A dram please
Darklady
been in here before (just looking it up) Jul 24 2004-gee that's along
time without a drink! Hi to Sarah if she's still around.
actually i think I just need a place to gather my thoughts.
Sarah Vaughan
I forgot to resubscribe when I changed e-mail clients. I just came over
after reading your post on the Castle in case there was any clue over
here as to what was going on.
Hope the thought-gathering is going well!
All the best,
Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com
But how do we _know_ that no-one ever said on their deathbed that they
wished they’d spent more time at the office?
Darklady
Can i have a bigger basket for my thoughts please? Beer barrel perhaps!
Heather
Sarah Vaughan
> Hi Sarah,
> Can i have a bigger basket for my thoughts please? Beer barrel perhaps!
OK, I'm gonna go with the nosiness. What's up?
Darklady
"others") I'd like to speak about something else for a change but there
is a bit of gap filling to do as well. As much as I'd like to tell the
whole story, well publically isn't the best place to do it.You might
have guessed that I'm not TOO happy at the moment. That's putting it
mildly!!!
I kept quiet for 3 bloody years as other "things" were going on. God I
hate being cryptic.(I think I know who your friend is btw.)Also I
didn't want to hurt him.And I still don't but there are certain types
of behaviour that shouldn't be allowed to continue.Christ we all only
have one life.(no reincarnation posts please-another day and sorry for
saying christ)
Heather
YES I'M A LOVELY PERSON ( I've got to shout as I'm a bit on the wee
side.)
ps my older daughter as just piped up he's a rotten dad
Covenant
"Stormy" <storm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145995330....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> I understand. And email has been sent. -Storm
Hope it went to the RIGHT address....
And not the hi-jacked one.
Heh.
--
Covenant
A Man Shaking His Head In Disbelief.....
Darklady
Heather
Covenant
"Darklady" <Morwe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146304532.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Shut up Joe
Nope... S'my pub, it was given to me.
--
Covenant
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
PearL
Darklady wrote:
> Shut up Joe
>
> Heather
Oh who cares Heather. Let him babble on like a 4 yr old having a
temper tantrum... "MY pub, MY castle" blah blah blah. Good grief,
grow up. It's the freaking internet and these are public newsgroups.
We can post here if we want to and ignore him while we talk. As a
matter of fact, we should invite sarah to join us. She sent me an email
saying she's got an internet hookup where she's staying so she can
still chat. YAY!
Covenant
"PearL" <bstn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1146434220.1...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Darklady wrote:
>> Shut up Joe
>>
>> Heather
>
>
> Oh who cares Heather. Let him babble on like a 4 yr old having a
> temper tantrum... "MY pub, MY castle" blah blah blah.
MY Castle???
When and where did I say that? (In anything like the same context I say that
in here?)
MY Pub, ??
Of course it is. BEAST gave it to me!
(And unless you want to dispute her overall power over all things.....)
...
...
You know what......
I had a HUGE reply here.
But it's deleted now. There's no point.
Off you go and live your life and bitch behind my back (or even in here)
about me as much as you like.
That won;t make anything discussed more or less true, nor will it help YOU
in any way with what you *think* you are going through.
You're *boyfriend*'s gain is my loss???
In what way?????????????????????????
Nope, nope.... lets not start getting into the subject again...
AFAI am concerned you're only making yourself look foolish, and if you want
to do that, who am *I* to stop you.
Just stop saying ONE thing inthe NGs and ANOTHER in your emails, okay?
Now then... there's a 3 drink minimum in here.
--
Covenant
A Man Who Owns A Pub.
PearL
Covenant wrote:
> Just stop saying ONE thing inthe NGs and ANOTHER in your emails, okay?
There is a huge difference between a PRIVATE conversation in PRIVATE
email and "airing your dirty laundry" in a PUBLIC newsgroup which the
entire internet WORLD has access to. But seeing as you have no
integrity or class, it doesnt surprise me that you dont know that. And
yet, you call yourself a "gent"... pffftt....
Covenant
>
> Covenant wrote:
>> Just stop saying ONE thing inthe NGs and ANOTHER in your emails, okay?
> There is a huge difference between a PRIVATE conversation in PRIVATE
> email
You're quite correct, for a change.
Emails *behind the scenes* can contain as many lies as the writer wants.
(And different ones for different recipiants too!)
OR can show POLARIC differences in stance or affiliation. (Some might say,
hypocrisy!)
etc
etc
etc...
> and "airing your dirty laundry" in a PUBLIC newsgroup which the
> entire internet WORLD has access to. But seeing as you have no
> integrity or class, it doesnt surprise me that you dont know that. And
> yet, you call yourself a "gent"... pffftt....
Ah me.. delicious irony.
;' )
--
Covenant
A Man Giggling.....
Kimmer
Thankfully you didn't call yourself a "lady", thus showing yourself to
be slightly less of a hypocrite than you seem to be accusing Joe of
being.
I'm thankfully out of the loop on the details of the situation, but I do
know one thing. Joe didn't come in here and start bitching about
someone; "Stormy" did, rather loudly. This is a public newsgroup, and
some things should remain private.
Sheesh...
Kimmer
kimagreenfieldatyahoodotcom
Sarah Vaughan
> PearL wrote:
>> Covenant wrote:
>>> Just stop saying ONE thing inthe NGs and ANOTHER in your emails,
> okay?
>>
>> There is a huge difference between a PRIVATE conversation in PRIVATE
>> email and "airing your dirty laundry" in a PUBLIC newsgroup which the
>> entire internet WORLD has access to. But seeing as you have no
>> integrity or class, it doesnt surprise me that you dont know that. And
>> yet, you call yourself a "gent"... pffftt....
>
> Thankfully you didn't call yourself a "lady", thus showing yourself to
> be slightly less of a hypocrite than you seem to be accusing Joe of
> being.
I'm not entirely clear on why you think PearL is any sort of hypocrite.
> I'm thankfully out of the loop on the details of the situation, but I do
> know one thing. Joe didn't come in here and start bitching about
> someone;
Not here, no. He's saved that for a different newsgroup.
PearL
Kimmer wrote:
> Thankfully you didn't call yourself a "lady", thus showing yourself to
> be slightly less of a hypocrite than you seem to be accusing Joe of
> being.
>
> someone; "
You are correct... he didnt come in HERE and start bitching. He went
into ANOTHER group and started bitching. THUS my comment to him. *I*
havent said ONE word about anything *private* HERE or ELSEWHERE. ANd
while I dont think that makes me *a lady*, it does make me a person of
INTEGRITY... of which he is NOT.
PearL
Sarah Vaughan wrote:
>
> > I'm thankfully out of the loop on the details of the situation, but I do
> > know one thing. Joe didn't come in here and start bitching about
> > someone;
>
> Not here, no. He's saved that for a different newsgroup.
EXACTLY. Thank you Sarah. And my POINT? I've asked joe REPEATEDLY
online and OFF to STOP speaking about personal things in usenet but he
CONTINUES to do so. Thus my comment to him that if he were *really* a
gent as he claims, he would have kept things "private".
Covenant
"Sarah Vaughan" <nann...@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e35vmn$r1v$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Kimmer wrote:
>> PearL wrote:
>>> Covenant wrote:
>>>> Just stop saying ONE thing inthe NGs and ANOTHER in your emails,
>> okay?
>>>
>>> There is a huge difference between a PRIVATE conversation in PRIVATE
>>> email and "airing your dirty laundry" in a PUBLIC newsgroup which the
>>> entire internet WORLD has access to. But seeing as you have no
>>> integrity or class, it doesnt surprise me that you dont know that. And
>>> yet, you call yourself a "gent"... pffftt....
>>
>> Thankfully you didn't call yourself a "lady", thus showing yourself to
>> be slightly less of a hypocrite than you seem to be accusing Joe of
>> being.
