Email harassment problem
le...@omit.these.four.words.heathen.com
Hello All, Leona here,
Well, loathe as I am to bring her name up and make her the center of
attention (I suspect that might be why she did this, as I think if it,
attention slut that she is), Laura Goodwin is continuing to disregard
and deliberately violate my stated limits about getting unsolicited
email from her.
I have asked her to stop. I have asked her ISP to stop her. So far,
nothing. she does as she pleases despite my public and private
protests. What a lousy person, unethical "adult" and a dangerous dom
she appears to be, eh?
What other recourse do I have? Is ther anything I can do to get he to
stop writing to me and telling me what a bad person she thinks I am?
[sarcasm on]
Please understand, I am absolutely *devastated* that she doesn't like me.
Really.
[sarcasm off]
I just wish she would take her opinions and leave me alone. I don't
care what she thinks of me. I don't want to know what she thinks about
anything, that's why I have the nutball killfiled.
Who will rid me of this meddlesome beast?
Leona Joy
with apologies to the Bard for that last comment.
--
The Lioness who kneels.
Nicole
If you don't want to receive email from someone, and telling them to
stop, reporting them, etc, isn't working...use your email filters.
They're usually located in your email preferences or options.
Sometimes ISP's don't take action on "email harassment" because they are
"email responses" to things you've posted in a public forum.
To boot, complaining because you said something bad about a person in a
public forum, and they had the audacity to be upset about it, may be
considered a "petty Usenet squabble" that the ISP doesn't want to get
involved in.
~IronWynch
MsKayNH
> Laura Goodwin is continuing to disregard
>and deliberately violate my stated limits about getting unsolicited
>email from her.
Leona, I have found something that has worked for me in the past in re: to
harrassment of this sort: consider sending Laura a reply to one of her letters
in which you specifically state that you will consider any further
correspondance from her to be harrassment...mentioning that you have made
serveral requests prior and so on. CC the letter to yourself and save it.
After that, if she sends further mail, you can attach it to your saved letter
and send it to the appropriate ISPs.
This has worked for me in the past...sort of a (non) -paper trail.
Good luck,
Kay
~~~
If you ever teach a yodeling class, probably the hardest thing is to keep the
students from just trying to yodel right off. You see, we build to that.
--Jack Handy
<<remove "nospam" from my address to write or reply>>
Laura Goodwin
> I have asked her to stop. I have asked her ISP to stop her. So far,
> nothing. she does as she pleases despite my public and private
> protests. What a lousy person, unethical "adult" and a dangerous dom
> she appears to be, eh?
I am formally asking you to stop abusing me in this manner in the open
newsgroup. I promise to never again email you courtesy copies of my
usenet posts.
--
As Mother Mary Harris Jones would say: "FIGHT LIKE HELL!"
Laura Goodwin
Fighting like hell for your rights since 1983
Laura Goodwin
>
> Hello All, Leona here,
>
> Well, loathe as I am to bring her name up and make her the center of
> attention (I suspect that might be why she did this, as I think if it,
> and deliberately violate my stated limits about getting unsolicited
> email from her.
Perhaps you are right. I have forwarded your comments to my attorney
for his evaluation.
LadyGold
LadyGold (at) planetarydefense (dot) org
On 7 Jun 1999 20:42:39 -0700,
le...@omit.these.four.words.heathen.com wrote:
>What other recourse do I have? Is ther anything I can do to get he to
>stop writing to me and telling me what a bad person she thinks I am?
As MsKayNH suggested, send her an e-mail or even a copy of a
usenet posting requesting her to stop. I'd copy her ISP as well.
I'll forward to you privately the name of a human at her ISP who
has been very helpful to me.
Beyond that - use a kill filter. If you have Pegasus, you can set
up one that will forward the mail to her ISP and then delete it
from your computer automagically. <g>
LadyGold, High Sheriff of Nettingham, OCF
--
"The secret of being miserable is to have leisure to bother about whether
you are happy or not. The cure for it is occupation."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Katharine Hawks
wrote:
>LaGoo:
>
>>I promise to never again email you courtesy
>>copies of my usenet posts.
>
>Considering I've also asked you =never=
>to email me and I continue to get email from
>you, how 'bout putting that little promise up
>here on the group for me to save to a file also.
>
>That way, next time you go on one of your
>posting frenzies and forget the other times
>you've said you would not email, I can use it.
heheh... My favorite "courtesy copies of usenet posts" are the
snide remarks sent in email, which, for some shocking reason,
never seem to propogate on usenet....
--Katharine
****************************************
General Purpose Pervert
Caution: Contents Under Pressure
*****************************************
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Chicago, Illinois
le...@omit.these.four.words.heathen.com
>Leona wrote in part:
>> Laura Goodwin is continuing to disregard
>>and deliberately violate my stated limits about getting unsolicited
>>email from her.
>Leona, I have found something that has worked for me in the past in re: to
>harrassment of this sort: consider sending Laura a reply to one of her letters
>in which you specifically state that you will consider any further
>correspondance from her to be harrassment...mentioning that you have made
>serveral requests prior and so on. CC the letter to yourself and save it.
>After that, if she sends further mail, you can attach it to your saved letter
>and send it to the appropriate ISPs.
Tried that, didn't work.
>This has worked for me in the past...sort of a (non) -paper trail.
This has not worked for me with LaLoonie.
She does not seem to possess enough integrity nor self control to stop
violating my limits.
I am not mad at LaLoonie. I pity her, and I want her to stop.
Leona Joy
le...@omit.these.four.words.heathen.com
>Just some advice...please don't take offense.
>If you don't want to receive email from someone, and telling them to
>stop, reporting them, etc, isn't working...use your email filters.
>They're usually located in your email preferences or options.
>Sometimes ISP's don't take action on "email harassment" because they are
>"email responses" to things you've posted in a public forum.
Before you go off half cocked about this as well, LaLoonie sent me
email about something I said about someone else. I have that nutball
killfiled, so there is no way I would be responding to what she
posts.
>To boot, complaining because you said something bad about a person in a
>public forum, and they had the audacity to be upset about it, may be
>considered a "petty Usenet squabble" that the ISP doesn't want to get
>involved in.
And being harassed by private unsolicited email is not an ethical
thing to do, but who cares as long as she is sympathetic to you, huh
Nicole?
And believe me, you all don't know what she or her subbie hubbie has
sent to me in unsolicited private email. I don't want to talk to her,
her Brucie, or anyone who sends vulgar private email to me without my
prior approval (grin to those who have my approval).
That this will probably go over your head is I guess inevitable.
Leona Joy
yes, I'm not being nice to you, but send me email, and I'l report your
ass for harassement, too.
=Jaguar=
>I am not mad at LaLoonie. I pity her, and I want her to stop.
Gee ... just how we all feel about you. :*)
=Jaguar=
Daniel B. Holzman
<le...@omit.these.four.words.heathen.com> wrote:
>
>>> Laura Goodwin is continuing to disregard
>>>and deliberately violate my stated limits about getting unsolicited
>>>email from her.
>
>>Leona, I have found something that has worked for me in the past in re: to
>>harrassment of this sort: consider sending Laura a reply to one of her letters
>>in which you specifically state that you will consider any further
>>correspondance from her to be harrassment...mentioning that you have made
>>serveral requests prior and so on. CC the letter to yourself and save it.
>>After that, if she sends further mail, you can attach it to your saved letter
>>and send it to the appropriate ISPs.
>
>Tried that, didn't work.
If her ISP won't get her to stop, speak to the ISP's upstream provider.
--
LawLess
: >LaGoo:
: >>I promise to never again email you courtesy
: >>copies of my usenet posts.
: heheh... My favorite "courtesy copies of usenet posts" are the
: snide remarks sent in email, which, for some shocking reason,
: never seem to propogate on usenet....
Strange, how often LaLoser manages to forget to -post- those snide
remarks she's only "courtesy copying" people.
She wants to act like neurotic, narcissistic bitch in public (Usenet)
without having people respond in public, while keeping certain things
in email that wouldn't support the image she thinks she's presenting
to the public.
Laura - just a reminder - I've told you to stop sending your harassing
email to me several times now. I've sent complaints to your ISPs about
it, and in the future I shall continue to publicly post any such email
you send my way, and will forward them to the relevant ISPs as examples
of email harassment, akin to harassing phone calls.
