New thread for Maggie
Linda Griffith
I suppose I "give", but only for lack of experience. Yes, you're right: I
posted to the "Maggie/Hillary" thread more often than did you (14 of mine to
8 of yours). Remember though, I *initiated* that thread, so it's my
right...and my right without this little jab:
***Why do you assume it's "so important to" me? I posted it and I've
answered
your questions about it. You've probably posted three times as many
comments
on this thread than I have. Why is the story so important to you?
Fewer than twice as many posts as you. Remember, though, I lost your
original thread and responded with my own "Maggie/Hillary". Yours was
"Hillary Gets Caught Telling a Big One", but I could almost swear you had
another thread that accused her of a "Whopper". I just couldn't find it on
DJN.
Be that as it may, your posts, few though they may be, were gloating and
vindictive. Mine were merely questioning the reason for your venom.
I don't really care, Maggie. I'm a happy, satisfied person, *even though*
Bush is President. Your hatred of the Clintons is bound to cause you some
unnecessary distress: physical because you get so riled up, or emotional
because you can't punish them as you would like.
Go for it.
Linda
Every9man
From: "Linda Griffith" <grif...@home.com>
Okay, Maggie,
Go for it.
Linda
**********
I reread the few stories I could find on this *news*. The first was from Page
Six of the New York Post ( page six is the gossip, not the news page so they
dont have to worry about accuracy and the New York Post has never worried about
truth in reporting).
The second I read was the Drudge report, another shining example of unbiased
reporting.
The third was the Washington Times, another gem, who didnt even know or care
where Union Square was in relation to the WTC or Grand Central Station.
I imagine that there were others who reported on it but I doubt with the glee
that I've read here.
I posted about this in another thread so I dont want to repeat myself but one
of the bottom lines is that one of my friends still doesnt have his story
straight and it's not for want of truth telling.
This chortling brouhaha over minutae is horrifying especially in the current
atmosphere.
BTW, didnt Clinton before he left office extend Secret Service protection to
the family? If so, I wonder where they were.
Perhaps the order was rescinded.
Barbara
Maggie
>Okay, Maggie,
>
>I suppose I "give", but only for lack of experience. Yes, you're right:
> I
>posted to the "Maggie/Hillary" thread more often than did you (14 of mine
>to
>8 of yours). Remember though, I *initiated* that thread, so it's my
>right...and my right without this little jab:
>
>***Why do you assume it's "so important to" me? I posted it and I've
>answered
>your questions about it. You've probably posted three times as many
>comments
>on this thread than I have. Why is the story so important to you?
>
>Fewer than twice as many posts as you. Remember, though, I lost your
>original thread and responded with my own "Maggie/Hillary". Yours was
>"Hillary Gets Caught Telling a Big One", but I could almost swear you had
>another thread that accused her of a "Whopper". I just couldn't find it
>on
>DJN.
***You couldn't find it because it's not there. I didnt' start any thread
about Hillary's "whopper."
>
linda said:
>Be that as it may, your posts, few though they may be, were gloating and
>vindictive. Mine were merely questioning the reason for your venom.
***What in the world are you talking about? Can you post some of this "venom"
you *say* I exhibited?
>
>I don't really care, Maggie. I'm a happy, satisfied person, *even though*
>Bush is President. Your hatred of the Clintons is bound to cause you some
>unnecessary distress: physical because you get so riled up, or emotional
>because you can't punish them as you would like.
***I can pretty much guarantee you that your posts about Bush have been much
more hate-filled than any of mine about Clinton. If you'd like examples, just
let me know.
Maggie
"No one said free speech means that you can say whatever you want and everybody
will still love you for it." -- Sacha Zimmerman
Linda Griffith
you that your posts about Bush have been much
> more hate-filled than any of mine about Clinton. If you'd like examples,
just
> let me know.
Why, yes, I would. Thank you.
Linda
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
Maggie
********
I dont know if anyone has the time or energy that you seem to. to play in the
fields of Google but I know that whether or not you realize it you do come
across as gloating , venomous and constantly poised for the Grand Gotcha!.
Linda does not. Never. What she does do is display a good measure of humor
which as usual goes over your head and which you probably self servingly
mistake for said gloat.
