Tara's "CBS Contract"
cgla...@hotmail.com
by pointing out that she's doing World Pros this year despite her
contract to skate only on CBS:
Tara's contract *was* for one year only. And that year is now past.
The only unfulfilled obligation on that contract is her obligation to
give CBS one more made-for-TV skating special, which has yet to be
filmed. Source -- Jack Lipinski, via Brad Miller.
But we shouldn't have needed this. We knew *last* year that it was a
one-year contract. And still, we get people... even respectable NG
members, not just trollers... harping on the "Breaking a contract!"
tune with no reason to!
Anyway, hopefully this will settle it.
--
Chuckg
Webmaster, Unofficial ISU Parody Archive
http://isuparody.freeservers.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kaiju
CKilyanek wrote:
>
> Chuckg writes:
>
> <<To all those who posted about how Tara is 'breaking another contract'
> by pointing out that she's doing World Pros this year despite her
> contract to skate only on CBS:
> >>
>
> And I wonder:
>
> Were there really a pile of posts about how Tara's 'breaking another contract'
> by doing the World Pros and I missed them? Or does the "all those who posted"
> refer to the one person who posted wondering what was up with the CBS contract
> being as Tara was doing the World Pro and the one who answered that post?
>
> Perhaps I deleted the long protracted thread about the breaking of the contract
> without reading it?
Dunno. I must have missed it, too. But I don't recall having a filter on any
RSSIF posts. Maybe my newsreader just decided to eat them.
Kaiju <or else chuckie has just flipped out again...>
--
Before you think, think.
ZAZZ
CKilyanek
SIPAAMS
by pointing out that she's doing World Pros this year despite her
contract to skate only on CBS:
Tara's contract *was* for one year only. And that year is now past. >>
Chuck, let me tell you - I am a big fan of Tara's, and I think you are a nice
guy, but even I think you have to be the world's easiest person to chum. It
really really is not necessary to answer everything that is said about her in
this forum. Really. Trust me. And as for the contract stuff, well, maybe you
and I want to give her the benefit of the doubt. But there *is* past evidence
for, at the very least, some contract weaseling on her part. You can't
realistically expect people to always ignore that. Just a thought.
PosterBoy
<cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7u5kk2$bh3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> To all those who posted about how Tara is 'breaking another contract'
> by pointing out that she's doing World Pros this year despite her
> contract to skate only on CBS:
'Scuse me for asking, but.........
What was the thread/subject line which included all those posts? Approx
dates, too, would be helpful.
Thanks.
ANIEBER
dates, too, would be helpful.<<<
Here's one:
**********************************************
Subject: Re: Lipinski and Kulik at World Pro
From: trudiwan...@clarityconnect.com (Trudi Marrapodi)
Date: Tue, 12 October 1999 09:46 PM EDT
Message-id:
<trudiwantsnospam...@cci-209150250073.clarityconnect.net>
In article <3803C549...@NOSPAM.ecn.com>, Kaiju
<ka...@NOSPAM.ecn.com> wrote:
> penni wrote:
> >
> > From: ann...@my-deja.com
> > >Tara and Ilia are confirmed on the Candid
> > > website for World Pros. I guess that makes it
> > > official that Kulik's going "ineligible"
> >
> > Doesn't Tara still have that exclusive contract with CBS that prevented
> > her from competing at World Pros last year?
>
> I understand that contract was for only one year. I don't know that it has
> been extended.
Uh, just a second. Where's the conflict here? You guys seem to be
forgetting Tara's approach to contracts.
--
Trudi
A few hours northwest of New York City
Posted from my private ISP
cgla...@hotmail.com
> > Were there really a pile of posts about how Tara's 'breaking
> > another contract' by doing the World Pros and I missed them? Or
> > does the "all those who posted" refer to the one person who posted
> > wondering what was up with the CBS contract being as Tara was doing
> > the World Pro and the one who answered that post?
> >
> > Perhaps I deleted the long protracted thread about the breaking of
> > the contract without reading it?
>
> Dunno. I must have missed it, too. But I don't recall having a
> filter on any RSSIF posts. Maybe my newsreader just decided to eat
> them.
>
> Kaiju <or else chuckie has just flipped out again...>
Missed 'em? Kaiju, you replied to one of 'em.