For instance - latest "courtesy copy" received from laura :
(which, strangely, didn't seem to make it to Usenet)
---- Bulk of Headers Snipped ------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 22:03:13 -0400
From: Laura Goodwin <lal...@altavista.net>
Newsgroups: soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm
To: kla...@netvision.net.il
CC: LawLess <law...@links.magenta.com>
Subject: Re: Comments and a FLAME/proposal - Re: LadyGold's attack.
LawLess wrote:
>
> Nicole (kla...@netvision.net.il) wrote:
> : By the way...I may well be a bitch, but I'm not your bitch, so I'd
> : appreciate it if you would at least afford me the same respect that I
> : afford you, and not call me anything other than my name or alias.
> But yes, I'll accord you the same respects, IronWynch : just color me
> 'enemy' though and keep in mind that I don't believe in limitting
> reckonings to an eye for an eye.
That's true, IronWynch. Lawless believes in pulling out all the stops,
and attacking without respite, even when the battle is unjust and the
result can't be anything but shit.
FWIW, Lawless is in essence a big blowhard who is ultimately powerless.
The second you stop caring about his disapproval, he evaporates like
morning dew in the sun. My advice? Don't sweat it. He tried for a
solid year, with the help of some friends, to discredit me, and he
spared nothing. I was forced to endure unimaginable attacks in SSBB
against my honor and intentions, with everything I said here being
interpreted in the most uncharitable way possible, and worse. In the
end, nothing came of it.
Lawless's influence is not nearly so grand a thing as he would like you
to fear it is. :) Relax. :)
-------------------------------------
--
-- \_awless is : Chase Vogelsberg | SSBB Undiplomatic Corps, Tampa
-- Wormwood and wine, and the bitter taste of ashes. \ ICQ #19100721
LawLess
: I have asked her to stop. I have asked her ISP to stop her. So far,
: nothing. she does as she pleases despite my public and private
: protests. What a lousy person, unethical "adult" and a dangerous dom
: she appears to be, eh?
: What other recourse do I have? Is ther anything I can do to get he to
: stop writing to me and telling me what a bad person she thinks I am?
Could do what I've already done - notify her, publicly, that any email
sent will be forwarded to her ISPs -and- reposted publicly on SSBB.
I, of course, am of the opinion that it's ethical to do so once you've
given notice that you would, especially as it -is- harassing email and
the sender has been notified that there is no grounds for expectations
of confidentiality.
As her ISPs (cyberzone and altavista) haven't bothered to respond at
all to complaints, I've taken to informing the upstream providers of
the situation as well.
Note that, if she knows her petty insults will be revealed to the
newsgroup at large, she nominally loses the incentive to privately
email them. That is, if she were all there and reasoning things out.
Regards,
WhyNot789
>Leona Joy wrote:
>
>: What other recourse do I have? Is ther anything I can do to get
>: he to stop writing to me and telling me what a bad person she
>: thinks I am?
>
>Could do what I've already done - notify her, publicly, that any
>email sent will be forwarded to her ISPs -and- reposted publicly
>on SSBB. <snip>
It all depends on whether you want to fight a crusade or not
over this topic. If you want to fight a crusade - go ahead,
complain to her ISP, go upstream, post her email here, have
a couple of fits a day and all the rest of it.
I'm too lazy myself, and I'm not for fighting crusades about
such a topic anyway. In a situation like this I'd simply use
AOL's parental controls to block all emails coming from
the address concerned. Now, if *even* AOL has such killfile possibilities for
email, I'm sure your email programme has
them as well.
It saves my time, it's no hassle at all, and I can rest in peace.
Altogether a more attractive idea than fighting a crusade,
don't you think so?
Hans
le...@omit.these.four.words.heathen.com
[snip of wonderful advice to ignore LaLoonie]
>It saves my time, it's no hassle at all, and I can rest in peace.
>Altogether a more attractive idea than fighting a crusade,
>don't you think so?
*wry smile* It has it's very definite attractions. And I like how you
think.
I will sit awhile and ponder the saying; "the opposite of love is not
hate, it's indifference".
Thanks for the fresh perspective, Hans.
Leona Joy
le...@omit.these.four.words.heathen.com
>Leona Joy wrote:
>: I have asked her to stop. I have asked her ISP to stop her. So far,
>: nothing. she does as she pleases despite my public and private
>: protests. What a lousy person, unethical "adult" and a dangerous dom
>: she appears to be, eh?
>:
>: What other recourse do I have? Is ther anything I can do to get he to
>: stop writing to me and telling me what a bad person she thinks I am?
>Could do what I've already done - notify her, publicly, that any email
>sent will be forwarded to her ISPs -and- reposted publicly on SSBB.
>I, of course, am of the opinion that it's ethical to do so once you've
>given notice that you would, especially as it -is- harassing email and
>the sender has been notified that there is no grounds for expectations
>of confidentiality.
Great Idea.
Laura Goodwin: do not send me any more email of any kind anytime
anywhere for any reason. I will post any and all email sent to me and
send it upstream to your providers and *their* providers (thanks to
those of you who helped) as further documentation of your ongoing
harassment of me.
>As her ISPs (cyberzone and altavista) haven't bothered to respond at
>all to complaints, I've taken to informing the upstream providers of
>the situation as well.
Noted and in process. Thanks for the advice.
>Note that, if she knows her petty insults will be revealed to the
>newsgroup at large, she nominally loses the incentive to privately
>email them. That is, if she were all there and reasoning things out.
Really? Kewl.
But then again, there's that rationality thang (or the obvious lack
thereof) to consider. She seems to need a great deal more than anyone
here can give her.
Leona Joy
when I'm not feeling annoyed, I feel sad for Laura, and I wonder
what happened to make her change into this sorry creature.
le...@omit.these.four.words.heathen.com
>LaGoo:
Like it.
>>I promise to never again email you courtesy
>>copies of my usenet posts.
Wow, she said that?
>Considering I've also asked you =never=
>to email me and I continue to get email from
>you, how 'bout putting that little promise up
>here on the group for me to save to a file also.
>That way, next time you go on one of your
>posting frenzies and forget the other times
>you've said you would not email, I can use it.
I can't help but wonder how many other folks she has been
doing this to. You, me, Lawless, who else?
We must be vewwy scawwy monsters.
Leona Joy
Scawwy Monster
TyMeDwn1st
>law...@links.magenta.com (LawLess) wrote:
>
>>Leona Joy wrote:
>>
>>: What other recourse do I have? Is ther anything I can do to get
>>: he to stop writing to me and telling me what a bad person she
>>: thinks I am?
>>
>>Could do what I've already done - notify her, publicly, that any
>>email sent will be forwarded to her ISPs -and- reposted publicly
>>on SSBB. <snip>
>
>It all depends on whether you want to fight a crusade or not
>over this topic. If you want to fight a crusade - go ahead,
>complain to her ISP, go upstream, post her email here, have
>a couple of fits a day and all the rest of it.
>
>I'm too lazy myself, and I'm not for fighting crusades about
>such a topic anyway. In a situation like this I'd simply use
>AOL's parental controls to block all emails coming from
>the address concerned. Now, if *even* AOL has such killfile possibilities for
>email, I'm sure your email programme has
>them as well.
>
>It saves my time, it's no hassle at all, and I can rest in peace.
>Altogether a more attractive idea than fighting a crusade,
>don't you think so?
nodnodnod. Works for me just fine -- don't ever see stuff I'm not interested
in and get to save my energy for the things and people I find appealing.
Ty
Who is mostly just
a slightly skewed
Donna Reed
Official Depooty of the Sheriff of Nettingham's Charter Enforcers
(To reply via email, simply remove my pearls...)
Jason Crowell
Hey, what the hell are you doing outside of my killfile? Oh well, bye-bye
again, Jaggy.
*PLONK* (again)
>=Jaguar=
--
It's good to have a job where you've got a button marked "Zot!".
fimbulvetr, Erol's Abuse Minion in news.admin.net-abuse.email
Nicole
le...@omit.these.four.words.heathen.com wrote:
>
> Nicole <kla...@netvision.net.il> writes:
>
> >Just some advice...please don't take offense.