>
> I'm not entirely clear on why you think PearL is any sort of hypocrite.
>
>> I'm thankfully out of the loop on the details of the situation, but I do
>> know one thing. Joe didn't come in here and start bitching about
>> someone;
>
> Not here, no. He's saved that for a different newsgroup.
Hmmm....
Saying "Me, Apparently", counts for that does it?
Odd.
And yet... the hypocrisy line STILL stands...... And as was correctly said,
*I* didnt satrt this.
But I'm also going not going anywhere.
Sarah Vaughan
> "Sarah Vaughan" <nann...@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:e35vmn$r1v$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Kimmer wrote:
>>
>>> I'm thankfully out of the loop on the details of the situation, but I do
>>> know one thing. Joe didn't come in here and start bitching about
>>> someone;
>> Not here, no. He's saved that for a different newsgroup.
>
>
>
> Hmmm....
> Saying "Me, Apparently", counts for that does it?
Of course not. I was talking about your 'Fatal Attraction' post.
PearL
Covenant wrote:
> > Not here, no. He's saved that for a different newsgroup.
>
>
>
> Hmmm....
> Saying "Me, Apparently", counts for that does it?
No. The post Ruth pointed out to you 'counts for that'.
> And yet... the hypocrisy line STILL stands......
No, it doesnt. I told you my post wasnt about you but you refused to
believe it, even when i insisted over and over. And then you went on to
make all kinds of 'insinuating' posts about me. Look Joe, I know you
hate my guts and think i'm a psycho and i ruined your life, but can we
at least try and be civil? There's really no need for us to constantly
be at each others throats seeing as we do both post in several of the
same newsgroups and neither of us is 'going anywhere'. I'll make a
whole hearted attempt if you will.
Covenant
> Covenant wrote:
>> "Sarah Vaughan" <nann...@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:e35vmn$r1v$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> Kimmer wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm thankfully out of the loop on the details of the situation, but I
>>>> do
>>>> know one thing. Joe didn't come in here and start bitching about
>>>> someone;
>>> Not here, no. He's saved that for a different newsgroup.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmmm....
>> Saying "Me, Apparently", counts for that does it?
>
> Of course not. I was talking about your 'Fatal Attraction' post.
Did I say that was me???
Think not.
Darklady
Heather
A woman looking for answers-it's not bloody copyrighted is it???????
PearL
lmao!
Kimmer
> Kimmer wrote:
> > PearL wrote:
> >> Covenant wrote:
> >>> Just stop saying ONE thing inthe NGs and ANOTHER in your emails,
> > okay?
> >>
> >> There is a huge difference between a PRIVATE conversation in
PRIVATE
> >> email and "airing your dirty laundry" in a PUBLIC newsgroup which
the
> >> entire internet WORLD has access to. But seeing as you have no
> >> integrity or class, it doesnt surprise me that you dont know that.
And
> >> yet, you call yourself a "gent"... pffftt....
> >
> > Thankfully you didn't call yourself a "lady", thus showing yourself
to
> > be slightly less of a hypocrite than you seem to be accusing Joe of
> > being.
>
> I'm not entirely clear on why you think PearL is any sort of
hypocrite.
Well, she seems all too willing to air out someone else's "dirty
laundry" then blasts this person for doing that thing. It makes one
look bad when one tells another to not engage in a certain behavior but
then engages in it oneself.
> > I'm thankfully out of the loop on the details of the situation, but
I do
> > know one thing. Joe didn't come in here and start bitching about
> > someone;
>
> Not here, no. He's saved that for a different newsgroup.
Then why did Heather and Stormy choose to barge in here and start it up?
Keep it where it was said. Some of us semi-regulars here don't know the
situation and don't really care to be involved.
Sheesh, if this group is gonna devolve into a bitch session, it's time
for me to leave. Unlike some people, I prefer to keep private matters
private.
Kimmer
kimagreenfieldatyahoodotcom
PearL
Kimmer wrote:
> > I'm not entirely clear on why you think PearL is any sort of
> hypocrite.
>
> Well, she seems all too willing to air out someone else's "dirty
> laundry" then blasts this person for doing that thing. It makes one
> look bad when one tells another to not engage in a certain behavior but
> then engages in it oneself.
Huh??? When did i air someone else's dirty laundry??????????
> > Not here, no. He's saved that for a different newsgroup.
>
> Then why did Heather and Stormy choose to barge in here and start it up?
First, heather didnt barge in HERE and 'start up'. All she said in her
first post was that she needed a drink. However, she did make a
detailed post on the castle, which IMO was wrong to do... so you are
correct about that. 2nd - Storm choose to post to Heather because she
and i are friends and... god only knows why she didnt email heather
instead. Her posting all the details HERE was 100% WRONG. I AGREE with
you on that as well. I told storm to remove that whole post and she did
(if you notice it's not here anymore), and she's apologized to me for
doing it. 3rd - not only was i embarassed beyond words by what storm
wrote here, I had NO idea that she posted or emailed heather until
MUCH later. So, honestly Kimmer, i was not trying to 'start up'
anything in usenet. I know you dont know me from a hole in the wall, so
you can believe me or not ... but it's the truth.
Sarah Vaughan
Covenant
> Taken to e-mail.
Yeah.... THAT'LL *clear things up*
Covenant
Irony, anyone???
Covenant
A Man Just Seeing This One.....
Covenant
"Kimmer" <m...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:4buvsqF...@individual.net...
> Sheesh, if this group is gonna devolve into a bitch session, it's time
> for me to leave. Unlike some people, I prefer to keep private matters
> private.
;' )
Don't leave sweetheart.
You'll never convince anyone past their own convictions.
Even when the irony of the actions is blatant.
PearL
Covenant
A Man Just Seeing This One.....
---------------------------------------
No, no irony Joe. You have still yet to point me to the post on this
group or another group where *I* have put any personal details online.
PearL
Covenant wrote:
> You'll never convince anyone past their own convictions.
> Even when the irony of the actions is blatant.
Well said. Now if only you could practice what you preach....
Tracy
normally the one in complete denial about their own shortcomings. In
fact, nasty chips even thinks that when I refer to its nasty chips, it
thinks I am speaking to it's nasty chips personally - its trying to
goad me into responding to its nasty chips personally - wont do - its
tricksy!
And its hurting my throat, all this gollum talkses!!
I must also grow up, me thinkses!!! LMAO
Covenant
;' )))
And ermmm.....
Where have *I* ??
Covenant
IS this your new catch-phrase???
If it IS, you might want to start living by it yourself...
In other words...practice what you preach...
<snurk>
(You'll notice that I didn;t even MENTION that your statement above has no
relevance to the quoted text too!)
Covenant
>
> Tracy wrote:
>> In
>> fact, nasty chips even thinks that when I refer to its nasty chips, it
>> thinks I am speaking to it's nasty chips personally - its trying to
>> goad me into responding to its nasty chips personally - wont do - its
>> tricksy! And its hurting my throat, all this gollum talkses!!
>>I must also grow up, me thinkses!!!
> No wonder the two of you get along so well....
And THAT is what you can't BEAR !!!!!
That Tracy KNOWS it all, and has NOT *fallen in behind* ol PearLy...
That must EAT and GNAW away at you like... like... Like Gollum on a rabbit
bone!
But hey... It's called humour and intellect... You might wanna buy some...
PearL
>Covenant wrote:
>IS this your new catch-phrase???
What's it to ya?
> If it IS, you might want to start living by it yourself...
Sorry, no idea what you're referring to.
PearL
Covenant wrote:
> "PearL" <bstn...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1146903992....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Irony, anyone???
> >
> > Covenant
> > A Man Just Seeing This One.....
> > ---------------------------------------
> > No, no irony Joe. You have still yet to point me to the post on this
> > group or another group where *I* have put any personal details online.