Maybe you cant see yourself as others do Maggie but I would think that when
enough people, people who for some odd reason actually like and or respect you
despite your intellectual dishonesty and condescending nit picking, tell you
how you appear you might think about listening.
I could produce many of your venomous posts, many of the gloating ones, many of
those where you are wrong, wrong, wrong, many of the ones you say dont exist of
you insulting people, the ones you write about never participating in flame
wars side by side with some of your best flames. I am sure many of us here
could but you'd just either ignore them or spin them out of control.
No one I know of is as much of a bull dog as you are and I dont have either the
time or the energy to play your games.
If someone were to write you a letter actually explaining the meaning of Life,
you'd respond with a complaint about how they formed the "L" and demand to see
an encylopaedic citation for why they did so. .
And I dont give a flying fig if glas doesnt like my pointing out the obvious. (
It's certainly not anything she is guilty of herself!).
One can sit by and watch you try to intimidate everyone with your unflagging
dogged persistence on rewriting history for just so long.
Barbara
I dont enjoy this kind shit with you because you never admit to anything, when
faced with proof of your error, you regroup and mistate your original premise
or find a new and bizarre interpretation of it to suit th *new* facts. Or as
in the cases I've mentioned over and over, you just disappear or say you
already answered and we have to find it --like we are supposed to become Google
Freaks too.
Maggie
>you that your posts about Bush have been much
>> more hate-filled than any of mine about Clinton. If you'd like examples,
>just
>> let me know.
>
>Why, yes, I would. Thank you.
***How about this one? Sounds sort of venomous to me:
Don't y'all see how the next four years are going to be? The
intellectually lazy drunk won't really have his little finger on the
button. It's going to be his babysitter, Cheney, and the other
"subordinates". Even now, when reporters ask Dubya a question, he
replies, "You need to ask Jim Baker(?) about that" or, "I'll refer you
to Dick Cheney for that information." His people know better than to
let him actually answer a question without cue-cards in front of him.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=dubya+group:alt.true-crime+author:grifft
ex%40home.com&hl=en&as_drrb=b&as_mind=29&as_minm=1&as_miny=2000&as_maxd=13
&as_maxm=11&as_maxy=2001&rnum=4&selm=3A42E84C.29E6B0E0%40home.com
Linda Griffith
> ***I can pretty much guarantee
>you that your posts about Bush have been much
>> more hate-filled than any of mine about Clinton. If you'd like examples,
>just
>> let me know.
> ***How about this one? Sounds sort of venomous to me:
>
> Don't y'all see how the next four years are going to be? The
> intellectually lazy drunk won't really have his little finger on the
> button. It's going to be his babysitter, Cheney, and the other
> "subordinates". Even now, when reporters ask Dubya a question, he
> replies, "You need to ask Jim Baker(?) about that" or, "I'll refer you
> to Dick Cheney for that information." His people know better than to
> let him actually answer a question without cue-cards in front of him.
Apparently, venom is in the ear of the beholder. I'll grant you a "perhaps
tacky" on this one, but not venomous or hate-filled. And it's not as if I
misspoke, after all.
Bush's extemporaneous speaking is much better these days, and I'm certainly
not alone in remarking on it. Now, judging from the news conference with
Vladimir Putin that is in progress this very minute, he needs to learn not
to interrupt his guests or laugh at them. (Really, I think he simply
misunderstood Putin's invitation to enjoy his country's "white nights" in
winter.) He also shouldn't accept Jimmy Carter's pronunciation of "nuclear"
as the one to use.
Linda
Mametsuki
with me. Iam a painter. Political realism. I love abstraction as well. Parents
are painters as well. Iam in my early 40's. Anyone else?
Mametsuki
PattyC
Maggie <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
news:20011113090657...@mb-fi.aol.com...
I have been lurking mostly lately, but had to rise up for this one.
When one gets riled up at LINDA G, and on any level accuses her of talking
about Bush with "hate-filled" (sic) words, it says that poster is now
wanting to be on the "anti" side with even the least argumentative of atc
posters. The last sentence above, like many I've been reading here in many
threads, comes across only as silly and I would bet many readers besides me
have been laughing at the show we've been seeing lately.