>
> >If you don't want to receive email from someone, and telling them to
> >stop, reporting them, etc, isn't working...use your email filters.
> >They're usually located in your email preferences or options.
> >Sometimes ISP's don't take action on "email harassment" because they are
> >"email responses" to things you've posted in a public forum.
>
> Before you go off half cocked about this as well, LaLoonie sent me
> email about something I said about someone else. I have that nutball
> killfiled, so there is no way I would be responding to what she
> posts.
...but, um, she may be responding to something that *you* said...which
is what I said...
> >To boot, complaining because you said something bad about a person in a
> >public forum, and they had the audacity to be upset about it, may be
> >considered a "petty Usenet squabble" that the ISP doesn't want to get
> >involved in.
>
> And being harassed by private unsolicited email is not an ethical
> thing to do, but who cares as long as she is sympathetic to you, huh
> Nicole?
Well, caring is one of those things that, for me, requires similar
reciprocation. If I thought you really gave a rat's arse about me, I'd
give you some actual help...but for the meantime, you're stuck with
self-help, which is what I was trying to convince you to do.
Mail filters...use the mail filters...
> And believe me, you all don't know what she or her subbie hubbie has
> sent to me in unsolicited private email. I don't want to talk to her,
> her Brucie, or anyone who sends vulgar private email to me without my
> prior approval (grin to those who have my approval).
"Unsolicited" would deem "out of the blue" with no invitation or
provokation. You certainly have provoked Laura...in public. So, I'm
not understanding why you seem to want symathy instead of using the ways
within your means to stop receiving the email.
Were it me, I wouldn't send you email, but I'm a more strategic thinker,
and tend not to care what the personal feelings of people who consider
me worthless are. Someone else out there, though, might be in a similar
situation, so the information was provided for the good of someone else
in that situation, really...
> That this will probably go over your head is I guess inevitable.
::no comment, in light of the first paragraph and all::
> Leona Joy
> yes, I'm not being nice to you, but send me email, and I'l report your
> ass for harassement, too.
Oh please...Have I ever?
~IronWynch
Xiphias Gladius
> le...@omit.these.four.words.heathen.com wrote:
>>
>> Hello All, Leona here,
>>
>> Well, loathe as I am to bring her name up and make her the center of
>> attention (I suspect that might be why she did this, as I think if it,
>> and deliberately violate my stated limits about getting unsolicited
>> email from her.
> Perhaps you are right. I have forwarded your comments to my attorney
> for his evaluation.
Could I have your lawyer's name and contact information? Mainly out of
curiosity. I'm wondering what zir specialty is.
- Ian
--
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ian
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
Nicole
LawLess wrote:
> She wants to act like neurotic, narcissistic bitch in public (Usenet)
> without having people respond in public, while keeping certain things
> in email that wouldn't support the image she thinks she's presenting
> to the public.
Well well...how people do tend to get upset when the tables turn...but
no matter.
You seem to want to act like a childish, male chauvanist, bag of hot air
(or text) and still want people to see you as productive *and*
submissive. I'm searching my heart, and not finding much sympathy in
it...sorry...
As different as Laura's tactics might be from my own...I can't really
say that I blame her. That's not justification (as that's not up to me,
but rather her ISP, which has, apparently, made a similar assessment of
the situation). It's just that I don't see how anyone as textually
abusive as you expects someone other than other textually abusive people
to have any sympathy.
~IronWynch
Nicole
le...@omit.these.four.words.heathen.com wrote:
> Leona Joy
> when I'm not feeling annoyed, I feel sad for Laura, and I wonder
> what happened to make her change into this sorry creature.
Um...suggestion...
The public notice should be more formal, and devoid of insults (if you
can manage it). Otherwise, it, in itself, could be "incriminating"
enough for the ISP to disregard your complaints.
Just a suggestion...
~IronWynch
Nicole
WhyNot789 wrote:
> I'm too lazy myself, and I'm not for fighting crusades about
> such a topic anyway. In a situation like this I'd simply use
> AOL's parental controls to block all emails coming from
> the address concerned. Now, if *even* AOL has such killfile possibilities for
> email, I'm sure your email programme has
> them as well.
>
> It saves my time, it's no hassle at all, and I can rest in peace.
> Altogether a more attractive idea than fighting a crusade,
> don't you think so?
>
> Hans
Thank you...I probably didn't present the idea in the best way. Thank
you for getting her to listen...
~IronWynch
Jenn
names....you'll get put in time-out if you don't behave.
I'm amazed that a bunch of grown adults (note the omission of the word
"mature" here) can sit here and squabble like a bunch of preschoolers.
Grow up a little. Filter it and get over it.
Duske
Kook Monitor
Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
>Could I have your lawyer's name and contact information? Mainly out of
>curiosity. I'm wondering what zir specialty is.
Heh, heh, heh... Serion's 7th Law of Internet Conflict: When
somebody talks about taking an online quarrel to an attorney, it's
prima facie evidence that either there is no lawyer (tinl), or there
is a lawyer and he'll be happy to take the quarreler's money while
making comforting sounds, or the lawyer is some friend's
brother-in-law wondering "Why me?"
Regards, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitor
Staying up much too late these days, considering the cabal went to bed
hours ago!
Tom Robertson
>>
>> Nicole (kla...@netvision.net.il) wrote:
>> : By the way...I may well be a bitch, but I'm not your bitch, so I'd
>> : appreciate it if you would at least afford me the same respect that I
>> : afford you, and not call me anything other than my name or alias.
>
>> But yes, I'll accord you the same respects, IronWynch : just color me
>> 'enemy' though and keep in mind that I don't believe in limitting
>> reckonings to an eye for an eye.
LawLess, have you ever considered the possibility that you'll never
have a happy relationship until you stop being so full of hatred and
so vindictive? I notice some of the people you attack, such as Laura,
referring to their happy relationships, but I don't recall ever
reading anything like that from you. I suggest your "(more than an)
eye for an eye" approach to life be upgraded to a "the best revenge is
a happy, successful life" approach.
Snow
<lal...@altavista.net> wrote:
>> Well, loathe as I am to bring her name up and make her the center of
>> attention (I suspect that might be why she did this, as I think if it,
>> attention slut that she is), Laura Goodwin is continuing to disregard
>> and deliberately violate my stated limits about getting unsolicited
>> email from her.
>
>Perhaps you are right. I have forwarded your comments to my attorney
>for his evaluation.
You are considering legal action about a usenet posting like that?
Muahahaha you just can't be serious...
- snow -
Serion Ironcroft
use...@jaglair.com (=Jaguar=) wrote, in part:
>Gee ... just how we all feel about you. :*)
|raised eyebrow|
Define "we all," kemo sabe...
Regards, Serion
Laura Goodwin
> "Unsolicited" would deem "out of the blue" with no invitation or
> provokation. You certainly have provoked Laura...in public.
Thank you! It's true!
> ...So, I'm
> not understanding why you seem to want symathy instead of using the ways
> within your means to stop receiving the email.
I won't email her "courtesy copies" anymore. That's been proclaimed.
BTW, my ISP administrator, Sean, sez: "I don't care how you people spank
yourselves!" ROFL! ;)
Laura Goodwin
> LawLess, have you ever considered the possibility that you'll never
> have a happy relationship until you stop being so full of hatred and
> so vindictive?
Thank you! I agree. People who are obviously so obsessed with the
negative don't have much energy left for anything positive.
=Jaguar=
"We all" = Me and all those who feel the same.
OK, Tonto?
=Jaguar=
NightStalker DarkChild
>>LawLess wrote:
>>>
>>> Nicole (kla...@netvision.net.il) wrote:
>>> : By the way...I may well be a bitch, but I'm not your bitch, so I'd
>>> : appreciate it if you would at least afford me the same respect that I
>>> : afford you, and not call me anything other than my name or alias.
>>
>>> But yes, I'll accord you the same respects, IronWynch : just color me
>>> 'enemy' though and keep in mind that I don't believe in limitting
>>> reckonings to an eye for an eye.
> LawLess, have you ever considered the possibility that you'll never
> have a happy relationship until you stop being so full of hatred and
> so vindictive? I notice some of the people you attack, such as Laura,
> referring to their happy relationships, but I don't recall ever
> reading anything like that from you. I suggest your "(more than an)
> eye for an eye" approach to life be upgraded to a "the best revenge is
> a happy, successful life" approach.