>
>
> ;' )))
>
> And ermmm.....
>
> Where have *I* ??
Again for the 4th time, go read ruth's comment to you on it.
PearL
Covenant wrote:
> > No wonder the two of you get along so well....
>
> And THAT is what you can't BEAR !!!!!
> That Tracy KNOWS it all, and has NOT *fallen in behind* ol PearLy...
>
> That must EAT and GNAW away at you like... like... Like Gollum on a rabbit
> bone!
LMFAO. Oh my, someone certainly thinks highly of himself. But no, i
was referring to the way both of you throw little temper tantrums and
make silly little nonsensical digs like a child on a playground who
cant have his way. By the way, unless tracy forwarded her emails (that
she wrote to me) and my replies (that I wrote back) on to you, then
you should not be making comments on what you THINK she may have said
in them and/or what you THINK I may have said to her in reply. And if
she DID forward them on to you after she promised she wouldnt, well...
then that just proves the point i've been making all along about people
having no integrity. Either way, you lose the argument. Ta Ta !
Covenant
> Sorry, no idea what you're referring to.
That's been obvious to me for quite a while now!
<snurk>
Covenant
Nooo..
I asked YOU a question... NOT Ruth, You...
You've stated, catagorically, that I have put personal details *out there*,
and am discussing my *private matters* in usenet.
So, again.. SHOW ME, or Shut up, its THAT simple.
--
Covenant
A Man Wondering If You Really Think The World Can't See Your Duplicity
Covenant
>
> Covenant wrote:
>> > No wonder the two of you get along so well....
>>
>> And THAT is what you can't BEAR !!!!!
>> That Tracy KNOWS it all, and has NOT *fallen in behind* ol PearLy...
>>
>> That must EAT and GNAW away at you like... like... Like Gollum on a
>> rabbit
>> bone!
>
>
> LMFAO. Oh my, someone certainly thinks highly of himself.
Oh I only judge my *worth* by the reactions I'm getting right now.
If it wasn;t *worth* it, why are you continuing to persue it?
(Waits for response asking why *I* am... Foreshadows it.. answers it...
Because APPARNETLY this is all ABOUT me!, if it ISN'T... What's your
problem???)
> But no, i was referring to the way both of you throw little temper
> tantrums
????
What Temper tantrums are they?
Show me my usenet temper tantrums, or by silence admit you are lying
> and make silly little nonsensical ...
Only nonsensical if you don't have the intellect to understand them.
>... digs like a child on a playground who
> cant have his way.
;' )))))))))))))
Oooooo now THERE'S a can of worms you DON'T want opened.
BUt maybe I'M now beyond the point where I care... Have you THOUGHT of
that??
> By the way, unless tracy forwarded her emails (that
> she wrote to me) and my replies (that I wrote back) on to you, then
> you should not be making comments on what you THINK she may have said
> in them and/or what you THINK I may have said to her in reply.
????????????????
What? You made it PERFECTLY obvious that you were QUOTING something sent to
you.
(Not in THIS NG people, (all 5 of us) PearLy's getting her realities mixed
up again)
At least, when people use " " those things and allude towards their source
it is pretty NATURAL to put one and one together and make two.. not four or
double-you, like some might.
> And if
> she DID forward them on to you after she promised she wouldnt, well...
> then that just proves the point i've been making all along about people
> having no integrity. Either way, you lose the argument. Ta Ta !
Really?
I lose the argument?
In what way?
Do you now want to talk about lack of integrity in forwarding private emails
or the breaking of promises?
Do you? Do you REALLY???
Think carefully Miss Pot, cos this Kettle is > < thiiiis close to not caring
about preserving ANY of his better qualities where you are concerned right
now.
...
...
Snipped a lot cos my mother just visited me and we talked and cried a little
about my Dad.
And it put you and your little hate campaign into perspective...
IE... not important.
Oh well, you got off the hook there.
--
Covenant
A Man With Far More Important Things To Worry About.
PearL
>Covenant wrote:
> BUt maybe I'M now beyond the point where I care... Have you THOUGHT of
> that??
Yes. I've been thinking about it for the past 10 days.
> And it put you and your little hate campaign into perspective...
I dont hate you Joe. If I did, none of this would bother me or hurt me
as much as it has/is. You just dont seem to get that the whole point of
*why* I've been SO upset (on usenet and in emails) is *precisely*
because, not only do I *not* hate you, but it's the *exact* opposite.
I thought of you as a dear friend and I loved and cared about you as
one, and part of me still misses you. You and I have never been good
at talking thru written word. I wish there was some way to speak with
you face to face, so you could hear the inflection in my voice and see
the saddness in my eyes, cause then I *know* we'd probably be able to
come to some kind of understanding with each other. I'm sorry it had to
go this far. I never wanted it this way. (ps - I'm not writing this in
public to make out like 'poor me' or to try and 'gain sympathy' from
others. I wanted to email you this privately, but then i thought you'd
think i was trying to 'hide' things 'behind the scenes'. I dont know
what to do anymore because no matter which way i try, it's always the
wrong thing to do.) I dont want to fight with you anymore. You know I
hate it. So, I'm stopping. xx
"I need just a little more silence,
I need just a little more time...
So leave me be, I don't want to argue
I just get confused and I come all undone
If I agree well it's just to appease you
'cause I don't remember what we're fighting for."
Time - SM
Sarah Vaughan
Oh, dear. Sorry, Kimmer - looks like you're not going to get your
bitch-free drinking session. Not this week in this pub, anyway.
I was going to say something to Tracy in response to this post to try to
get her just to drop it, but then I saw Joe had joined in with the bitch
session and even PearL was letting herself be dragged into it before she
left, and... well, I've been on Usenet long enough to know when a thread
has passed the Bitch Session Event Horizon and is officially past the
point of no return. Instead of leaving, maybe you could just step out
temporarily for some air? At least three of the people in this thread
are currently dealing with various difficult personal stuff that's
causing feelings to run high (god knows what Tracy's excuse is, but I
suppose that's her business), and I'd be willing to bet that if you come
back in a week or two it'll be a lot more peaceful round here. You
might have to pick your way carefully over the broken glass, but I'll
happily share a drink with you when you're back.
All the best,
Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com
"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell
Sarah Vaughan
<mucho snippage>
> What Temper tantrums are they?
> Show me my usenet temper tantrums, or by silence admit you are lying
I wouldn't say those were the only two choices. It's quite possible
that PearL had the same reaction to this that I did - namely "Good
grief, if Joe doesn't recognise by now that he's prone to the odd temper
tantrum then trying to convince him is a lost cause."
However, I'm quite willing to propose the following compromise: If
anyone reading this reacted to PearL's post with "Temper tantrums? Joe?
Surely shome mishtake! Why on earth would anyone accuse Joe of
throwing temper tantrums?" then could they please make this viewpoint
known? If anyone else besides you seriously believes that you never
throw temper tantrums, then I will be quite happy to spend a bit of time
digging up some examples.
Covenant
> Covenant wrote:
>
> <mucho snippage>
>> What Temper tantrums are they?
>> Show me my usenet temper tantrums, or by silence admit you are lying
>
> I wouldn't say those were the only two choices. It's quite possible that
> PearL had the same reaction to this that I did - namely "Good grief, if
> Joe doesn't recognise by now that he's prone to the odd temper tantrum
> then trying to convince him is a lost cause."
>
> However, I'm quite willing to propose the following compromise: If anyone
> reading this reacted to PearL's post with "Temper tantrums? Joe? Surely
> shome mishtake! Why on earth would anyone accuse Joe of throwing temper
> tantrums?" then could they please make this viewpoint known? If anyone
> else besides you seriously believes that you never throw temper tantrums,
> then I will be quite happy to spend a bit of time digging up some
> examples.