Nah, I don't want to see the old stuff that will clearly (as often happens)
be NOT what they are purported to prove. Don't bother, I have been reading
here and Linda's feelings for Bush could never match Maggie's when it comes
to sounding as though they are full of acid.
Still thinking that all this looking up of other people's posts, or even of
your own posts, is really a sign of *something* amiss in your life on some
level...MHO,
PattyC
--
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.">
Maggie
>
>> ***I can pretty much guarantee
>>you that your posts about Bush have been much
>>> more hate-filled than any of mine about Clinton. If you'd like examples,
>>just
>>> let me know.
>
>> ***How about this one? Sounds sort of venomous to me:
>>
>> Don't y'all see how the next four years are going to be? The
>> intellectually lazy drunk won't really have his little finger on the
>> button. It's going to be his babysitter, Cheney, and the other
>> "subordinates". Even now, when reporters ask Dubya a question, he
>> replies, "You need to ask Jim Baker(?) about that" or, "I'll refer you
>> to Dick Cheney for that information." His people know better than to
>> let him actually answer a question without cue-cards in front of him.
>
>Apparently, venom is in the ear of the beholder. I'll grant you a "perhaps
>tacky" on this one, but not venomous or hate-filled. And it's not as if
>I
>misspoke, after all.
***FWIW, I couldn't care less about what you post about GWB or anyone else.
But you're the one who claimed that *my* posts about Clinton were venomous and
hate-filled. I think that anyone making that sort of claim about another
poster should insure that her hands are spotlessly clean. Yours aren't. It's
no big deal--I'm not the one taking people to task for being insufficiently
fond of the Clintons (or Bush).
>
>Bush's extemporaneous speaking is much better these days, and I'm certainly
>not alone in remarking on it. Now, judging from the news conference with
>Vladimir Putin that is in progress this very minute, he needs to learn not
>to interrupt his guests or laugh at them. (Really, I think he simply
>misunderstood Putin's invitation to enjoy his country's "white nights" in
>winter.) He also shouldn't accept Jimmy Carter's pronunciation of "nuclear"
>as the one to use.
***The "nuclear" thing drives me nuts, too. But I certainly agree that he has
grown into the job rather quickly. I doubt a week has gone by since Sept. 11
that I haven't been thankful that Al Gore is not president right now.
Maggie
>> >Okay, Maggie,
>> >
>> >I suppose I "give", but only for lack of experience. Yes, you're right:
>> > I
>> >posted to the "Maggie/Hillary" thread more often than did you (14 of
>mine
>> >to
>> >8 of yours). Remember though, I *initiated* that thread, so it's my
>> >right...and my right without this little jab:
>> >
>> maggie said:
>> >***Why do you assume it's "so important to" me? I posted it and I've
>> >answered
>> >your questions about it. You've probably posted three times as many
>> >comments
>> >on this thread than I have. Why is the story so important to you?
>> >
>> linda said:
>> >Fewer than twice as many posts as you. Remember, though, I lost your
>> >original thread and responded with my own "Maggie/Hillary". Yours was
>> >"Hillary Gets Caught Telling a Big One", but I could almost swear you
>had
>> >another thread that accused her of a "Whopper". I just couldn't find
>it
>> >on
>> >DJN.
>>
>> ***You couldn't find it because it's not there. I didnt' start any thread
>> about Hillary's "whopper."
>> >
>> linda said:
>> >Be that as it may, your posts, few though they may be, were gloating
>and
>> >vindictive. Mine were merely questioning the reason for your venom.
>> ***What in the world are you talking about? Can you post some of this
>"venom"
>> you *say* I exhibited?
>> >
linda said:
>> >I don't really care, Maggie. I'm a happy, satisfied person, *even
>though*
>> >Bush is President. Your hatred of the Clintons is bound to cause you
>some
>> >unnecessary distress: physical because you get so riled up, or emotional
>> >because you can't punish them as you would like.