*shrug*
PS -- the word "all" does not necessarily imply "a pile",
or "extraordinary" magnitude".
cgla...@hotmail.com
sip...@aol.com (SIPAAMS) wrote:
> << To all those who posted about how Tara is 'breaking another
> contract' by pointing out that she's doing World Pros this year
> despite her contract to skate only on CBS:
>
> Tara's contract *was* for one year only. And that year is now past.
> Chuck, let me tell you - I am a big fan of Tara's, and I think you
> are a nice guy, but even I think you have to be the world's easiest
> person to chum. It really really is not necessary to answer
> everything that is said about her in this forum. Really.
*Chuckg blinks hard*
Errr... I don't recall replying to "Tara la-pussy" the last several
times he showed up, or saying a durn thing about the past couple
skating reviews that were less than wildly enthused about Tara, or...
... I may or may not be the easiest person in the world to chum, but I
*am* a person who is into literal usage of words. When you
say "everything", please, wait until it actually is "everything", not
just "a lot of things". Thank you.
> Trust me. And as for the contract stuff, well, maybe you
> and I want to give her the benefit of the doubt. But there *is* past
> evidence for, at the very least, some contract weaseling on her
> part. You can't realistically expect people to always ignore that.
> Just a thought.
*Chuckg blinks again*.
"Benefit of the doubt?" What doubt exists here? It's a fact, on-
record, that the contract was for one year, and that the year is now
over. We knew that the contract was for only one year, last year.
Doubt, schmout. Nobody should ever have speculated cattily about
whether she was breaking a contract at all, because all the facts
necessary to show that it was 100% certain that she wasn't were already
in everyone's possession before any thread ever started at all...
... if they'd actually bothered to use their memories before using
their keyboard fingers, that is.
And *that's* what Chuckg was responding to. Not liking to give the
benefit of the doubt still does *not* excuse you from the obligation to
get your facts straight before sending off. Opinions, yes. Facts, no.
CKilyanek
Date: Fri, 15 October 1999 06:49 AM EDT
Message-id: <19991015064916...@ng-bh1.aol.com>
Here's one:
**********************************************
Well, yes, this exchange I've seen. But neither poster claimed that Tara was
breaking her contract by skating in this event. There was one poster
questioning the situation and a "snidey" remark about Tara's approach to
contracts....Oh yes, and one thrown in between explaining that the contract was
only for one year.
So, where are "all those" people who posted that Tara's breaking her contract.?
I'm wondering why I missed all those posts (Apparently, there were many).
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who missed them...
ZAZZ
>Chuck, let me tell you - I am a big fan of Tara's, and I think you are a nice
>guy, but even I think you have to be the world's easiest person to chum. It
>really really is not necessary to answer everything that is said about her in
>this forum.
Agree. When it starts to take the negative tone, pretend it is not
there.
Kaiju
cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Were there really a pile of posts about how Tara's 'breaking
> > > another contract' by doing the World Pros and I missed them? Or
> > > does the "all those who posted" refer to the one person who posted
> > > wondering what was up with the CBS contract being as Tara was doing
> > > the World Pro and the one who answered that post?
> > >
> > > Perhaps I deleted the long protracted thread about the breaking of
> > > the contract without reading it?
> >
> > Dunno. I must have missed it, too. But I don't recall having a
> > filter on any RSSIF posts. Maybe my newsreader just decided to eat
> > them.
> >
> > Kaiju <or else chuckie has just flipped out again...>
>
> Missed 'em? Kaiju, you replied to one of 'em.
>
> *shrug*
>
> PS -- the word "all" does not necessarily imply "a pile",
> or "extraordinary" magnitude".
Chuckie, I did not reply to one. It was a request for information. And I
responded, accurately, that the contract was for only one year. That hardly
justifies your post initiating this thread. There wasn't even an "all".
Once again you make a mountain out of a molehill only because the posts were
about Tara. You really should do something about this weird, unbalanced
obsession of yours.
Kaiju
CKilyanek
>
>Doubt, schmout. Nobody should ever have speculated cattily about
>whether she was breaking a contract at all, because all the facts
>necessary to show that it was 100% certain that she wasn't were already
>in everyone's possession before any thread ever started at all...