If you TRULY believe that what was intended by the previous words meant
*EVER ON USENET*, then... well... I have no words if you truly believe that.
IF, however, you're merely trying a little bit of sophistry then... well...
again, I have no words for why you would WANT to.
As for spending time trawling through usenet to *dig up dirt*...
heh.... let's just leave that one there, seeing as how, that MIGHT well have
been the root of this matter!
--
Covenant
A Man Amazed That YOU Are Still Harping ON About This...
Covenant
I had *joined in* with the bitch session???
When MY personal life is being discussed by *certain people*, (Yooouuu know
who they are, dobtcha Mrs Whiter than White), and then you have the temerity
to come in here and suggest that *I* am having a bitching session??
My mind REELS at your gall!
> and even PearL was letting herself be dragged into it
I think you might wanna use the phrase, "Started it", immediately after the
name instead of what you actually wrote here.
> before she left, and... well, I've been on Usenet long enough to know when
> a thread has passed the Bitch Session Event Horizon and is officially past
> the point of no return.
Obviously not... UNLESS by that you mean, I know when it looks like it's
stopping so I'll just waltz in and drag it all up again???
> Instead of leaving, maybe you could just step out temporarily for some
> air? At least three of the people in this thread are currently dealing
> with various difficult personal stuff that's causing feelings to run high
YOU included, one would imagine, why else the animosity towards Tracy and
no-one else for their *posting methods* ?
> (god knows what Tracy's excuse is, but I suppose that's her business),
Hmmm... And yet you STILL fel the need to attack her, NOT knowing (your
words) what her *excuse* is??
Weird!
> and I'd be willing to bet that if you come back in a week or two it'll be
> a lot more peaceful round here.
Woulda been so a lot quicker if you hadn't felt the need...
> You might have to pick your way carefully over the broken glass, but I'll
> happily share a drink with you when you're back.
BUT anyway....
This is obviously a terrible thing that is happening, all of this *bad
feeling* in usenet...
All of the above that you posted, then...That helps in *What* way, exactly??
And if your not HELPING the situation, indeed, are exacerbating it, then
what gives you the *right* complain about it?
A situation which you DIRECTLY helped create? (In & out of Usenet).
I'm sure the words self-fulfilling prophecy aren't beyond you? You're a
clever girl, You're a Doctor!
--
Covenant
A Man Still Amazed At This....
Tracy
Hi Sarah,
I dropped *it* at 12.06pm on May 6th - I have said nothing since.
I gave my reasons for the way I reacted over PearL's actions towards me
in private and PearL has given her reasons for the way in which she
reacted to me.
Alot has been misconstrued in private and it got brought here because
the communication was hampered by PearL's troubles with AOL (??) - I
havent been able to send her an email since, they keep bouncing back.
I waited 5 minutes, I waited 4-5 hours.
I like to communicate and most of the time I would rather talk things
out and get the story straight and hopefully make up for any
misunderstandings, but I wasnt given the opportunity.
And to be honest, I think the way I was used, I dont really want to
come to a hopeful conclusion - it wasnt very nice for any of us and it
is time to stop.
Thanks for judging me too, Sarah. I was assuming that most of you
usenetters know *exactly* how easy it is to misconstrue, get things out
of context, blah, blah, blah things said in email, usenet, mobile text
etc - mediums that dont include true flesh facial expressions, true
smiles, real, warm hugs etc..
If I had been able to speak to PearL in the flesh, what I was
attempting to convey in email, she would have had a completely
different and much more positive, congenial, compassionate, empowering
perspective on things.
I am sorry that she took it anyway than how it was intended but the
damage is done - for BOTH of us!
If you wish to continue this - count me out. As I said, it stopped for
me yesterday - just felt the need to defend myself with you, Sarah.
Tracy.
Tracy
Covenant wrote:
>
> Snipped a lot cos my mother just visited me and we talked and cried a little
I hope you hugged ALOT!! xx
PearL
Tracy wrote:
> I gave my reasons for the way I reacted over PearL's actions towards me
> in private and PearL has given her reasons for the way in which she
> reacted to me.
>
> Alot has been misconstrued in private and it got brought here because
> the communication was hampered by PearL's troubles with AOL (??) - I
> havent been able to send her an email since, they keep bouncing back.
> I waited 5 minutes, I waited 4-5 hours.
????????? You still cant send me anything??? Tracy I have NO idea
why. I am NOT lying when I say I do not have you blocked.
Sistermoo...@hotmail.com IS still added in my 'accepting email
from' list, so I dont understand WHY I am not getting them except to
say that AOL *SUCKS*. *BELIEVE* me, I would MUCH rather have talked to
you in EMAIL and got this all sorted out between us, than to have you
post all that stuff to the group. I've been embarassed and hurt enough
this past week without all that shit on top of it. I'm not a glutton
for punishment for christ sakes.
>And to be honest, I think the way I was used
I did NOT *use* you. Tracy I have reread *every* email the two of use
sent back and forth regarding this issue because I have been upset by
all your ongroup comments stating that i was *fishing* for information.
GO back and LOOK at the emails...I asked you ONE question in my very
*first* email (because of a post that YOU wrote online) which required
you to reply with ONLY a yes or no answer. I even said that if I had
misinterpretted your post on group that you were to IGNORE my question
and need not respond back to me. I asked you NO details. *You* choose
to answer me and you also choose to provide me the details, without ANY
prodding from me... and then you told me to trust you and share my
story, which i did and I now regret for obvious reasons. But even after
all that's happened between us online, I STILL have not shared your
emails with Joe or Heather because I promised you I wouldnt. It's NOT
me who has used you Tracy. I feel just the opposite. I only even
emailed you to begin with because I was CONCERNED that you might end up
being hurt like I was. I even TOLD you that in one of my emails. Now
you've turned this whole thing around on me and quite frankly, it
SUCKS. But did I say ONE word on group about anything *personal* you
wrote to me in your mail? NO. Can you say the same? If you WANT to
discuss this further than I would like you to try emailing me again. If
you cant get thru to bstnpearL than can you try sending one to my other
email ? It's Lope...@aol.com. But I want to send you a test email
from bstnpearl anyway, just to see if you get it because I dont like
the fact that I'm not getting my emails.
Tracy
PearL wrote:
> Tracy wrote:
> > I gave my reasons for the way I reacted over PearL's actions towards me
> > in private and PearL has given her reasons for the way in which she
> > reacted to me.
> >
> > Alot has been misconstrued in private and it got brought here because
> > the communication was hampered by PearL's troubles with AOL (??) - I
> > havent been able to send her an email since, they keep bouncing back.
> > I waited 5 minutes, I waited 4-5 hours.
>
>
> ????????? You still cant send me anything??? Tracy I have NO idea
> why. I am NOT lying when I say I do not have you blocked.
> Sistermoo...@hotmail.com IS still added in my 'accepting email
> from' list, so I dont understand WHY I am not getting them except to
> say that AOL *SUCKS*. *BELIEVE* me, I would MUCH rather have talked to
> you in EMAIL and got this all sorted out between us, than to have you
> post all that stuff to the group. I've been embarassed and hurt enough
> this past week without all that shit on top of it. I'm not a glutton
> for punishment for christ sakes.
PearL - I wont be sending you anything anyway from now on, okay? I did
try, about 6 times but they kept bouncing back - but, as I have said,
twice now - I have stopped this, okay?
I apologise for being nasty in usenet, I apologise for spouting on
about private email - if you havent noticed, I have removed said post.
I was hurt by your response and my responses in email were genuine and
meant to help, not hurt you.
It has been mentioned occasionally how the *tone* of the written word
can oh so easily be misconstrued - well, it was - believe me!
>
>
> >And to be honest, I think the way I was used
>
>
> I did NOT *use* you. Tracy I have reread *every* email the two of use
> sent back and forth regarding this issue because I have been upset by
> all your ongroup comments stating that i was *fishing* for information.