>>
>> ***I can pretty much guarantee you that your posts about Bush have been
>much
>> more hate-filled than any of mine about Clinton. If you'd like examples,
>just
>> let me know.
pattyc said:
>I have been lurking mostly lately, but had to rise up for this one.
>
>When one gets riled up at LINDA G, and on any level accuses her of talking
>about Bush with "hate-filled" (sic) words, it says that poster is now
>wanting to be on the "anti" side with even the least argumentative of atc
>posters. The last sentence above, like many I've been reading here in many
>threads, comes across only as silly and I would bet many readers besides
>me
>have been laughing at the show we've been seeing lately.
>
>Nah, I don't want to see the old stuff that will clearly (as often happens)
>be NOT what they are purported to prove. Don't bother, I have been reading
>here and Linda's feelings for Bush could never match Maggie's when it comes
>to sounding as though they are full of acid.
>
>Still thinking that all this looking up of other people's posts, or even
>of
>your own posts, is really a sign of *something* amiss in your life on some
>level...MHO,
***It amazes me that anyone could read the above and conclude that I am "riled
up at Linda G." She accused *me*--I didn't start anything for Christ's sake.
Do you really think that making unsupported allegations is a *good* thing, or
that backing up claims is a *bad* thing?
Linda Griffith
Hi, Mametsuki,
I'm a former French and Spanish teacher, still married to my first husband
(32 years so far), have two adult children, and one granddaughter whom I
babysit M-F except for Thursdays. My primary areas of expertise these days
are Barney, Arthur, Dora, and VeggieTales.
Linda
P.S.: What gender is "Mametsuki"?
Lady Taker
>My primary areas of expertise these days
>are Barney, Arthur,
Swear to god I read that as: Bea, Arthur.
Volfie
"You haven't hit rock bottom until you've fought off the other drunks to suck
on a Hungarian booby pickle." - Mr. Wick, Drew Carey Show
Mametsuki
Linda!
Mametsuki
Gayle
> I have been lurking mostly lately,
(snip)
And I'll bet I'm not the only mostly-reader who misses you as a regular poster.
Have you considered the killfile as an aid to creating a more pleasant
experience for yourself?
I tell ya, enough time spent in Usenet makes the hope of peace on Earth a much
more distant fantasy.
All the best to you and your Steelers,
Gayle
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC
pattyc said:
>I have been lurking mostly lately, but had to rise up for this one.
>
>When one gets riled up at LINDA G, and on any level accuses her of talking
>about Bush with "hate-filled" (sic) words, it says that poster is now
>wanting to be on the "anti" side with even the least argumentative of atc
>posters. The last sentence above, like many I've been reading here in many
>threads, comes across only as silly and I would bet many readers besides
>me
>have been laughing at the show we've been seeing lately.
>
>Nah, I don't want to see the old stuff that will clearly (as often happens)
>be NOT what they are purported to prove. Don't bother, I have been reading
>here and Linda's feelings for Bush could never match Maggie's when it comes
>to sounding as though they are full of acid.
>
>Still thinking that all this looking up of other people's posts, or even
>of
>your own posts, is really a sign of *something* amiss in your life on some
>level...MHO,
***It amazes me that anyone could read the above and conclude that I am "riled
up at Linda G." She accused *me*--I didn't start anything for Christ's sake.
Do you really think that making unsupported allegations is a *good* thing, or
that backing up claims is a *bad* thing?
Maggie
***********
Oh for goodnessake, of course you started something. You were the one who
originally posted the provocative Drudge report.
You were obviously interested in the gossip and that's what set this whole
brouhaha off as you knew it would.
Barbara
Nancy Rudins
Hi Mametsuki,
I'm a combination unix systems programmer/systems administrator. I'm
one of the few, strange people who loves my job. I don't dabble in
the visual arts but I play piano and harmonica for relaxation.
Kind regards,
Nancy
--
unix: panic[cpu0]/thread=4003fe60: Out of Coffee!
Nancy Rudins nru...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/nrudins/
Maggie
>>I have been lurking mostly lately, but had to rise up for this one.