>
>... if they'd actually bothered to use their memories before using
>their keyboard fingers, that is.
>
>And *that's* what Chuckg was responding to. Not liking to give the
>benefit of the doubt still does *not* excuse you from the obligation to
>get your facts straight before sending off. Opinions, yes. Facts, no.
>
>--
>Chuckg
>
Chuck,
Can you please let us know exactly what posts were speculating about whether
Tara was breaking her CBS contract? I really don't remember a single post like
this but I could have missed it.
I do remember a post asking about the contract, a post responding that the
contract was up and then Trudi's remark, which although a slap at Tara was not
speculation on Tara breaking this contract.
Thanks so much!!!
Carol
PosterBoy
<cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7u76ge$dtp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <19991014223338...@ng-bh1.aol.com>,
> sip...@aol.com (SIPAAMS) wrote:
>
> > << To all those who posted about how Tara is 'breaking another
> > contract' by pointing out that she's doing World Pros this year
> > despite her contract to skate only on CBS:
> >
> > Tara's contract *was* for one year only. And that year is now past.
> > are a nice guy, but even I think you have to be the world's easiest
> > person to chum. It really really is not necessary to answer
>
> *Chuckg blinks hard*
>
> Errr... I don't recall replying to "Tara la-pussy" the last several
> times he showed up, or saying a durn thing about the past couple
> skating reviews that were less than wildly enthused about Tara, or...
>
> ... I may or may not be the easiest person in the world to chum, but I
> *am* a person who is into literal usage of words. When you
> say "everything", please, wait until it actually is "everything", not
> just "a lot of things". Thank you.
>
> > Trust me. And as for the contract stuff, well, maybe you
> > and I want to give her the benefit of the doubt. But there *is* past
> > evidence for, at the very least, some contract weaseling on her
> > part. You can't realistically expect people to always ignore that.
> > Just a thought.
>
> *Chuckg blinks again*.
>
> "Benefit of the doubt?" What doubt exists here? It's a fact, on-
> record, that the contract was for one year, and that the year is now
>
> Doubt, schmout. Nobody should ever have speculated cattily about
> whether she was breaking a contract at all, because all the facts
> necessary to show that it was 100% certain that she wasn't were already
> in everyone's possession before any thread ever started at all...
>
> ... if they'd actually bothered to use their memories before using
> their keyboard fingers, that is.
>
> And *that's* what Chuckg was responding to. Not liking to give the
> benefit of the doubt still does *not* excuse you from the obligation to
> get your facts straight before sending off. Opinions, yes. Facts, no.
>
Why did CBS drop her?
Thanks.
PosterBoy
ANIEBER <ani...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991015064916...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
> >>>What was the thread/subject line which included all those posts?
Approx
> dates, too, would be helpful.<<<
>
> Here's one:
\/\/\/\/\/quoted post snipped\/\/\/\/\/
Yes, thanks.
It was the ONLY one even remotely critical of Tara...and that only an
honest reference to Tara's past record.
Cheers.
cgla...@hotmail.com
Kaiju <ka...@NOSPAM.ecn.com> wrote:
>
>
> cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Missed 'em? Kaiju, you replied to one of 'em.
> >
> > *shrug*
> >
> > PS -- the word "all" does not necessarily imply "a pile",
> > or "extraordinary" magnitude".
>
> Chuckie, I did not reply to one. It was a request for information.
"Reply" as in "hit the reply button when that message came up in your
newsreader".
> And I responded,
"Respond", "reply", why split semantic hairs?
> accurately, that the contract was for only one year. That hardly
> justifies your post initiating this thread. There wasn't even
> an "all".
> Once again you make a mountain out of a molehill only because the
> posts were about Tara. You really should do something about this
> weird, unbalanced obsession of yours.
How ironic are the turns of fate. Not two weeks ago, I'm the one who
f**ks up by jumping on your neck even when you were agreeing with me,
because I didn't believe it.
And now you jump down my throat about my allegedly having a problem
with your response, when your response agreed with my response re: 1-
year contracts. Indeed, nothing you've said in this thread... well,
until you started in on me again... was anything I disagreed with at
all. My disagreement was with the person you were speaking *to* (among
others).
Contrary to popular belief... and, sadly, past performance... I don't
disagree with *everything* you say, only because it came with your name
on it.