And anything I told you about you know who and dates and stuff like
that was never, ever going to go anywhere else? Well, I only have your
word for that dont I? I either believe you or I dont - but it doesnt
matter anymore.
> GO back and LOOK at the emails...I asked you ONE question in my very
> *first* email (because of a post that YOU wrote online) which required
> you to reply with ONLY a yes or no answer. I even said that if I had
> misinterpretted your post on group that you were to IGNORE my question
> and need not respond back to me.
I am not a yes or no person - I will tell you my life story - as long
as it isnt chucked back in my face - I was a fool to do it and have
learnt MY lesson.
I asked you NO details. *You* choose
> to answer me and you also choose to provide me the details, without ANY
> prodding from me... and then you told me to trust you and share my
> story, which i did and I now regret for obvious reasons. But even after
> all that's happened between us online, I STILL have not shared your
> emails with Joe or Heather because I promised you I wouldnt. It's NOT
> me who has used you Tracy.
Neither have I. And I wasnt *used* by anyone, other that the potential
for information that was given to you may have been used - again, I
dont know if you have done that or not - again, its about whether I
choose to believe you or not - but again, it doesnt matter now.
You forget easily that it is open usenet knowledge that Darklady,
yourself and Sarah were swapping emails.
I feel just the opposite. I only even
> emailed you to begin with because I was CONCERNED that you might end up
> being hurt like I was. I even TOLD you that in one of my emails. Now
> you've turned this whole thing around on me and quite frankly, it
> SUCKS. But did I say ONE word on group about anything *personal* you
> wrote to me in your mail? NO. Can you say the same? If you WANT to
> discuss this further than I would like you to try emailing me again. If
> you cant get thru to bstnpearL than can you try sending one to my other
> email ? It's Lope...@aol.com. But I want to send you a test email
> from bstnpearl anyway, just to see if you get it because I dont like
> the fact that I'm not getting my emails.
No matter how out of order my posts were on here - you response in
email hurt like mad too - even if you thought my advice was patronizing
or nasty (which it wasnt meant to be), I was not being nasty - what you
chucked back at me was (in my opinion) very spiteful. I reacted for
that reason and that reason only. I removed the post, I have apologised
to you - it can drop now. The choice is yours.
Sorry Pearl, but I have made the choice to make this my last contact
with you.
PearL
Covenant wrote:
> I had *joined in* with the bitch session???
> When MY personal life is being discussed by *certain people
Joe, I have not discussed anything about your private life on usenet. I
dont understand why you keep insisting I have, when you can clearly see
by my posts that not only have I not, I have begged you not to as well.
You also cant seem to understand that the *only* reason *part* of your
personal life was being discussed in emails (by me and you know the
others) is because it was our (mine and the other's) personal life too
that was affected by your actions. Just because *you* dont wanna talk
about what happened doesnt mean we cant. I was hurting and I *needed*
to talk about it. I'm still hurting, but at least I am dealing with it
better. All I wanted was some answers to try and fill in missing
pieces of the puzzle that I have been wondering about for the past 6-7
months. I have sent you email after email trying to get those answers
from *you*, but you have either ignored me completely or you have
barely responded and even then, it's been only to insult me and deny
everything. I feel as tho I've gotten *some* closure but still, not
full closure, because I'd really like to discuss (civilly) with *you*
about the whys, but you wont talk with me. I'm not saying all this to
fight with you. There is not one bit of anger in me as I write any of
this. I'm just trying to explain to you why all this (sharing of
stories in email) even happened in the first place. You seem to be
under some misconception that I went out of my way to get all kinds of
dirt on you just so i could cause you trouble, and that is absolutely
not the case. I will admit that once I was "in" the loop (so to speak),
I did overstep my bounds on one or two occasions (out of anger) and
sent you emails regarding things that were none of my business, and I
regret that and apologize for it. However, after those slip ups, I told
(someone) that altho I was willing to be a supportive ear, I would no
longer be getting into anything with her that didnt *directly* pertain
to what happened between *you and I*, and I havent. You can ask her
yourself if you dont believe me.
> and even PearL was letting herself be dragged into it
>
> I think you might wanna use the phrase, "Started it", immediately after the
> name instead of what you actually wrote here.
Joe, I did *not* start anything, either on usenet or in email. I'm
sorry if you dont believe me but it's true. Ask her yourself. I had NO
idea any of this (emailing back and forth) was going on until people
contacted ME a few days into it. Those people contacted me *first*.
Even then I put off getting involved as long as I could, but I finally
gave in because I was shell shocked and I NEEDED to discuss it. But it
was not to 'gossip' or to 'spread things' about you, but it was (as i
say above) only to get answers for myself. And then *you* started it
on the amy group because you would not (and still dont) believe that I
didnt write that specific post about you, even when i consistantly told
you i didnt. Again, you cant hear my tone so I'll repeat.. there is no
anger in my words above, just merely... an explanation.
> > before she left
Heh, I didnt *leave* Sarah. I just wont be fighting with people... at
least not about *this* topic. ; )
Covenant
there is no
> anger in my words above, just merely... an explanation.
Explain your attachments...
...you can't!
--
Covenant
Covenant
"Tracy" <sistermoo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147014185.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We're not realllly huggers.
But we did a little!
--
Covenant
PearL
Covenant wrote:
> "PearL" <bstn...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1147032347.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> there is no
> > anger in my words above, just merely... an explanation.
>
>
> Explain your attachments...
>
> ...you can't!
Huh? What do you mean my *attachments*? You mean my attachment to you?
Tracy
Covenant wrote:
> "Tracy" <sistermoo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1147014185.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Covenant wrote:
> >>
> >> Snipped a lot cos my mother just visited me and we talked and cried a
> >> little
> >> about my Dad.............
> >
> > I hope you hugged ALOT!! xx
>
>
> We're not realllly huggers.
>
> But we did a little!
A little is better than nothing! Now, LOTS of little hugs from now on,
yeah? :))
Sarah Vaughan
> "Sarah Vaughan" <nann...@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
[...]
> I had *joined in* with the bitch session???
> When MY personal life is being discussed by *certain people*, (Yooouuu know
> who they are, dobtcha Mrs Whiter than White), and then you have the temerity
> to come in here and suggest that *I* am having a bitching session??
>
> My mind REELS at your gall!
Joe, you seem surprised by the idea that phrases like "It's called
humour and intellect... you might wanna buy some" could be interpreted
as bitching. If you disagree with me on that, then there isn't a lot I
can say to convince you otherwise.
>> At least three of the people in this thread are currently dealing
>> with various difficult personal stuff that's causing feelings to run high
>
> YOU included, one would imagine,
I meant you, PearL, and Heather (although I don't think she's in the
thread any more). My life's going extremely well, as it happens.
> why else the animosity towards Tracy and
> no-one else for their *posting methods* ?
Huh? I'm not sure why you think I don't feel animosity towards anyone
else's posting methods.
>> (god knows what Tracy's excuse is, but I suppose that's her business),
>
> Hmmm... And yet you STILL fel the need to attack her, NOT knowing (your
> words) what her *excuse* is??
If you're referring to me pointing out that bringing up personal details
from e-mail on a public newsgroup in order to make fun of them is a
horrible way to act, then, yes, you're damn right I felt the need.
> Weird!
Joe, I tried to think of an excuse - any excuse - that could justify
acting that way, and I drew a blank. It wasn't even as if it was
written in the first flush of anger. Tracy said she'd written an e-mail
that she couldn't send before taking it to group. Then she sent
repeated posts picking at PearL and hinting about stuff that was
supposedly in PearL's e-mail and calling her names. The post in which
she went into more detail and made fun of PearL over it was the
culmination of all this, and it was posted the day after all this
started on group, so she'd had a chance to sleep on it and calm down.