>>
>>When one gets riled up at LINDA G, and on any level accuses her of talking
>>about Bush with "hate-filled" (sic) words, it says that poster is now
>>wanting to be on the "anti" side with even the least argumentative of atc
>>posters. The last sentence above, like many I've been reading here in
>many
>>threads, comes across only as silly and I would bet many readers besides
>>me
>>have been laughing at the show we've been seeing lately.
>>
>>Nah, I don't want to see the old stuff that will clearly (as often happens)
>>be NOT what they are purported to prove. Don't bother, I have been reading
>>here and Linda's feelings for Bush could never match Maggie's when it comes
>>to sounding as though they are full of acid.
>>
>>Still thinking that all this looking up of other people's posts, or even
>>of
>>your own posts, is really a sign of *something* amiss in your life on some
>>level...MHO,
>
>***It amazes me that anyone could read the above and conclude that I am
>"riled
>up at Linda G." She accused *me*--I didn't start anything for Christ's
>sake.
>Do you really think that making unsupported allegations is a *good* thing,
>or
>that backing up claims is a *bad* thing?
barbara said:
>Oh for goodnessake, of course you started something. You were the one who
>originally posted the provocative Drudge report.
***LOL. You are a hoot, babs. So now the mere *posting* of an internet
synopsis (from the most visited internet news source in the world, btw) of a
legitimate newspaper story is "starting something"? Jesus--you're not only
dumbing down *terror*, your dumbing down *provocation*. Pretty soon, the mere
fact that I *read* the newsgroup will be considered sufficient reason to claim
that I'm provoking other posters. Do you really believe that each poster is
not responsible for his/her own posts?
>You were obviously interested in the gossip and that's what set this whole
>brouhaha off as you knew it would.
***Are you under the impression that I have some power over other posters that
induces them to post things they otherwise wouldn't? I had no idea you thought
the readers of this newsgroup were so dumb and easily led. I hope Linda's not
insulted.
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
Maggie
******************
Legitmate news story???? Drudge, the gossip page of The New York Post and the
Washington Times???? Give me a break.
And that's not even a very cute ploy...to deliberately and continually
misrepresent what I say ;in this case that I think Blacks are stupid or that
Linda is either dumb or easily led.
Anyone can be provoked or hadnt you noticed.
I hope you wont be insulted when I tell you to blow it out your ass.
Barbara
mothra...@hotmail.com
>
> "Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote
>
> > ***I can pretty much guarantee
> >you that your posts about Bush have been much
> >> more hate-filled than any of mine about Clinton. If you'd like examples,
> >just
> >> let me know.
>
> > ***How about this one? Sounds sort of venomous to me:
> >
> > Don't y'all see how the next four years are going to be? The
> > intellectually lazy drunk won't really have his little finger on the
> > button. It's going to be his babysitter, Cheney, and the other
> > "subordinates". Even now, when reporters ask Dubya a question, he
> > replies, "You need to ask Jim Baker(?) about that" or, "I'll refer you
> > to Dick Cheney for that information." His people know better than to
> > let him actually answer a question without cue-cards in front of him.
>
> Apparently, venom is in the ear of the beholder.
<psshh> If this is what Maggie considers venom, I'd hate to see her
encounter a garter snake.
Martha
"I hope you won't take it personally when I tell you that when you
attempt to flirt I find it a little repellent." ---Formica to Maggie, atc
mothra...@hotmail.com
Sometimes the graceful thing--in this case, for Maggie to withdraw from
the thread--is both the simplest and the hardest thing to do.
Every9man
From: mothra...@hotmail.com
Martha
********
It may be hard indeed, for all of us, but Maggie drops out not infrequently,
usually in response to overwhelming factual information and/or logic. that
indicates that she is wrong wrong wrong.
Barbara
Formica63
>Sometimes the graceful thing--in this case, for Maggie to withdraw from
>the thread--is both the simplest and the hardest thing to do.
>
>Martha
>********
Barbara:
>It may be hard indeed, for all of us, but Maggie drops out not infrequently,
>usually in response to overwhelming factual information and/or logic. that
>indicates that she is wrong wrong wrong.