Please reciprocrate.
Chuckg
news:380A4A3D...@NOSPAM.ecn.com...
> You still don't get it. The first post was fairly, simply and only a
request
> for information. The first post implied nothing negative. You are
claiming
> the first post was an insult, a slam, on Tara and her penchant for
breaking
> contracts. You are wrong. Whatever is your reaction to my post is
> immaterial. You just can't fathom that someone reading RSSIF (or is it
> everyone in the entire world?) does not know the terms of each and every
one
> of Tara's contracts. How pathetic.
Ah, that's right -- I can't fathom that someone reading RSSIF wouldn't know
the terms of a contract that were posted on rssif less than one week ago.
--
Chuckg
Kaiju
Amazing. The question about the terms of the contract was asked a week ago.
The question was answered a week ago. And there are people who really don't
read every post on RSSIF. There are even people who are new to RSSIF, and
don't read past posts.
Imagine that.
You need help, Chuckie. Much and soon.
Kaiju
Roaz wrote:
> You two never stop, do you? I think you're in love with each other and won't
> admit it.
Do you ever stop being boring and tired sounding?
Chuckg
news:19991017201707...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
> You two never stop, do you? I think you're in love with each other and
won't
> admit it.
I almost wish we *were*. That would mean that I could at least look forward
to a Happy Ending. :-)
As is, I really don't think so.
--
Chuckg
Roaz
You two never stop, do you? I think you're in love with each other and won't
admit it.
SStoonces
other and won't
admit it.
Funny - I was about to post something just like this - and your (the above)
post came up next. I think you're right.
Toonces (the driving cat)
SStoonces
Toonces (the driving cat)>>..
Woops - forgot to add smileys. I'm joking. (lamely, perhaps)
Toonces (the driving cat)
Vespertine
<<Chuckie, you're losing it.>>
With all due respect, I must disagree. Implicit in this statement is the
implication that Chuckie "had it" to begin with! And with that I cannot agree.
CKilyanek
TIM RAGUSO writes:
> I support the thought here, it's never fair to extrapolate intent when
> one is not in command of the facts.
>
> However, I am not aware that anyone implied that the CBS contract was
> broken,
Ah, I see. Wondering aloud about why Tara''s CBS contract isn't conflicting
this year with World Pros like it did last year, and doing so in very close
proximity to certain 'general' comments about Tara and broken contarcts
isn't an implication.
>>
So THAT was the post that got you so riled up? Wow!
cgla...@hotmail.com
What is this, "mentally-fill-in-the-blank" day? It was one of 'em,
yes.
OTOH, I must admit, the amount of 'rile' I felt at the original posts
is as nothing compared to the amount of 'give me a break' I feel at
reading this thread. As is becoming far too typical, the reactions
over what I allegedly said are becoming far more heated than whatever I
said in the first place.
Tim Raguso
Chuckg wrote:
> Silly me.
>
> > and the obsession that this poster has with "defending"
>
> "I support the thought here, it's never fair to extrapolate intent when one
> is not in command of the facts."
>
> Long-distance diagnosing it as an "obsession" and putting "defense" in
> quotes *is* an extrapolation of intent, last time I checked. If you're
> going to posit a rule of behavior for the rest of us, could you try harder
> to follow it yourself? Thank you.
It's hardly long distance diagnosing when, for a period of more than a
year, the same behavior has been exhibited over and over again.
Observation of the obsessive behavior is all that's necessary to
recognize it for what it is, not proximity to the individual exhibiting
the behavior.
If I were to observe, through a telescope, someone banging their head
against a brick wall over a period of several days I could justifiably
arrive at a hypothesis that something was disturbing the individual,
without ever coming within their proximity or inquiring as to what it
was that was bothering them.
In this case, I don't really want to know what is bothering the poster,
or why. Still, that does not change the fact that, for well over a
year, the behavior has been exhibited and observed.
At this point, the behavior is so familiar to the readers of this
newsgroup that it has begun to invite trolls to post something intended
to arouse the response. In fact, even the most subtle post arouses the
response. It isn't necessary to be an obvious troll. Almost anything
that's posted about Tara, other than something that supports the fantasy
her agent has been trying to establish, has been enough to evoke a
response. It has been terrifically entertaining.