There is simply no other way I can see it other than as deliberate,
calculated, nastiness.
I see she's apologised and taken the post down now, and that's good.
But that hadn't happened at the time that I replied, and I stand by my
decision to say what I said in response.
[...]
> And if your not HELPING the situation, indeed, are exacerbating it, then
> what gives you the *right* complain about it?
> A situation which you DIRECTLY helped create? (In & out of Usenet).
I wasn't complaining about the situation. I was commenting on the fact
that it was a shame we hadn't managed to do what Kimmer wanted and keep
it off this group.
Sarah Vaughan
[...]
> Alot has been misconstrued in private and it got brought here because
> the communication was hampered by PearL's troubles with AOL (??) - I
> havent been able to send her an email since, they keep bouncing back.
> I waited 5 minutes, I waited 4-5 hours.
>
> I like to communicate and most of the time I would rather talk things
> out and get the story straight and hopefully make up for any
> misunderstandings, but I wasnt given the opportunity.
Why not? You could have posted to her on group and asked whether you
could e-mail her to discuss it further and get it straight.
I'm at a loss to see just how "Damn - I can't e-mail her to talk things
out and get the story straight and make up for any misunderstandings"
turned into "I must make repeated public posts spilling details of a
personal situation that she's still hurting over and making fun of them!"
> Thanks for judging me too, Sarah. I was assuming that most of you
> usenetters know *exactly* how easy it is to misconstrue, get things out
> of context, blah, blah, blah things said in email, usenet, mobile text
> etc - mediums that dont include true flesh facial expressions, true
> smiles, real, warm hugs etc..
I'm not clear on what you're saying here. Does this mean that you
thought it was all right to post personal details about PearL in the way
you did because you assumed that everyone who read it would think "Oh,
Tracy's just misconstrued what PearL said and taken it out of context,
and PearL probably never said that stuff at all", or does it mean that
you think that if you'd been there in person to smile at PearL and give
her a hug as you spilled her personal details and made fun of them, then
she wouldn't have minded?
Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com
Sarah Vaughan
> "Sarah Vaughan" <nann...@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:e3jd5d$k42$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Covenant wrote:
>>
>> <mucho snippage>
>>> What Temper tantrums are they?
>>> Show me my usenet temper tantrums, or by silence admit you are lying
>> I wouldn't say those were the only two choices. It's quite possible that
>> PearL had the same reaction to this that I did - namely "Good grief, if
>> Joe doesn't recognise by now that he's prone to the odd temper tantrum
>> then trying to convince him is a lost cause."
>>
>> However, I'm quite willing to propose the following compromise: If anyone
>> reading this reacted to PearL's post with "Temper tantrums? Joe? Surely
>> shome mishtake! Why on earth would anyone accuse Joe of throwing temper
>> tantrums?" then could they please make this viewpoint known? If anyone
>> else besides you seriously believes that you never throw temper tantrums,
>> then I will be quite happy to spend a bit of time digging up some
>> examples.
>
>
> If you TRULY believe that what was intended by the previous words meant
> *EVER ON USENET*, then... well... I have no words if you truly believe that.
What I thought (and still think) the statement meant was that you're
prone to temper tantrums generally (I don't think it was specifically
meant to be limited to Usenet). You seem to have interpreted it
differently. I'd say 'lying' is rather an unnecessary term to use about
that.
My second paragraph was snider than it needed to be, though, and for
that I apologise.
Sarah Vaughan
[...]
> Heh, I didnt *leave* Sarah. I just wont be fighting with people... at
> least not about *this* topic. ; )
So, in other words, this really wouldn't be a good time to start a
Michael Moore thread?
;-)))
PearL
Sarah Vaughan wrote:
> PearL wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Heh, I didnt *leave* Sarah. I just wont be fighting with people... at
> > least not about *this* topic. ; )
>
> So, in other words, this really wouldn't be a good time to start a
> Michael Moore thread?
>
> ;-)))
>
bwaaahahahahahahha!!! Actually you *could*! I dont argue about
politics with certain people anymore. It gets me alllllllllll too
tied into knots and gives me a stomachache!
Tracy
wish to continue dragging up the past and feeding the misery, pain,
hurt, unresolved issues, etc - continue - but dont forget that it didnt
happen to you (an assumption - hope I didnt get that wrong!).
I was dragged into this by a simple question in private email - I
dragged it out into usenet when I got real angry - I've apologised,
I've removed the post, I've decided not to communicate with someone who
is not prepared to move on - leave me out of it, thanks.
PearL
Tracy wrote:
> I've apologised to PearL - it was a despicable thing I did. If you lot
> wish to continue dragging up the past and feeding the misery, pain,
> hurt, unresolved issues, etc - continue - but dont forget that it didnt
> happen to you (an assumption - hope I didnt get that wrong!).
> I was dragged into this by a simple question in private email - I
> dragged it out into usenet when I got real angry - I've apologised,
> I've removed the post, I've decided not to communicate with someone who
> is not prepared to move on - leave me out of it, thanks.
Um... you say you apologize and then you continue insulting me. I think
it's SO freakin hilarious how you continue to JUDGE me, throw your
snide little one-up comments at me, and LECTURE me as to how I 'cant
move on', even after how you behaved yesterday and now (obviously)
continue to behave.
Dont YOU forget Tracy, that what happened to *me* did not happen to
you, and I make no assumptions on that, as you have not only admitted
it on more than one occasion but you've practically been shoving it
down my throat for the past 3 days. But you continue to put me down and
pass judgments on me. I was ALSO dragged into the situation I'm in, yet
you tell me *I* had/have a choice.
You couldnt LET GO and get past a few lousy comments made to you in ONE
email by a perfect STRANGER (me) that you've had minimal contact with,
so you had to go on some public newsgroup ranting spree about how "used
and betrayed" you felt by me.
But no wonder you have different rules for yourself, as apparently the
offense committed against *you* was SO much worse than perhaps say....
JUST finding out the devasting news that someone you loved, trusted,
and thought of as a *close* friend for
the past 3 1/2 yrs has been lying to you, deceiving you, and using you.
Thanks ever so much for your useless brainless meaningless
psycho-babble... now GO AWAY and STOP communicating with me like you
promised 5 posts ago.
>- leave me out of it, thanks.
I would have gladly left you out as of yesterday once you backstabbed
me, but you keep sticking your big fat nose in and going on and on and
onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn about it. Shut the hell up already. You're freaking
annoying to the HILT.
Tracy
You havent even had the decency to respect your long-term friends in
usenet who have asked (if not begged) for this to stop.
PearL
Tracy wrote:
> You havent even had the decency to respect your long-term friends in
> usenet who have asked (if not begged) for this to stop.
None of my long term usenet 'friends' asked for it to stop. One person,
who i consider a friend, asked because *I* emailed her and asked her if
she would mind making a POST to ASK JOE to STOP because no matter how
much *I* BEGGED he wouldnt. The other people are not "friends" but
merely usenet acquaintences, and they arent even on this group. Now
STOP TALKING TO ME LIKE YOU SAID YOU WOULD ...PLEASEEEEE... *I* AM
BEGGING *YOU*. KTHXBYE.
Covenant
>> If you TRULY believe that what was intended by the previous words meant
>> *EVER ON USENET*, then... well... I have no words if you truly believe
>> that.
>
> What I thought (and still think) the statement meant was that you're prone
> to temper tantrums generally (I don't think it was specifically meant to
> be limited to Usenet).
Well, obviously I read it another way.
As for the second part, how would she know?
> My second paragraph was snider than it needed to be, though, and for that
> I apologise.
Humbly accepted.
Joe
Covenant
> PearL wrote:
>
> [...]