Tom, have you ever considered that there are those of us out there that are
generally sub but would top/dom Lawless in a minute should he choose to show
an interest in that? [1] I mean, come on. I don't see Lawless as having that
much trouble getting whatever he would want.
I know that I and mine *certainly* get a bang out of him and look for his
flames. They're wonderful.
Lawless, for the most part, doesn't talk about relationships. A lot of us
don't. At least not the specifics. So what? That doesn't mean they don't
exist, aren't happy, or have problems that are insurmountable.
I have a successful, happy life. I also think that an eye for an eye
doesn't go far enough in many cases. The two have nothing to do with the
other.
[1] Obligatory, shameless flirt. (So sue me, I haven't done one in a while.
:)
moonlight - SSB Diplomatic Corps, Kansas City, MO
She runs back down the hallway and through the bedroom door.
She reaches for the pistol kept in the dresser drawer.
Tells the lady in the mirror, he won't do this again.
Cause tonight will be the last time she'll wonder where he's been.
-Garth Brooks, "The Thunder Rolls"
skyd...@kc.net
Tanguero
>Lawless, for the most part, doesn't talk about relationships. A lot of us
>don't. At least not the specifics. So what? That doesn't mean they don't
>exist, aren't happy, or have problems that are insurmountable.
Actually, I'd be most likely to doubt the happiness or success of the
relationship(s) of someone who incessantly and irrelevantly kept
repeating how happy and successful his or her relationship(s) was/were.
NightStalker DarkChild
There's that, too. One must forgive that gushing in a new relationship
status. Once a certain point is reached, though, some of that.....gushing
should have worn off. Sure, you can say nice things, be in love and all of
that....but it usually settles into something other than a person nattering
on about it all the time.
Shalon Wood
> Sockermom9 <socke...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Moolight wrote:
>
> >>Tom, have you ever considered that there are those of us out there that are
> >>generally sub but would top/dom Lawless in a minute should he choose to show
> >>an interest in that? [1]
>
> >>[1] Obligatory, shameless flirt. (So sue me, I haven't done one in a while.
> >>:)
>
> > You bitch!! No fair getting there first! I wanna do Lawless! I want to see
> > if he can keep coming up with new insults as long as I can do a good
> > flogging--I think I'll record the session!
>
> *heh* Them's the breaks, Lynn. Sucks to be you. I got there first. So
> there. Maybe we can work out a sharing option if you're *reeeeeeally* nice.
> And if you provide the video camera. :)
Hey! I've got something that will work as a video camera...share?
Shalon
Akasha
I'm not a sub, but I'd dominate Lawless, too.
Err, wait a minute. That didn't come out quite right. But you get my
drift.
On 14 Jun 1999 16:43:52 GMT, law...@links.magenta.com (LawLess)
wrote:
>NightStalker DarkChild wrote:
>: Tom, have you ever considered that there are those of us out there
>: that are generally sub but would top/dom Lawless in a minute should he
>: choose to show an interest in that? [1] I mean, come on. I don't see
>: Lawless as having that much trouble getting whatever he would want.
>
>I -am- flattered. And certainly if I should have the misfortune *g* of
>being out Kansas City way (or if I should get an invitation out that way)
>I'll be delighted to look up you and yours, what with having been somewhat
>acquainted with some of y'all for some time, and what with y'all seeming
>like intelligent, interesting and "together" kinds of folks.
>
>But, sadly, I -do- have considerable trouble getting some things I want,
>I confess. For example, I want good beer, and that's perishingly hard to
>come by in this dreary state. ;->
>
>Regards and salutations,
Sockermom9
>Tom, have you ever considered that there are those of us out there that are
>generally sub but would top/dom Lawless in a minute should he choose to show
>an interest in that? [1]
>[1] Obligatory, shameless flirt. (So sue me, I haven't done one in a while.
>:)
You bitch!! No fair getting there first! I wanna do Lawless! I want to see
if he can keep coming up with new insults as long as I can do a good
flogging--I think I'll record the session!
Lynn
New to the world of submission? Check out http://members.aol.com/oldrope/ for
some thoughts for newcomers from those who've been there and decided to stick
around.
NightStalker DarkChild
> Moolight wrote:
>>Tom, have you ever considered that there are those of us out there that are
>>generally sub but would top/dom Lawless in a minute should he choose to show
>>an interest in that? [1]
>>[1] Obligatory, shameless flirt. (So sue me, I haven't done one in a while.
>>:)
> You bitch!! No fair getting there first! I wanna do Lawless! I want to see
> if he can keep coming up with new insults as long as I can do a good
> flogging--I think I'll record the session!
*heh* Them's the breaks, Lynn. Sucks to be you. I got there first. So
there. Maybe we can work out a sharing option if you're *reeeeeeally* nice.
And if you provide the video camera. :)
There's an idea. A new Olympic Sport. Well, two, really. "Lawless
Flogging" combined with "Marathon Flaming".
Do you think it would be a summer or winter sport?
(Does this qualify as another shameless flirt? Gawd. that would be a
record for me...twice in one day...)
Xiphias Gladius
> LawLess, have you ever considered the possibility that you'll never
> have a happy relationship until you stop being so full of hatred and
> so vindictive? I notice some of the people you attack, such as Laura,
> referring to their happy relationships, but I don't recall ever
> reading anything like that from you. I suggest your "(more than an)
> eye for an eye" approach to life be upgraded to a "the best revenge is
> a happy, successful life" approach.
Let's see. There are four sets here:
1 2
People who LawLess attacks People who Lawless attacks
Who mention their happy relationships Who don't mention happy relations
3 4
People who Lawless doesn't attack People who Lawless doesn't attack
WHo mention happy relationships WHo don't mention happy relations
For your theory to be accurate, Categories 2 and 3 would have to be largely
empty.
Otherwise, it's likely to be meaningless coincidence.
Jason Crowell
snip
>You bitch!! No fair getting there first! I wanna do Lawless! I want to see
>if he can keep coming up with new insults as long as I can do a good
>flogging--I think I'll record the session!
Hmm...that could be an extremely long session, I'd bet he could probably go,
oh three or four days solid before he even started into cusswords, think you
could go that long? 8-)
>Lynn
>
>
>New to the world of submission? Check out http://members.aol.com/oldrope/ for
>some thoughts for newcomers from those who've been there and decided to stick
>around.
>
--
NightStalker DarkChild
> NightStalker DarkChild <skyd...@tortugas.idir.net> writes:
>> Sockermom9 <socke...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > if he can keep coming up with new insults as long as I can do a good
>> > flogging--I think I'll record the session!
>>
>> there. Maybe we can work out a sharing option if you're *reeeeeeally* nice.
>> And if you provide the video camera. :)
> Hey! I've got something that will work as a video camera...share?
Hmmm...do I hold a bidding war, or do I make it a group project....sort of
like "What I did over my summer vacation..."
LadyGold
LadyGold (at) planetarydefense (dot) org
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 01:09:22 GMT, NightStalker DarkChild
<skyd...@tortugas.idir.net> wrote:
>*heh* Them's the breaks, Lynn. Sucks to be you. I got there first.
Weeeeelllll.... not exactly. You see Lawless and I were both in
Chicago at Katie's party.
But I've promised not to talk about what went on that morning with
three in a bed. oopsie... maybe that's too much already. oh,
well... <g>
LadyGold, High Sheriff of Nettingham, OCF
--
"Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be
restrained." -- William Blake
Sockermom9
>There's an idea. A new Olympic Sport. Well, two, really. "Lawless
>Flogging" combined with "Marathon Flaming".
>
>Do you think it would be a summer or winter sport?
It could be interesting, either way. But I've read Lawless' flames--don't try
it on a frozen lake, or you'll just be providing the rest of the Winter sports
nuts a new hot tub.
And in summer there's the problem of heatstroke...
Lynn
Sockermom9
>Weeeeelllll.... not exactly. You see Lawless and I were both in
>Chicago at Katie's party.
>
>But I've promised not to talk about what went on that morning with
>three in a bed. oopsie... maybe that's too much already. oh,
>well... <g>
Yanno, one of these days, LadyGold...one of these days...