Dave Amorde
Tim Raguso wrote in message <380B7965...@eznet.net>...
>
>At this point, the behavior is so familiar to the readers of this
>newsgroup that it has begun to invite trolls to post something intended
>to arouse the response. In fact, even the most subtle post arouses the
>response. It isn't necessary to be an obvious troll. Almost anything
>that's posted about Tara, other than something that supports the fantasy
>her agent has been trying to establish, has been enough to evoke a
>response. It has been terrifically entertaining.
>
Yea, like tapping on a fish tank - and it gets old just as quickly.
-Dave-
Rina J.
>OTOH, I must admit, the amount of 'rile' I felt at the original posts
>is as nothing compared to the amount of 'give me a break' I feel at
>reading this thread. As is becoming far too typical, the reactions
>over what I allegedly said are becoming far more heated than whatever I
>said in the first place.
>
>--
>Chuckg
>
>Webmaster, Unofficial ISU Parody Archive
>http://isuparody.freeservers.com
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>
>
>
>
>
~~Pete Sampras: In a class all his own~~
Jaguars rule Football! 2000 World Champs!
"and he thought he heard the echoes of a pennywhistle band, and the laughter
from a distant caravan"
Chuckg
news:19991018195746...@ng-fn1.aol.com...
> Man, the things you have to go through day in and day out. How do you do
it?
[SARCASM]
Various obsessive-compulsive psychological disorders.
--
Chuckg
Chuckg
news:19991018201105...@ng-fy1.aol.com...
> > What is this, "mentally-fill-in-the-blank" day? It was one of 'em,
> > yes.
> Well then, I ask again, can you please tell me what the other ones were?
> Thanks again....
You can ask... but I Basingstoked myself one post ago, when I prescribed
myself a chill pill.
--
Chuckg
Chuckg
news:fKPO3.39054$K5.4...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> > Well then, I ask again, can you please tell me what the other ones were?
> > Thanks again....
> In this lexicon, "all" means "one."
No, "all" means "all that happen to exist, whether it be one, two, or two
hundred."
> Words mean what cglasgow SAYS they mean. Nothing more, nothing less.
Actually, I'd thought that particular meaning of "all" were in the
dictionary.
--
Chuckg
cgla...@hotmail.com
bothering with. The only reason I'm replying at all is to: a) get in
some practice with my Philosoph 105 (Logic) homework b) it's before
my morning coffee and donut and I'm feeling especially cranky. Memo
to self -- in future, check e-mail and news traffic *after* breakfast.
Anyway, skip this article. It's pointless and contains nothing new.
Thank you.
:-)
In article <380B7965...@eznet.net>,
Tim Raguso <vra...@eznet.net> wrote:
> Chuckg wrote:
> > Silly me.
> >
> > > and the obsession that this poster has with "defending"
> >
> > "I support the thought here, it's never fair to extrapolate intent
> > when one is not in command of the facts."
> >
> > Long-distance diagnosing it as an "obsession" and putting "defense"
> > in quotes *is* an extrapolation of intent, last time I checked. If
> > you're going to posit a rule of behavior for the rest of us, could
> > you try harder to follow it yourself? Thank you.
>
> It's hardly long distance diagnosing when, for a period of more than a
> year, the same behavior has been exhibited over and over again.
> Observation of the obsessive behavior is all that's necessary to
> recognize it for what it is, not proximity to the individual
> exhibiting the behavior.
Knowledge of the complete situation is required, however -- not only
those fragments that have managed to propagate to your server. Doing
it that way often leads to great mistaken impressions, see below.
[snip]
> At this point, the behavior is so familiar to the readers of this
> newsgroup that it has begun to invite trolls to post something
> intended to arouse the response.
Ah, I see. The fact that I have been ignoring a lot obvious Tara
trolls now (for one example, see the last four "Tara la-pussy" threads,
and see who isn't there) doesn't count.
If your hypothesis is directly contradicted by available facts, I see
no reason to give credence to your hypothesis.
I also love the old ad hominem inserted into this one -- trolls are no
now longer responsible for their own actions. Instead, *I* am
responsible for them. I don't know by what sophistry you pulled that
one out of thin air, but my only response to that one is *laughs
derisively*.
