?
>
Sure, but if you were sincere in wanting things to change, you would
ignore us so that WE would get bored and not bother. You don't,
because you love us. This IS your life.
>
> > But, then, I don't the time or inclination to go count them.
> > Apparently, you do.
>
> No, I haven't counted them. But it wouldn't be difficult to count your
> posts from this year (2010), and find out what percentage of them are
> about me. Should we do that?
LOL. If it turns your crank, do whatever you like. Even when you
aren't the subject of the thread, you turn it into being about by
politicizing it (the rape in Dubai thread). Narcissism is not becoming
a christian, you know. You should work on that.
Mike
"Jane" <pushl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:14204ff2-c020-432d...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> Yes, but again -- please listen carefully -- I don't target *one*
>> poster and make that poster the main reason I post on the group.
> Uh...the reason is obvious. You have many to choose from. The rest of
> us don't.
That gave me such a good laugh Jane.
Woodswun
> On Jan 10, 11:35 am, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 5:56 am, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 10, 6:42 am, "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > Answering what? I was gone for a few days during New Year's weekend.
> > > > > When I got back, 90% of the posts I read were about me personally. No
> > > > > topic of substance to respond to, just posts directed to me, and about
> > > > > me.
> > > > >Even threads with my name in the title.
>
> > > > I didn't see any threads with your name in the title since you left for a
> > > > few days. What post are you referring to? Are you fabricating things again
> > > > Steven?
>
> > > Sure looks that way ...
>
> > Said the blind woman.
>
> I'd say that's a 'taunt' by Steven's own definition, Woods.
Heh, more like showing his own buttons, methinks. ;-)
Woods
Woodswun
wrote:
> On Jan 10, 9:09 am, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 11:35 am, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Jan 10, 6:42 am, "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > Answering what? I was gone for a few days during New Year's weekend.
> > > > > > When I got back, 90% of the posts I read were about me personally. No
> > > > > > topic of substance to respond to, just posts directed to me, and about
> > > > > > me.
> > > > > >Even threads with my name in the title.
>
> > > > > I didn't see any threads with your name in the title since you left for a
> > > > > few days. What post are you referring to? Are you fabricating things again
> > > > > Steven?
>
>
> > > something doesn't mean it didn't happen. And for the record, I don't
> > > fabricate things. Ever. If anyone (such as Mike) thinks he can show
> > > something I fabricated, I invite him to show it. Otherwise, he will
> > > have proven himself to be a liar.
>
> > networks from your dish satellite service if you wanted to pay for it?
>
> I did not lie. But you just did. I said nothing about getting Canadian
> TV from MY dish satellite service. I did say, however, that it is
> possible to get Canadian TV in the United States if you want to pay
> for it. There are many ex-pat Canadians who do that down here, whether
> you're aware of it or not. And, of course, you're not. It's obvious
> that you're not aware of many things.
Quote:
"If I wanted to pay for it, I could have access to
Canadian networks, too. In fact, I used to get many foreign networks
on my big satellite dish. Those networks are still available, if I
choose to pay for them. "
Which, as we all now know, is false - you cannot get Canadian networks
in the United States unless you have a Canadian address, which you do
not.
Woods
Steven Douglas
Here we go again. You don't know what I have or don't have. I
explained in that other thread how to go about it. You ignored it. I'm
not going to explain it again. Watch NBC.
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdb10c34-e24b-4091...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Yes, I do remember a similar conversation with you and Chris about cell
phones, which you knew nothing about, but just couldn't admit it.
Steven Douglas
What a coincidence, I was just thinking about that today. And the
reason I was thinking about that is because my current cell phone puts
out far less radiation than my earlier cell phones did. I was right in
that conversation, just as I'm right in the current one with Woods.
The fact she's clueless does not make me wrong.
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:8977a138-4f1d-4d48...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Looks like all the 'radiation' from your previous cell phone has already
fried half your brain cells, so what difference does it make?
JTEM
Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Which, as we all now know, is false - you cannot get
> Canadian networks in the United States unless you
> have a Canadian address, which you do not.
TV, much like the recording industry, is trying to
force the world into living like it's still the
1970s.
TV producers want to sell their shows to every market,
even though technology has pretty much destroyed all
the lines, and it's all really one market now.
They have to put up artificial barriers to protect
their concept of different markets. U.S. and U.K.
websites, for example, and even cites like Youtube
will block by country.
NOTE: If everyone in the U.S. could access what's
playing on Canadian or British networks as they are
broadcasting, nobody in America will pay for the
"Rights" to broadcast those some shows.
Werewolfy
There are some very good documentaries about AIDS, l'il Fairy. You
should try to watch them before you die.
Back to Motss you go
Woodswun
Yep. Chris designed the darned things, and knew what he was talking
about. Steven just dug his heels in, there, too.
Woods
Woodswun
LOL!
Woods
Woodswun
I've got you backed into a corner, Steven. Mike also brought up
another thread where you were caught lying. That's 2 instances that
you were caught by someone who just happened to have some knowledge in
the area you lied about. We've also all seen you spin things to change
the reality, which is basically a form of lying, as well.
You are not an honest person.
Woods
Steven Douglas
>
> On Jan 12, 12:28 am, "Mike" <m...@ike.com> wrote:
>
> > "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
Actually, I provided some cites that proved I was right. It was Chris
who dug in his heels. Of course you'll ignore the cites I provided.
You're not an honest person.
Steven Douglas
In your dreams.
>
> Mike also brought up
> another thread where you were caught lying.
Mike is wrong. So are you (of course you're almost always wrong, so
that's no big surprise).
>
> That's 2 instances that
> you were caught by someone who just happened to have some knowledge in
> the area you lied about.
Wrong. I provided cites. You're providing nothing other than your lame
babbling.
>
> We've also all seen you spin things to change
> the reality, which is basically a form of lying, as well.
Ah yes, the "we" phenomenon of APN. None of you can stand up to me
alone, so it's
"we think this" and "we think that." Group think. Does it give you
comfort to have a group of people who will lie for you to back you up?
>
> You are not an honest person.
Coming from you, that is the irony of all time.
Mike
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a8c5471-a0be-4b90...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
What makes you believe that 'cites' are proof?