<sigh> but she'd probably like it. <sigh>
Sockermom9
>Hmm...that could be an extremely long session, I'd bet he could probably go,
>oh three or four days solid before he even started into cusswords, think you
>could go that long? 8-)
Well, the *spirit* is willing.
LawLess
: LawLess, have you ever considered the possibility that you'll never
: have a happy relationship until you stop being so full of hatred and
: so vindictive? I notice some of the people you attack, such as Laura,
: referring to their happy relationships, but I don't recall ever
Since enough others responded to this I pulled it up from where my
devoted, loyal killfile left it, much to my loss. Thank you, Tom -
you've opened my eyes and enabled me to turn my life around. Right.
Now, you don't recall my posting about my happy relationships - had
you considered that I was being considerate of you, because I really
thought you might feel a bit awkward reading about your mother here,
but hey - that was a very happy relationship, definately five dollars
well spent. :)
BTW, Tom, you -do- realize that by posting assumptions about my
relationships you've opened up a whole new can of worms? Now your
relationships are fair game if I care to stoop that low; some nice
material in what you've posted about her feelings about how you
respond to her criticisms. I'm feeling happy, aren't you? *smile*
So far as my "being so full of hatred" and all, you make the same
mistaken type of assumptions the dumb bitch does - assuming that since
I sometimes attack you from time to time, I must be full of bile and
hatred. In her case, she thinks that because I attack her and Laura,
I'm misogynistic and mean to women. Fact is, I'm mean to individuals
I consider obnoxious, hypocritical and/or unlikable, and gender, race,
sexuality and the like really doesn't factor into it. Being as in my
personal life I'm just about as mean and confrontational to such types,
oddly enough, I don't have people like y'all -in- my personal life.
So - no hatred, no discontent, not even much vindictiveness even after
relationships go sour, when and if they do. As far as here goes, well,
I swat hornets when they get into my kitchen without any particular
sense of hatred - and sometimes when I swat lice and vipers in a
textual manner, sometimes, there isn't even any hatred involved there.
"I'll try to stop being mean when you stop being stupid and obnoxious."
Cheerio.
NightStalker DarkChild
Too true. So. Do you think we should make the BDSM Olympics a spring/fall
type of activity. Y'know....One year the Summer Olympics, the next the
Spring BDSM Olympics, the following the Winter Olympics, and then the Fall
BDSM Olympics....
Of course....this gives a whole new meaning to Bloodsports and
Watersports.........
Tom Robertson
>Tom Robertson <mdm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>LawLess wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Nicole (kla...@netvision.net.il) wrote:
>>>> : By the way...I may well be a bitch, but I'm not your bitch, so I'd
>>>> : appreciate it if you would at least afford me the same respect that I
>>>> : afford you, and not call me anything other than my name or alias.
>>>
>>>> But yes, I'll accord you the same respects, IronWynch : just color me
>>>> 'enemy' though and keep in mind that I don't believe in limitting
>>>> reckonings to an eye for an eye.
>
>> LawLess, have you ever considered the possibility that you'll never
>> have a happy relationship until you stop being so full of hatred and
>> so vindictive? I notice some of the people you attack, such as Laura,
>> referring to their happy relationships, but I don't recall ever
>> reading anything like that from you. I suggest your "(more than an)
>> eye for an eye" approach to life be upgraded to a "the best revenge is
>> a happy, successful life" approach.
>
>Tom, have you ever considered that there are those of us out there that are
>generally sub but would top/dom Lawless in a minute should he choose to show
>an interest in that? [1] I mean, come on. I don't see Lawless as having that
>much trouble getting whatever he would want.
Okay, so many people's kink is hatred. It isn't mine.
>I know that I and mine *certainly* get a bang out of him and look for his
>flames. They're wonderful.
Yes, they're very imaginative. And revealing.
>Lawless, for the most part, doesn't talk about relationships. A lot of us
>don't. At least not the specifics. So what? That doesn't mean they don't
>exist, aren't happy, or have problems that are insurmountable.
>
>I have a successful, happy life. I also think that an eye for an eye
>doesn't go far enough in many cases. The two have nothing to do with the
>other.
Sure. Parking tickets should reflect, not just the cost to society of
that particular infraction, but enough to make it unprofitable,
considering the chance of getting a ticket, to park illegally.
Believing that won't stop one from having a happy, successful life.
But enough personal hatred for illegal parkers will crowd out the
possibility of a happy, successful life. One is impersonal; the other
is personal. LawLess doesn't understand the significant difference.
>[1] Obligatory, shameless flirt. (So sue me, I haven't done one in a while.
>:)
>
>
>
NightStalker DarkChild
> NightStalker DarkChild wrote:
>>I know that I and mine *certainly* get a bang out of him and look for his
>>flames. They're wonderful.
> Yes, they're very imaginative. And revealing.
Ok, we can play this game. What do his flames tell you? What do they
reveal?
For my part, here's what Lawless' flames reveal to me:
1. A rapier sharp wit.
2. The brain that goes with said wit.
3. The backbone to say what he thinks.
4. The backbone to stnad *by* what he says and thinks.
5. Honesty.
6. Patience to a point.
7. Humor.
8. The ability to draw a line and say "Beyond this point, you have no clue,
are full of hot air, and should sit back and think about what you are
saying."
9. Strength.
10. And, last but certainly not least (And I'm sure there's more...) The
ability to defend his thoughts rather than give in when someone tries to
walk over him.
>>Lawless, for the most part, doesn't talk about relationships. A lot of us
>>don't. At least not the specifics. So what? That doesn't mean they don't
>>exist, aren't happy, or have problems that are insurmountable.
>>
>>I have a successful, happy life. I also think that an eye for an eye
>>doesn't go far enough in many cases. The two have nothing to do with the
>>other.
> Sure. Parking tickets should reflect, not just the cost to society of
> that particular infraction, but enough to make it unprofitable,
> considering the chance of getting a ticket, to park illegally.
> Believing that won't stop one from having a happy, successful life.
> But enough personal hatred for illegal parkers will crowd out the
> possibility of a happy, successful life. One is impersonal; the other
> is personal. LawLess doesn't understand the significant difference.
And newsgroup flames reflect on real life, how?
Or maybe you're trying to tell me that you're one of those saints that never
gets upset by how other people drive? You're the soul of patience perhaps?
Real people, in the real world, get angry, show their ire, yell at each
other, and then very often go out for coffee. That doesn't mean that they
don't have a perfectly happy life.
Besides. There is no such beast as a perfectly happy life. If you are
trying to say that those happy, successful people never flame, never yell,
never get upset, I'll tell you bullshit.
And please. Why don't you tell us about the personal experience that you
have that tells you that Lawless *doesn't* understand the "siginificant
difference" that you're speaking of. Obviously, we disagree on that.
Tom Robertson
>Tom Robertson wrote:
>: LawLess, have you ever considered the possibility that you'll never
>: have a happy relationship until you stop being so full of hatred and
>: so vindictive? I notice some of the people you attack, such as Laura,
>: referring to their happy relationships, but I don't recall ever
>: reading anything like that from you. [...]
>
>Since enough others responded to this I pulled it up from where my
>devoted, loyal killfile left it, much to my loss. Thank you, Tom -
>you've opened my eyes and enabled me to turn my life around. Right.
>
>Now, you don't recall my posting about my happy relationships - had
>you considered that I was being considerate of you, because I really
>thought you might feel a bit awkward reading about your mother here,
>but hey - that was a very happy relationship, definately five dollars
>well spent. :)
All right, now you've really stooped too low. That's "definitely."
Don't you have a spell-checker?
>BTW, Tom, you -do- realize that by posting assumptions about my
>relationships you've opened up a whole new can of worms? Now your
>relationships are fair game if I care to stoop that low; some nice
>material in what you've posted about her feelings about how you
>respond to her criticisms. I'm feeling happy, aren't you? *smile*
I'm quite happy to bring questions about my relationships into this
newsgroup for suggestions. Do you think your "can of worms" impresses
me any more than your other writing, the type of which I haven't heard
since junior high school? Go ahead, stoop even lower. I'd love to
hear your suggestions for how to improve my relationship. But is this
the closest you're going to come to referring to your own?