>> Heh, I didnt *leave* Sarah. I just wont be fighting with people... at
>> least not about *this* topic. ; )
>
> So, in other words, this really wouldn't be a good time to start a Michael
> Moore thread?
DO IT !!!!!!!!!!!
;' )
Covenant
>
> Tracy wrote:
>> I've decided not to communicate with someone who
>> is not prepared to move on
>
> it's SO freakin hilarious how you continue to JUDGE me, throw your
> snide little one-up comments at me, and LECTURE me as to how I 'cant
> couldnt LET GO and get past a few nasty comments made to you in ONE
> email by a perfect STRANGER (me) that you've had minimal contact with,
> so you had to go on some public newsgroup ranting spree about how "used
> and betrayed" you felt by me. But no wonder you have different rules
> for yourself, as apparently the offense committed against *you* was SO
> much worse than perhaps say.... JUST finding out the devasting news
> that someone you loved, trusted, and thought of as a *close* friend for
> Thanks ever so much for your useless brainless meaningless
> psycho-babble... now GO AWAY and STOP communicating with me like you
> promised 5 posts ago.
>
>
>
>
> me, but you keep sticking your big fat nose in and going on and on and
> onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn about it. Shut the hell up already. You're freaking
> annoying to the HILT.
Errmmmmmmmmm...
Sarah Vaughan
> If you lot
> wish to continue dragging up the past and feeding the misery, pain,
> hurt, unresolved issues, etc - continue - but dont forget that it didnt
> happen to you (an assumption - hope I didnt get that wrong!).
> I was dragged into this by a simple question in private email - I
> dragged it out into usenet when I got real angry - I've apologised,
> I've removed the post, I've decided not to communicate with someone who
> is not prepared to move on - leave me out of it, thanks.
Well, since you've now decided to go back to discussing it, I'd like to
ask something I've been wondering about. Why on earth are you so
convinced that PearL is 'someone who is not prepared to move on'?
I mean, you wrote this less than two weeks after PearL found out what
had been going on. At that stage it's completely normal for someone
still to be very upset and shocked and coming to terms with what's
happened. You're talking as though it's somehow pathological not to be
able to get over something like this immediately.
Lilith Bee
"Tracy" <sistermoo...@hotmail.com> wrote
> It has been mentioned occasionally how the *tone* of the written word
> can oh so easily be misconstrued - well, it was - believe me!
>
ahhh yes. While I have no dog in this fight, nor do I know the parties
involved or even understand or care what is going on.....I grinned when I
read this...
so Joe, for you, here is yet another example of why I *choose* to not add
any implications or tones to the simple words that are written! ;-)
smiled softly,
B~
Lilith Bee
"Sarah Vaughan" <nann...@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> However, I'm quite willing to propose the following compromise: If anyone
> reading this reacted to PearL's post with "Temper tantrums? Joe? Surely
> shome mishtake! Why on earth would anyone accuse Joe of throwing temper
> tantrums?" then could they please make this viewpoint known? If anyone
> else besides you seriously believes that you never throw temper tantrums,
> then I will be quite happy to spend a bit of time digging up some
> examples.
>
LOL!!!! It's my perception of Joe that he enjoys his temper tantrums.
After all, he is an actor and seems to enjoy the *drama*!
And Joe, before you get all *huffy* <giggles>, please realize that any
snippy, snide, defense or otherwise self important response will only serve
to prove my point! <grins>
B~
Covenant
"Lilith Bee" <som...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iFm9g.120$92...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> LOL!!!! It's my perception of Joe that he enjoys his temper tantrums.
> After all, he is an actor and seems to enjoy the *drama*!
Odd that that pereption is so completely wrong.
--
Covenant
A Man Not In The Huff At All.
Covenant
>
> "Tracy" <sistermoo...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> It has been mentioned occasionally how the *tone* of the written word
>> can oh so easily be misconstrued - well, it was - believe me!
>>
>
> ahhh yes. While I have no dog in this fight, nor do I know the parties
> involved or even understand or care what is going on.....I grinned when I
> read this...
Tell us why...
> so Joe, for you, here is yet another example of why I *choose* to not add
> any implications or tones to the simple words that are written! ;-)
Odd that this is addressed to me, but I'll go with it...
I still don't undertstand why you think *adding* them is any worse than
*not* adding them.
(And it seems reasonable to assume this as it is your active decision *not*
to add them, but thatnk you for the tp of the hat to my *style* in your
quote above... Or was it a *dig* .. ;' ))))) )
As (my belief) in a txt only media, as I said in another place, the
implications that CAN be taken from *bare* words are very wide and far
reaching. and innocent *simple* words can be construed into many and varied
*definitions*.
As has been seen more than once.
lilit...@earthlink.net
Covenant wrote:
> > LOL!!!! It's my perception of Joe that he enjoys his temper tantrums.
> > After all, he is an actor and seems to enjoy the *drama*!
>
>
> Odd that that pereption is so completely wrong.
perhaps it is wrong for you, but it's mine and I'll live w/ it. ;-)
LB
lilit...@earthlink.net
Covenant wrote:
> >
> > ahhh yes. While I have no dog in this fight, nor do I know the parties
> > involved or even understand or care what is going on.....I grinned when I
> > read this...
>
> Tell us why...
I grinned because we have been speaking about this very subject in
another group.
>
> Odd that this is addressed to me, but I'll go with it...
since you and I have recently discussed this, I find it odd that you
find it "odd", <giggles>
> I still don't undertstand why you think *adding* them is any worse than
> *not* adding them.
I read the words as written, no more, no less. It's quite simple for
me. If I have a question, I ask it.
> (And it seems reasonable to assume this as it is your active decision *not*
> to add them, but thatnk you for the tp of the hat to my *style* in your
> quote above...
You really are full of yourself, <grins> since I have been highlighting
words for years, too, as have many others. ;-)
> As (my belief) in a txt only media, as I said in another place, the
> implications that CAN be taken from *bare* words are very wide and far
> reaching. and innocent *simple* words can be construed into many and varied
> *definitions*.
and I simply do not agree with you. <shrugs>
> As has been seen more than once.
ah, yes....LOL!
LB
Covenant
<lilit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1147738633....@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> and I simply do not agree with you. <shrugs>
So you don't agree that the bare words as described in another place can't
be taken in a different way fopr EVERY reader?!
Really?
Errmm.. Okay.
>> As has been seen more than once.
>
> ah, yes....LOL!
Glad you find it funny.
Covenant
<lilit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1147738165.5...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
No problem with YOU living with it.
Just the insistance of others *telling* me what I am doing.
So there y'go.
lilit...@earthlink.net
Covenant wrote:
> <lilit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1147738633....@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > and I simply do not agree with you. <shrugs>
>
>
> So you don't agree that the bare words as described in another place can't
> be taken in a different way fopr EVERY reader?!
sure, they "can be", but I choose NOT to, as I've stated.
> > ah, yes....LOL!
>
>
> Glad you find it funny.
>
Thanks!
LB
Covenant
<lilit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1147811884....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Covenant wrote:
>> <lilit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:1147738633....@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > and I simply do not agree with you. <shrugs>
>>
>>
>> So you don't agree that the bare words as described in another place
>> can't
>> be taken in a different way fopr EVERY reader?!
>
>
> sure, they "can be", but I choose NOT to, as I've stated.
But how can you know the one you decide is the *correct* one... *is*
correct?
After all, if what you are saying was the case, then there would NEVER be a
misunderstood word on usenet.
Her Benevolence, The BEAST
"Tracy" > wrote in message
>>
> Sarah Vaughan wrote:
>
>> Well, since you've now decided to go back to discussing it............etc
>
> You wanna check your timelines here!!! That post was 5 days old when
> you responded - long gone and of no affect to anyone other than you
> Miss Noseyparker.
>
> Now get back to Blogging (cos you *have* to write something, dont
> you??), G.P.'g, Hubby cuddling and Toddler bonding - in that order by
> the looks of it!