The usual course seems to be:
*posters debate
*Maggie calls some or all of those who differ with her stupid, etc
*Maggie sometimes then goes out on a limb & starts in on their language (eg her
"psychical" debacle), their intelligence, etc
*a spree of self-serving, partial "fact finding" (Madeleine Albright)
*Taking the most placid individual and poking them with a stick until they
actually put the time in to refute her
*a spree of unrelated posts
During that period, somewhere the person who differs is treated with one or
both of these variations --
"You weren't cool at school!"
or
"I am not going to bother with this any more"
Why is it that this energizer bunny only konks out when she can't be "bothered"
with a thread in which she's made an a** of herself. I call it the "toy yoda"
principle.
Formica
Formica63
>>You were obviously interested in the gossip and that's what set this whole
>>brouhaha off as you knew it would.
Maggie:
>***Are you under the impression that I have some power over other posters
>that
>induces them to post things they otherwise wouldn't? I had no idea you
>thought
>the readers of this newsgroup were so dumb and easily led. I hope Linda's
>not
>insulted.
Just absurd. Their responses to you are *only* occasioned by your comments,
although you of course are not responsible for the contents of their posts.
You're intensely provocative, and Barbara's saying so carries no implication
about her perception of Linda's intelligence. I'd hasten to add these little
forays of yours into intellect flames are really pretty hilarious. You are the
uber-troll. What a distinction.
Formica
Maggie
***When you dream of me, what am I wearing?
Maggie/Mango (again)
Maggie
>
>>>You were obviously interested in the gossip and that's what set this whole
>>>brouhaha off as you knew it would.
>
>>***Are you under the impression that I have some power over other posters
>>that
>>induces them to post things they otherwise wouldn't? I had no idea you
>>thought
>>the readers of this newsgroup were so dumb and easily led. I hope Linda's
>>not
>>insulted.
>
>Just absurd. Their responses to you are *only* occasioned by your comments,
>although you of course are not responsible for the contents of their posts.
>
>You're intensely provocative, and Barbara's saying so carries no implication
>about her perception of Linda's intelligence. I'd hasten to add these little
>forays of yours into intellect flames are really pretty hilarious. You
>are the
>uber-troll. What a distinction.
***If you'll ask really nicely, I'll describe my PJ's to you.
Maggie < feeling stalked, but flattered
Mametsuki
guess is male.
>***If you'll ask really nicely, I'll describe my PJ's to you.
>
>Maggie < feeling stalked, but flattered
Mametsuki
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
*************
Stalked??
You come on here all piss and vinegar, insulting almost everyone around
whenever it suits you, you make extremely provocative statements, post
provocative *gossip*, insist against all reason and logic that you are always
right and when someone responds you fall back on that old soundrel's ploy
of claiming to be picked on.
Unbelievable.
Barbara
Maggie
>>
>>>>You were obviously interested in the gossip and that's what set this
>whole
>>>>brouhaha off as you knew it would.
>>
>>Maggie said:
>>>***Are you under the impression that I have some power over other posters
>>>that
>>>induces them to post things they otherwise wouldn't? I had no idea you
>>>thought
>>>the readers of this newsgroup were so dumb and easily led. I hope Linda's
>>>not
>>>insulted.
>>
>formica said:
>>Just absurd. Their responses to you are *only* occasioned by your comments,
>>although you of course are not responsible for the contents of their posts.
>>
>>You're intensely provocative, and Barbara's saying so carries no implication
>>about her perception of Linda's intelligence. I'd hasten to add these
>little
>>forays of yours into intellect flames are really pretty hilarious. You
>>are the
>>uber-troll. What a distinction.
>
>***If you'll ask really nicely, I'll describe my PJ's to you.
>
>Maggie < feeling stalked, but flattered
>*************
>
>Stalked??
> You come on here all piss and vinegar, insulting almost everyone around
>whenever it suits you, you make extremely provocative statements, post
>provocative *gossip*, insist against all reason and logic that you are
>always
>right and when someone responds you fall back on that old soundrel's ploy
>of claiming to be picked on.
>
>Unbelievable.
***Just in the interest of clarity--I've never, ever claimed to have been
"picked on."
Formica63
>***When you dream of me, what am I wearing?
I'd imagine the popular answer to this would be "a gag."
Formica
Maggie
>
>>***When you dream of me, what am I wearing?