>So far as my "being so full of hatred" and all, you make the same
>mistaken type of assumptions the dumb bitch does - assuming that since
>I sometimes attack you from time to time, I must be full of bile and
>hatred.
If it was just me, I'd consider the possibility that the fault lies
with me. But ...
>In her case, she thinks that because I attack her and Laura,
In interrupting me, you helped make my point.
>I'm misogynistic and mean to women. Fact is, I'm mean to individuals
>I consider obnoxious, hypocritical and/or unlikable, and gender, race,
>sexuality and the like really doesn't factor into it. Being as in my
>personal life I'm just about as mean and confrontational to such types,
>oddly enough, I don't have people like y'all -in- my personal life.
>
>So - no hatred, no discontent, not even much vindictiveness even after
>relationships go sour, when and if they do. As far as here goes, well,
>I swat hornets when they get into my kitchen without any particular
>sense of hatred - and sometimes when I swat lice and vipers in a
>textual manner, sometimes, there isn't even any hatred involved there.
Really? I thought you were proud of your hatred. In denying it, did
you have the following examples, of countless to choose from, in
mind?:
These were some references to me that you made:
“Well, it (and he) are certainly simple in my book. But no, I don't
try to think about his posts - he's a liar, a hypocrit, a clueless
twit, and a wanna-be economist. I -really- don't want to grok him, I
don't want to find a "common heart", unless that means that stabbing
someone local would cause him harm.”
At the bottom of this article was one of your E-Mail addresses:
I lived in the Seattle area, which I had made known in the newsgroup
before this article, and, while shopping around for Internet access
providers, I remember calling a _local_ company, eskimo.com. I wonder
what you might have meant by your desire of “stabbing someone local.”
...
“I also wish that for Christmas, Santa would visit a particular
vermin's residence in Canada and allow his eight reindeer to trample
Wulf into a bleeding moaning mass of broken flesh, all the while
calling out in a deep cheerful voice, "On Prancer, .. On Comet and
Vixen!"“
...
“if a single word from me stood between your death, and the deaths of
your family, I'd stand by and watch in silent regard as the
intelligence of the race was driven a bit higher. If ethics were an
inheritable thing, product of genes, I'd be watching the ethics of the
race climb as well.
If you and Nicole were on fire and I needed to piss, I'd burst my
bladder as I enjoyed the scent of meat burning before I'd do
-anything- that might put out the fire, save perhaps for tossing
spirits on you to revive you if you fainted.”
...
"And in person, it wouldn't matter either - some of the things he does
or says here would have him nursing bruises in the flesh, regardless
of whether or not he meant them seriously."
I'm glad I was wrong about believing that you hate Wulf, Laura,
Nicole, me, ...
>"I'll try to stop being mean when you stop being stupid and obnoxious."
You're so clever. I could never compete. At least not with your
non-obnoxiosity (? - hey, the spell-checker liked it!).
Tom Robertson
>Tom Robertson <mdm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> NightStalker DarkChild wrote:
>
>>>I know that I and mine *certainly* get a bang out of him and look for his
>>>flames. They're wonderful.
>
>> Yes, they're very imaginative. And revealing.
>
>Ok, we can play this game. What do his flames tell you? What do they
>reveal?
They reveal his inability to distinguish between people and what they
do, resulting in a destructive and contagious willingness to wish
people ill for nothing more than disagreeing with him.
>For my part, here's what Lawless' flames reveal to me:
>
>1. A rapier sharp wit.
>2. The brain that goes with said wit.
>3. The backbone to say what he thinks.
>4. The backbone to stnad *by* what he says and thinks.
>5. Honesty.
>6. Patience to a point.
>7. Humor.
>8. The ability to draw a line and say "Beyond this point, you have no clue,
> are full of hot air, and should sit back and think about what you are
> saying."
>9. Strength.
>10. And, last but certainly not least (And I'm sure there's more...) The
> ability to defend his thoughts rather than give in when someone tries to
> walk over him.
Wow! You're acting like a member of a fan club. I see much of the
positives that you mention, but you don't see anything negative about
saying that he'd love to see certain people burned to death, as
painfully as possible, and that he would love to stab me. I do. No
matter what Wulf, Laura, Nicole, I, etc., etc., have written, his
hatred is far worse.
>>>Lawless, for the most part, doesn't talk about relationships. A lot of us
>>>don't. At least not the specifics. So what? That doesn't mean they don't
>>>exist, aren't happy, or have problems that are insurmountable.
>>>
>>>I have a successful, happy life. I also think that an eye for an eye
>>>doesn't go far enough in many cases. The two have nothing to do with the
>>>other.
>
>> Sure. Parking tickets should reflect, not just the cost to society of
>> that particular infraction, but enough to make it unprofitable,
>> considering the chance of getting a ticket, to park illegally.
>> Believing that won't stop one from having a happy, successful life.
>> But enough personal hatred for illegal parkers will crowd out the
>> possibility of a happy, successful life. One is impersonal; the other
>> is personal. LawLess doesn't understand the significant difference.
>
>And newsgroup flames reflect on real life, how?
How don't they? They reveal the author's character.
>Or maybe you're trying to tell me that you're one of those saints that never
>gets upset by how other people drive? You're the soul of patience perhaps?
I don't see the relevance. We're discussing whether personal hatred
is an appropriate response to a disagreement of opinion. You and
LawLess believe it is. I disagree. How did this get turned around to
how I react to how other people drive? If I reacted with violent
hatred towards anyone who irritated me while I was driving, would it
then be justified?
>Real people, in the real world, get angry, show their ire, yell at each
>other, and then very often go out for coffee. That doesn't mean that they
>don't have a perfectly happy life.
And?
>Besides. There is no such beast as a perfectly happy life. If you are
>trying to say that those happy, successful people never flame, never yell,
>never get upset, I'll tell you bullshit.
And?
>And please. Why don't you tell us about the personal experience that you
>have that tells you that Lawless *doesn't* understand the "siginificant
>difference" that you're speaking of. Obviously, we disagree on that.
I wouldn't know where to begin. I was once trying to teach someone
something that he was having trouble with. Repeatedly, he would ask
me what the answer was, and I tried various approaches to get him to
be able to know the answer for himself. LawLess hates me for, among
other reasons, his belief that I am "stupid." This person was much
more stupid than even I am, and yet I never insulted or ridiculed him.
I never hurt his feelings, which may have been a mistake in the other
direction, since the way I did it was rather futile and he may have
needed more of a kick in the pants, but we remained on good terms.
LawLess "despises" me for, as far as I can tell, his perception that
I'm wrong about something having to do with relationships. I'm saying
that that is a destructive response to a perception of someone being
wrong. It certainly hasn't changed any opinion I have, and it has
unnecessarily made us enemies. Wouldn't it have been better to
patiently explain to me how I was wrong? I'm willing to listen. He
still hasn't done so, or even tried, as far as I can remember,
preferring, rather the cowardly cop-out of calling me a "troll." He
is the typical fundamentalist - arrogantly believing that his way is
the only true way, and that anything that disagrees with him is to be,
not understood, but violently opposed.
Kook Monitor
<382eb65f....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, mdm...@worldnet.att.net
(Tom Robertson) wrote:
>They reveal his inability to distinguish between people and what they
>do, resulting in a destructive and contagious willingness to wish
>people ill for nothing more than disagreeing with him.
|bzzzzt| Wrong. Apparent comprehension failure.
>No matter what Wulf, Laura, Nicole, I, etc., etc., have written, his
>hatred is far worse.
|bzzzzt| Wrong again. Lawless posts his feelings right up front so
you can read them. He doesn't sneak around in email whining about
people who disagree with him. What Lawless does is called "honesty."
>How don't they? They reveal the author's character.
|bzzzzt| Only if the reader is capable of assessing character. Some
can, some can't. Sometimes it's obvious.
>And?
|bzzzzt| More apparent comprehension failure.
>And?
|bzzzzt| And again.
>I wouldn't know where to begin.
|bzzzzt| Probably true, but also an overt non-response, as judged by
a 20+ line comment that never really actually addressed the actual
question.
Bottom line is that it's pretty clear that Tom doesn't like Lawless'
style. That doesn't make Lawless a Bad Guy any more than it makes Tom
a Sage.