That was absolutely uncalled-for.
said
The Player
Covenant
"Her Benevolence, The BEAST" <thecast...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_NJag.1301$rT5.778@trndny04...
> That was absolutely uncalled-for.
Beastie...
Please...
Leave it alone.
Joe
lilit...@earthlink.net
Covenant wrote:
>
>
> But how can you know the one you decide is the *correct* one... *is*
> correct?
already asked and answered with....
"I read the words as written, no more, no less. It's quite simple for
me. If I have a question, I ask it."
> After all, if what you are saying was the case, then there would NEVER be a
> misunderstood word on usenet.
While I may miss non-written implications, I've never seemed to have
much of a problem with being misunderstood.
So what is your question and/or point by continuing to reply, Joe? I'm
not saying everyone or anyone should do it my way. I've only been
saying how I do it, and why.
<shrugs> Is there something I'm not making clear enough for you?
LB
Covenant
<lilit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1147899052....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Because I wasn't discussing how you *did* it... I was simply saying that
words on a screen can be easily misunderstood.
It seems to *me* that you are saying that isn't the case.
Or am I misunderstanding you?
Her Benevolence, The BEAST
"Covenant" wrote in message
>
>
>> That was absolutely uncalled-for.
>
>
> Beastie...
>
> Please...
>
> Leave it alone.
>
Joe, I've held my peace *this* long -- couldn't
do it any longer.
said
The Player
Covenant
Sweetheart...
So have *I*.
And that's why I'm asking you to leave it alone.
Joe
Tracy
Play all you like - I hold you personally responsible for bringing that
in here - I *removed* it two mins after writing it because I regretted
typing it. Obviously I am not as clued up on the google groups process
as you are. How the hell you got it is beyond me! But there ya go!
Tracy
Right, I see now! Posts can be removed from Google Groups, but do not
necessarily disappear from personal NNTP accounts.
I dont use my account, I use the Google Groups.
Tracy
Here I am again! Managed to find the option to delete from my nntp -
done so! I expect you to do the same your end - please?
PearL
Tracy wrote:
> Tracy wrote:
> > Her Benevolence, The BEAST wrote:
> > > "Tracy" > wrote in message
> > >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > Sarah Vaughan wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Well, since you've now decided to go back to discussing it............etc
> > > >
> > > > You wanna check your timelines here!!! That post was 5 days old when
> > > > you responded - long gone and of no affect to anyone other than you
> > > > Miss Noseyparker.
> > > >
> > > > Now get back to Blogging (cos you *have* to write something, dont
> > > > you??), G.P.'g, Hubby cuddling and Toddler bonding - in that order by
> > > > the looks of it!
> > >
> > >
> > > That was absolutely uncalled-for.
> > >
> > >
> > > said
> > > The Player
> >
> > Play all you like - I hold you personally responsible for bringing that
> > in here - I *removed* it two mins after writing it because I regretted
> > typing it. Obviously I am not as clued up on the google groups process
> > as you are. How the hell you got it is beyond me! But there ya go!
Er.... It doesnt matter if you removed it *2 min* after you posted it,
because Beast might have been reading at the *exact same time* as you
posted, or even 30, 40, 60 seconds after you posted. Obviously, you
left it on the group long enough for her to see and respond to it.
You're so big on choice for others but when it comes to yourself, you
have all kinds of excuses. You CHOOSE to post. Beastie saw it and
responded. Dont blame HER for YOUR mistake.
Tracy
PearL wrote:
> Tracy wrote:
> > Tracy wrote:
> > > Her Benevolence, The BEAST wrote:
> > > > "Tracy" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > Sarah Vaughan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Well, since you've now decided to go back to discussing it............etc
> > > > >
> > > > > You wanna check your timelines here!!! That post was 5 days old when
> > > > > you responded - long gone and of no affect to anyone other than you
> > > > > Miss Noseyparker.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now get back to Blogging (cos you *have* to write something, dont
> > > > > you??), G.P.'g, Hubby cuddling and Toddler bonding - in that order by
> > > > > the looks of it!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That was absolutely uncalled-for.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > said
> > > > The Player
> > >
> > > Play all you like - I hold you personally responsible for bringing that
> > > in here - I *removed* it two mins after writing it because I regretted
> > > typing it. Obviously I am not as clued up on the google groups process
> > > as you are. How the hell you got it is beyond me! But there ya go!
>
>
> Er.... It doesnt matter if you removed it *2 min* after you posted it,
> because Beast might have been reading at the *exact same time* as you
> posted, or even 30, 40, 60 seconds after you posted.
I removed it a couple of days ago from Google Groups, it remained in
personal NNTP's
Obviously, you
> left it on the group long enough for her to see and respond to it.
That is purely an assumption on your part and I am not getting into
these petty, futile, insipid battle of the written word wit things
again, PearL.
If you feel the NEED to keep it up, keep it up - but I wont be a part
of it.
> You're so big on choice for others but when it comes to yourself, you
> have all kinds of excuses. You CHOOSE to post. Beastie saw it and
> responded. Dont blame HER for YOUR mistake.
PearL - crawl back under your stone!
PearL
Ok.. let me rephrase... whether you removed the post or not makes no
difference. YOU WROTE IT TO BEGIN WITH AND SENT IT TO USENET, THEREBY
GIVING ANYONE WHO READS USENET ACCESS TO IT. THUS IT'S YOUR FAULT AND
NO ONE ELSE'S. Oh and Tracy... dont come back with another insulting
retort. THINK ABOUT IT.
Tracy
Yes, you are perfectly correct, PearL.
lilit...@earthlink.net
Covenant wrote:
>
>
> Because I wasn't discussing how you *did* it... I was simply saying that
> words on a screen can be easily misunderstood.
> It seems to *me* that you are saying that isn't the case.
pehaps you're not reading the simple words without adding things? I've
already answered this with
"sure, they "can be", but I choose NOT to, as I've stated."
<grins> and I was discussing how I read posts without implications.
>
> Or am I misunderstanding you?
nope, I don't think I can make myself any clearer.
LB
Covenant
<lilit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1147953264.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Covenant wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Because I wasn't discussing how you *did* it... I was simply saying that
>> words on a screen can be easily misunderstood.
>> It seems to *me* that you are saying that isn't the case.
>
> pehaps you're not reading the simple words without adding things? I've
> already answered this with
>
> "sure, they "can be", but I choose NOT to, as I've stated."
>
> <grins> and I was discussing how I read posts without implications.
But the past has shown that you don't.
Maybe on your *own* behalf, but not on those of others.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I am preeety sure yours was a
voice claiming that I had meant *somethins else* when I made certain posts,
down the years?
Of course if I am incorrect I heartily apologise for even suggesting as
such.
>> Or am I misunderstanding you?
>
> nope, I don't think I can make myself any clearer.
Then I've been correct all along, in which case.
Misunderstandings can easily happen with pure txt based media...
This correspendance only *proves* it.
Her Benevolence, The BEAST
"Tracy" <sistermoo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > >
>> > > That was absolutely uncalled-for.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > said
>> > > The Player
>> >
>> > Play all you like - I hold you personally responsible for bringing that
>> > in here - I *removed* it two mins after writing it because I regretted
>> > typing it. Obviously I am not as clued up on the google groups process
>> > as you are. How the hell you got it is beyond me! But there ya go!
>>
>> Right, I see now! Posts can be removed from Google Groups, but do not
>> necessarily disappear from personal NNTP accounts.
>>
>> I dont use my account, I use the Google Groups.
>
> Here I am again! Managed to find the option to delete from my nntp -
> done so! I expect you to do the same your end - please?
My account does not permit deleting other peoples' messages,
only my own. (Which I consider a sensible arrangement).
And......."expect".....?
said
The Player