> In fact, even the most subtle post arouses the response. It isn't
> necessary to be an obvious troll. Almost anything that's posted
> about Tara, other than something that supports the fantasy her agent
> has been trying to establish,
Ah, I see -- you have somehow been observing carefully for over a year
without noticing that I *despise* Tara's agent, and have a *lower*
opinion of his professional competence than anybody else on the
newsgroup. Which would definitely contradict that I'm into
worshipping any image that *he'd* want to create...
*Ricky* is the Burg-worshipper, Tim. So much for being in command of
the facts. If you can't even list the symptoms accurately, then your
diagnosis isn't worth a used campaign promise.
> has been enough to evoke a response. It has been terrifically
> entertaining.
<ironic tone of voice>
You know, most of the "Let's dump on Chuckg" crowd claim to find me
entertaining... but none of them are ever happy to see me...
Yo, last I checked, entertainment was what made you smile. So, if we
*accept* your supposition that I'm great entertianment, then logically
you should be asking me to post *more* often, not less.
You ask me to post less.
Hmmm... let's get some mileage out of that logic class. What was the
form again? Ahh, that's right:
If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore, not A.
If [Some people genuinely find Chuck entertaining], then [Some people
would want to see him more often].
NOT [Some people would want to see him more often].
Therefore, NOT [Some people genuinely find Chuck entertaining].
Nice try, Tim, but the insincerity just oozes out no matter where you
try to bury it.
CKilyanek
Date: Mon, 18 October 1999 06:59 PM EDT
Message-id: <7ug8nq$7v5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <19991018011936...@ng-cs1.aol.com>,
ckil...@aol.com (CKilyanek) wrote:
> << From: "Chuckg" cgla...@hotmail.com
>
> TIM RAGUSO writes:
> > I support the thought here, it's never fair to extrapolate intent
> > when one is not in command of the facts.
> >
> > However, I am not aware that anyone implied that the CBS contract
> > was broken,
>
> Ah, I see. Wondering aloud about why Tara''s CBS contract isn't
> conflicting this year with World Pros like it did last year, and
> doing so in very close proximity to certain 'general' comments about
> Tara and broken contarcts isn't an implication.
> So THAT was the post that got you so riled up? Wow!
What is this, "mentally-fill-in-the-blank" day? It was one of 'em,
yes.
>>
Well then, I ask again, can you please tell me what the other ones were?
Thanks again....
PosterBoy
In this lexicon, "all" means "one."
Words mean what cglasgow SAYS they mean. Nothing more, nothing less.
Cheers.
CKilyanek
Date: Mon, 18 October 1999 09:23 PM EDT
Message-id: <fKPO3.39054$K5.4...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>
Cheers.
>>
Yeah, I'm beginning to think you're right...:)
CKilyanek
Date: Mon, 18 October 1999 11:14 PM EDT
Message-id: <s0nogu...@corp.supernews.com>
CKilyanek <ckil...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991018201105...@ng-fy1.aol.com...
> > What is this, "mentally-fill-in-the-blank" day? It was one of 'em,
> > yes.
> Well then, I ask again, can you please tell me what the other ones were?
> Thanks again....
You can ask... but I Basingstoked myself one post ago, when I prescribed
myself a chill pill.
--
Chuckg
>>
Well, I suppose this means you don't have an answer. If you really
"Basingstoked" yourself wouldn't you not continue to post to this thread? :)
CKilyanek
No fair! I thought you'd bowed out of this one. I guess that only holds when
you're asked a simple question for which you have no answer...
Oh well...I kind of figured there was no answer...
Peace.
>From: cgla...@hotmail.com
>Date: Tue, 19 October 1999 09:57 AM EDT
>Message-id: <7uhtc2$amp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>Note -- folks, even *I* think that this is well past the point of
>bothering with. The only reason I'm replying at all is to: a) get in
>some practice with my Philosoph 105 (Logic) homework b) it's before
>my morning coffee and donut and I'm feeling especially cranky. Memo
>to self -- in future, check e-mail and news traffic *after* breakfast.
>
>Anyway, skip this article. It's pointless and contains nothing new.
>Thank you.
>
>:-)
>
>In article <380B7965...@eznet.net>,
> Tim Raguso <vra...@eznet.net> wrote:
>
>> Chuckg wrote:
>> > Silly me.