Given the choice between the two, I prefer an Honest Opinion, however
forcefully expressed, over a Polite Dissembly anytime.
Regards, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitor
Signing off tonight for the Official Usenet Cabal...
William December Starr
mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) said:
> LawLess "despises" me for, as far as I can tell, his perception that
> I'm wrong about something having to do with relationships. I'm saying
> that that is a destructive response to a perception of someone being
> wrong. It certainly hasn't changed any opinion I have, and it has
> unnecessarily made us enemies. Wouldn't it have been better to
> patiently explain to me how I was wrong? I'm willing to listen. He
> still hasn't done so, or even tried, as far as I can remember,
> preferring, rather the cowardly cop-out of calling me a "troll." He
> is the typical fundamentalist - arrogantly believing that his way is
> the only true way, and that anything that disagrees with him is to be,
> not understood, but violently opposed.
But Tom, you _are_ a troll.
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
lady angel
William December Starr <wds...@crl.com> wrote in message
news:7jt68r$n...@crl3.crl.com...
i have read a number of posts that call or refer to someone as a troll.
Could someone please tell me what exactly is a troll? i know that may seem a
stupid question, but i honestly do not understand the troll concept vs
regular NG poster.
lady angel~slave to Lord Panther
Bob Mc
wrote of a poster being called a troll:
lady angel:
>i have read a number of posts that call or refer to someone as a troll.
>Could someone please tell me what exactly is a troll? i know that may seem a
>stupid question, but i honestly do not understand the troll concept vs
>regular NG poster.
Bob:
Troll is a subjective & pejorative term. There's a well written and
funny, *how* to troll on-line manual at:
http://www.urban75.com/Mag/troll.html
Think of an office politician who is contributing nothing to the group
effort but doing a concerted job of trying to create discord and have
folks pointing fingers at each other. This, btw, doesn't mean I do
or don't agree the individual named in the original post is a troll.
I haven't given it enough thought.
Give *The Art of Trolling* a read. It's quite good, imo.
Bob Mc.
Kook Monitor
wds...@crl.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>But Tom, you _are_ a troll.
|laughing| Well, there *is* that, of course.
Regards, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitor
Considering putting Tom on the Cabal's "Confirmed Sighting" troll
list.
Kook Monitor
<Csc83.137$C%2....@newsfeed.slurp.net>, NightStalker DarkChild
<skyd...@tortugas.idir.net> wrote:
>For my part, here's what Lawless' flames reveal to me:
>
>1. A rapier sharp wit.
>2. The brain that goes with said wit.
>3. The backbone to say what he thinks.
>4. The backbone to stnad *by* what he says and thinks.
>5. Honesty.
>6. Patience to a point.
>7. Humor.
>8. The ability to draw a line and say "Beyond this point, you have no clue,
> are full of hot air, and should sit back and think about what you are
> saying."
>9. Strength.
>10. And, last but certainly not least (And I'm sure there's more...) The
> ability to defend his thoughts rather than give in when someone tries to
> walk over him.
Not to mention that he's an all-around good guy - in real life as well
as cyber.
In my experience, people prone to self-obsessive trolling are usually
so busy pretending to be important that they don't recognize The Real
Thing when it shows up.
|Doffing my cap in salute to Lawless, who is one of the Real
Important People around here.|
Regards, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitoring
Monitoring SSBB kooks for the OUC, even as we type.
shining-one{WH}
*chuckle*
--
shining-one{WH}
property of her beloved Master Whiphand
feel free to reply to shining...@hotmail.com
(wondering who the two big leather dykes on her doorstep last night were
...)
Steven S. Davis
[ A warning to women and children from Michigan not to read this
article, as it contains language which it is illegal for you to
be exposed to (sad USAian humor referring to an even sadder legal
case in Michigan; I'm surely glad that I live in a state where you
can tell a woman what you're doing to her while you fuck her) ]
Kook Monitor (kookm...@usa.net) wrote:
: On 12 Jun 1999 01:37:47 -0700, in message <7jt68r$n...@crl3.crl.com>,
: wds...@crl.com (William December Starr) wrote:
:
: >But Tom, you _are_ a troll.
:
: |laughing| Well, there *is* that, of course.
Well, if I had an odd fondness for lemurs and was inclined
to the creation of alt groups [*], I'd be a lot more inclined
to create alt.fan.lawless and alt.bonehead.tom-robertson than
I would be to create alt.fan.tom-robertson and alt.bonehead.lawless
I've had more than a couple newsgroup run-ins with Tom Robertson,
and I have to admit that many of his articles recall for me an
old Saturday Night Live sketch in which (IIRC) Steve Martin and
Bill Murray stood looking off-camera while they kept trying to
decide, unsuccessfully, "What the hell is that ?". I look at
some of his statements and feel as much bewilderment as they
were so repeatedly expressing.
But, that said, if he is a troll I have to wonder if he isn't
an extraordinarily clever and benign one, because the comments
he makes, however thoroughly bizarre they often seem to me,
do generate some excellent responses which illuminate wiitwd
(what it is that we do). Granted it's often by making statements
which are, IMO, very, very far from the truth(s) of wiitwd that this
illumination results, but it does result, and that must be considered
a valuable service.
[*] Actually, Joel Furr has reformed and doesn't newgroup
so many alt groups these days
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
The SSB Homepage: http://www.phszx81.demon.co.uk/ssb/
The ASB/SSB Welcome: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/wel.htm
My homepage: http://links.magenta.com/lmnop/users/sd/sd.html
Steven S. Davis
Tom Robertson (mdm...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: NightStalker DarkChild wrote:
: >Ok, we can play this game. What do his flames tell you? What do they
: >reveal?
:
: They reveal his inability to distinguish between people and what they
: do,
Everyone will sometimes engage in some aberrant behavior
(ah, "aberrant" in this case being used to mean behavior
that is deviant from what is the norm for a particular
individual). But over time, what one does *is* what one is.
[ Of course, people will not always agree on what it is
that one does ]
If one persistently behaves in a certain way, then that is
what one is (in part), and that what one thinks of oneself,
or claims for oneself, or wishes for oneself does not alter
that fact.
I have never in my life forgiven anyone. Not because I'm
vicious and vindictive (though I am that, in part) but rather
because when I do condemn someone (which is something that,
appearences notwithstanding, I infrequently do) it isn't
because of anything that zie did, but because of what zir
actions have convinced me that zie is.
Tom Robertson
>In article <382eb65f....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) said:
>
>> LawLess "despises" me for, as far as I can tell, his perception that
>> I'm wrong about something having to do with relationships. I'm saying
>> that that is a destructive response to a perception of someone being
>> wrong. It certainly hasn't changed any opinion I have, and it has
>> unnecessarily made us enemies. Wouldn't it have been better to
>> patiently explain to me how I was wrong? I'm willing to listen. He
>> still hasn't done so, or even tried, as far as I can remember,
>> preferring, rather the cowardly cop-out of calling me a "troll." He
>> is the typical fundamentalist - arrogantly believing that his way is
>> the only true way, and that anything that disagrees with him is to be,
>> not understood, but violently opposed.
>
>But Tom, you _are_ a troll.
In the sense that I focus more on disagreement than on agreement, yes.
If I agree with the majority, I see it as a waste of time to say so,
at least in the context of a newsgroup. But in the sense of
deliberately trying to arouse opposition, no. That ill will, rather
than constructive discussion, is the response of the majority to
something it disagrees with is its fault, not that of those who
disagree with the majority. I see 3 possible results of my expressing
disagreement with the majority - they will show me how I was wrong, I
will show them how they were wrong, or the discussion will degenerate
into name-calling. A troll wants the latter to happen. I want either
of the former 2 to happen, and I don't particularly care which of the
2 it is. I find ill will frustrating, not so much because it hurts my
feelings, but because it frustrates my desire for discussion. A while
back, I was asked for examples of situations in which a "flame-fest"
was caused by the majority, rather than an individual who was out of
line. I've often been disappointed with how certain individuals have
responded to the ill will they have received in this newsgroup and its
predecessor for disagreeing with the majority. But, primarily due to
my experience, I doubt if there has ever been an example of an
individual who has started the ill will. I'd be willing to bet that
it has always been at the initiative of the majority.