>
>I'd imagine the popular answer to this would be "a gag."
***I'd like to see you in mittens.
Desi
Alan Hope wrote in message ...
>Coming up next, your comments and questions on issues
discussed in the
>programme, like this one from Mametsuki, calling from
alt.true-crime:
Well, it's been said at least one here is a self-described
bored, pedestrian housewife. ???
desi
Priyatel
wrote:
Hello Mametsuki:)
Well, hey there Nancy, do ya really harp?
I 've never mastered that thingy yet, but I try also sometimes.
I have mastered the guitar, banjo, mandolin and am diddling with
'larnin' fiddling. Like Mametsuki, my mother is an artist and fashion
designer, and father was a concert pianist.
Relaxing is an understatement, except for my spouse when I'm
practicing the fiddle<G>. I'm an Environmental Analyst and very part
time private guitar instructor. Anyone in for some horseback riding,
boating or fossil hunting?
--
Priyatel
"Ne roy yamu, sam v neyo popadesh"
for replies, drop: YERDRAWERS
Every9man
>*************
>
barbara said:
>Stalked??
> You come on here all piss and vinegar, insulting almost everyone around
>whenever it suits you, you make extremely provocative statements, post
>provocative *gossip*, insist against all reason and logic that you are
>always
>right and when someone responds you fall back on that old soundrel's ploy
>of claiming to be picked on.
>
>Unbelievable.
***Just in the interest of clarity--I've never, ever claimed to have been
"picked on."
Maggie
***********
Well then, if someone is *stalking* you for the purposes of paying you a
compliment, relax and enjoy it
Barbara
Dog 3
"Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011117124218...@mb-ci.aol.com...
: >Maggie < feeling stalked, but flattered
If Maggie feels stalked can you imagine what Joe and the various and
numerous RL identities revealed as Joe (all lies) felt? Maggie feels
stalked..... <snort> the poor princess is feeling the pea under the
mattress.
Michael
Nancy Rudins
|> Well, hey there Nancy, do ya really harp?
Hiya, Priyatel. I don't do a lot of blues harp--I'm not very
adept at bending notes. I mostly play straight harmonica--the
kind Bob Dylan played on his early works.
|> I 've never mastered that thingy yet, but I try also sometimes.
|> I have mastered the guitar, banjo, mandolin and am diddling with
|> 'larnin' fiddling. Like Mametsuki, my mother is an artist and fashion
|> designer, and father was a concert pianist.
That's impressive! The art gene must be dominant in your
family. My mom was a painter, but I can't think of anyone
who attempted music besides me. And I have to qualify that
by saying I just play pop stuff from fake books. There's
no way I'm going to learn the bass cleff in this lifetime.
Though I like to read books about music theory.
|> Relaxing is an understatement, except for my spouse when I'm
|> practicing the fiddle<G>. I'm an Environmental Analyst and very part
|> time private guitar instructor. Anyone in for some horseback riding,
|> boating or fossil hunting?
|>
Hee hee hee. When I'm learning a song, I use an electronic keyboard
with headphones clamped on.
Alan Hope
programme, like this one from Mametsuki, calling from alt.true-crime:
>Iam curious..... What does everyone on this thread do for a living? I'll start
>with me. Iam a painter. Political realism. I love abstraction as well. Parents
>are painters as well. Iam in my early 40's. Anyone else?
There's no such thing as political realism. Either within painting or
without. And how can you be a painter in your early 40s? Most people
have woken up and got a proper job by then. Your parents must be
remarkably successful. Should I have heard of them?
--
AH
debby
> Iam curious..... What does everyone on this thread do for a living? I'll start
> with me. Iam a painter. Political realism. I love abstraction as well. Parents
> are painters as well. Iam in my early 40's. Anyone else?
>
> Mametsuki
I'm a cashier in a supermarket. My husband is a newspaper editor. That is why I am
a news junkie:) Debby S.<sarg...@infi.net>
debby
But would she be nude and wearing a gag? Would she be in a sexy
nightgown and wearing a gag or in old flannel pj's with facecream and
hair curlers? Debby S.<sarg...@infi.net> getting really curious
about this......