>> >
>> > > and the obsession that this poster has with "defending"
>> >
>> > "I support the thought here, it's never fair to extrapolate intent
>> > when one is not in command of the facts."
>> >
Chuckg
> << From: "Chuckg" cgla...@hotmail.com
> Date: Mon, 18 October 1999 11:14 PM EDT
> Message-id: <s0nogu...@corp.supernews.com>
>
> CKilyanek <ckil...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19991018201105...@ng-fy1.aol.com...
>
> > > What is this, "mentally-fill-in-the-blank" day? It was one of 'em,
> > > yes.
>
> > Well then, I ask again, can you please tell me what the other ones were?
> > Thanks again....
>
> You can ask... but I Basingstoked myself one post ago, when I prescribed
> myself a chill pill.
> Well, I suppose this means you don't have an answer.
None that would do the slightest bit of good. I mean, way back in the Old
Days (read: last season), I used to give itemized lists of prior posts and
quotes at the drop of a hat, whenever I felt it would prove a point about
prior thread content. Remember those?
Thought not.
> If you really "Basingstoked" yourself wouldn't you not continue to post to
this thread? :)
Against my better intentions, I backslid. I will flagellate myself
vigorously with a wet noodle in repentance.
--
Chuckg
Chuckg
> << From: "Chuckg" cgla...@hotmail.com
>
> I mean, way back in the Old
> Days (read: last season), I used to give itemized lists of prior posts and
> quotes at the drop of a hat, whenever I felt it would prove a point about
> prior thread content. Remember those?
>
> Thought not.
>
> Chuckg
>
> >>
>
> Of course I remember those. Why would you think I wouldn't, though?
Good. Can you give me a brief recap? *I've* forgotten. :-)
--
Chuckg
Venceramos
wrote:
>None that would do the slightest bit of good. I mean, way back in the Old
>Days (read: last season), I used to give itemized lists of prior posts and
>quotes at the drop of a hat, whenever I felt it would prove a point about
>prior thread content. Remember those?
It is called "spinning your wheels". And the mud is deep.
"Remember, in America, anyone can grow up to
be President. It's one of the risks you take."
CKilyanek
I mean, way back in the Old
Days (read: last season), I used to give itemized lists of prior posts and
quotes at the drop of a hat, whenever I felt it would prove a point about
prior thread content. Remember those?
Thought not.
--
Chuckg
>>
Of course I remember those. Why would you think I wouldn't, though?
Thanks...C
CKilyanek
Date: Tue, 19 October 1999 11:37 PM EDT
Message-id: <s0qe8a...@corp.supernews.com>
CKilyanek <ckil...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991019205339...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
Good. Can you give me a brief recap? *I've* forgotten. :-)
--
Chuckg
>>
But, why ever would you want me to do that?! And why won't you now answer this
question?
Peace...C
Chuckg
> Good. Can you give me a brief recap? *I've* forgotten. :-)
>
> --
> Chuckg
> >>
>
> But, why ever would you want me to do that?!
I definitely need to get a bigger... emoticon.
> And why won't you now answer this question?
Errrr... that depends on what your meaning of "question" is. *evil grin*
--
Chuckg
Rui Liu
>OTOH, I must admit, the amount of 'rile' I felt at the original posts
>is as nothing compared to the amount of 'give me a break' I feel at
>reading this thread. As is becoming far too typical, the reactions
>over what I allegedly said are becoming far more heated than whatever I
>said in the first place.
Just don't know what it with you. You claimed rssif full of
Tara bashing articles (maybe you did not mean that, but
all those Tara bashing articles sure sounded that way) when
in fact the only article that can remotely be interpreted as
Tara-bashing was a joke by Trudi. Kaiju asked where
were those bashing articles, you claimed Kaiju replied to one
when in fact the article Kaiju replied to was a request for information.
All these can be easily verified. You over-reacted and made false or
unclear claims. Admit it and move on.
Instead you went on and on, splitting hairs, accusing others splittng
hairs. Then you started playing victims, accusing the group
Chuck bashing. Being a slightly crazed and over-sensitive
fan is one thing, but acting like a dishonest asshole is disgusting. maybe
in real like you ARE an obnoxous and dishonest asshole.