Tom Robertson
Like the time when I wrote that someone dying of a drug overdose was
evidence of addiction, and you disagreed? Your point seemed to be
that, since not all people who die of drug overdoses were addicted,
dying of an overdose is not evidence of addiction. But this overlooks
the fact that all evidence involves probability. That the type of
blood that was found at the scene of Ron and Nicole's murder matched
O. J.'s blood type is evidence that he did it, that it might have been
the blood of someone else with the same type notwithstanding. Does
that still seem bizarre to you?
>do generate some excellent responses which illuminate wiitwd
>(what it is that we do). Granted it's often by making statements
>which are, IMO, very, very far from the truth(s) of wiitwd that this
>illumination results, but it does result, and that must be considered
>a valuable service.
>
>
>
>[*] Actually, Joel Furr has reformed and doesn't newgroup
> so many alt groups these days
>
>
>
>
Tom Robertson
>On Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:54:44 GMT, in message
><382eb65f....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, mdm...@worldnet.att.net
>(Tom Robertson) wrote:
>
>>They reveal his inability to distinguish between people and what they
>>do, resulting in a destructive and contagious willingness to wish
>>people ill for nothing more than disagreeing with him.
>
> |bzzzzt| Wrong. Apparent comprehension failure.
>
>>No matter what Wulf, Laura, Nicole, I, etc., etc., have written, his
>>hatred is far worse.
>
> |bzzzzt| Wrong again. Lawless posts his feelings right up front so
>you can read them. He doesn't sneak around in email whining about
>people who disagree with him. What Lawless does is called "honesty."
You see it as a virtue to hope that someone, because s/he has
expressed an opinion with which one disagrees or which one regards as
"stupid," die a painful death, and to honestly express that hope?
Would you ever see honesty as a vice? Is it never possible to be too
honest? I define tact as limiting the expression of truth, even
lying, for the sake of good will. Is tact never a virtue?
>>How don't they? They reveal the author's character.
>
> |bzzzzt| Only if the reader is capable of assessing character. Some
>can, some can't. Sometimes it's obvious.
>
>>And?
>
> |bzzzzt| More apparent comprehension failure.
That's right. I failed to see the relevance of the comment.
>
>>And?
>
> |bzzzzt| And again.
Ditto.
>>I wouldn't know where to begin.
>
> |bzzzzt| Probably true, but also an overt non-response, as judged by
>a 20+ line comment that never really actually addressed the actual
>question.
I doubt if I understood the question. I probably should have asked
for clarification.
>Bottom line is that it's pretty clear that Tom doesn't like Lawless'
>style.
I don't like Charles Manson's "style," either. Do you? He is about
as honest and as in love with violence and hatred as LawLess is.
>That doesn't make Lawless a Bad Guy any more than it makes Tom
>a Sage.
>
>Given the choice between the two, I prefer an Honest Opinion, however
>forcefully expressed, over a Polite Dissembly anytime.
>
>Regards, Serion
>Volunteer Kook Monitor
Tom Robertson
>
>Tom Robertson (mdm...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>: NightStalker DarkChild wrote:
>
>: >Ok, we can play this game. What do his flames tell you? What do they
>: >reveal?
>:
>: They reveal his inability to distinguish between people and what they
>: do,
>
>
>Everyone will sometimes engage in some aberrant behavior
>(ah, "aberrant" in this case being used to mean behavior
>that is deviant from what is the norm for a particular
>individual). But over time, what one does *is* what one is.
>
> [ Of course, people will not always agree on what it is
> that one does ]
>
>If one persistently behaves in a certain way, then that is
>what one is (in part), and that what one thinks of oneself,
>or claims for oneself, or wishes for oneself does not alter
>that fact.
>
>
>I have never in my life forgiven anyone. Not because I'm
>vicious and vindictive (though I am that, in part) but rather
>because when I do condemn someone (which is something that,
>appearences notwithstanding, I infrequently do) it isn't
>because of anything that zie did, but because of what zir
>actions have convinced me that zie is.
You may be more tolerant if you believed that the only possible cause
of differences between people are their different circumstances. If
two people faced an identical situation, and one chose one way to
respond to it and the other chose another way, what would account for
that difference? Is the simple idea of free will really at the bottom
of it? Believing that people, at their deepest level (if there is
such a thing), are different from each other, strikes me as being
analogous to believing that there is a fundamental physical building
block. The theory that there is no such thing, along with the theory
that, at root, people are identical, makes more sense to me. If this
theory is true, then in trying to point to what someone "is" in a way
that is different from the way other people are, you'll always be
pointing at an illusion. Believing this is why I am so opposed to
labels, such as calling someone who has lied a "liar" or calling
someone who has been hypocritical a "hypocrite." Labels imply a
purity of the quality that is being described which rules out the
existence of its opposite. But "liars" are often truthful. "Idiots"
are often correct. "Bumblers" often succeed. It's all a matter of
degree.
lady angel
Bob Mc <gwg...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:375fd941...@news.edmonton.telusplanet.net...
> Bob:
> Troll is a subjective & pejorative term. There's a well written and
> funny, *how* to troll on-line manual at:
>
> http://www.urban75.com/Mag/troll.html
>
> Think of an office politician who is contributing nothing to the group
> effort but doing a concerted job of trying to create discord and have
> folks pointing fingers at each other. This, btw, doesn't mean I do
> or don't agree the individual named in the original post is a troll.
> I haven't given it enough thought.
>
> Give *The Art of Trolling* a read. It's quite good, imo.
>
> Bob Mc.
Thank you, Bob.*S* i just saw your post and was happy to get a response. i
saw the website and i agree that it was funny.*S* Thanks for the info and
clarification.
LadyGold
LadyGold (at) planetarydefense (dot) org
On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 07:26:42 GMT, mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom
Robertson) wrote:
> I define tact as limiting the expression of truth, even
>lying, for the sake of good will. Is tact never a virtue?
Not if it involves lying. And seldom if it means being less than
truthful.
Or as Jessamyn West said,
"I've done more harm by the falseness of trying to please,
than by the honesty of trying to hurt."
To put it another way, if the only way I can have someone's "Good
Will" is by not telling them the truth, then I don't want it.
Tom Robertson
>WARNING: Do not reply directly to this post. Instead send mail to
>LadyGold (at) planetarydefense (dot) org
>
>On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 07:26:42 GMT, mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom
>Robertson) wrote:
>
>> I define tact as limiting the expression of truth, even
>>lying, for the sake of good will. Is tact never a virtue?
>
>Not if it involves lying. And seldom if it means being less than
>truthful.
Could you give me an example of tact that doesn't involve being less
than completely truthful?
>Or as Jessamyn West said,
>
>"I've done more harm by the falseness of trying to please,
>than by the honesty of trying to hurt."
>
>To put it another way, if the only way I can have someone's "Good
>Will" is by not telling them the truth, then I don't want it.
I infer that you would never disapprove of embarrassing someone or
calling attention to faults. What if there are many people at a party
at a beach, and you noticed that a certain woman's makeup has smudged.
Would you feel no qualms about announcing "look at how that lady looks
like shit" to everyone, or might you believe that it would be better
not to call attention to it? Isn't it more honest to say what you
think about it? Would you say that if the only way you can have her
friendship is if you don't embarrass her and insult her, you don't
want it? How about that time when Don Imus was invited to a social
function with President Clinton, and called attention to how he had
cheated on Hillary? That was truthful. Was it necessarily therefore
good? I thought I was the last person to realize that truth and
goodness don't always coincide.
lady angel
Tom Robertson <mdm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:386e28fc....@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
<snip of LadyGold's post>
> I infer that you would never disapprove of embarrassing someone or
> calling attention to faults. What if there are many people at a party
> at a beach, and you noticed that a certain woman's makeup has smudged.
> Would you feel no qualms about announcing "look at how that lady looks
> like shit" to everyone, or might you believe that it would be better
> not to call attention to it? Isn't it more honest to say what you
> think about it?
<snip>
i just wanted to address this example.*S* Actually, i would take her aside
privately and tell her that her makeup was smudged, so that she could redo
it.
lady angel~slave to Lord Panther
~slinking away~
Tom Robertson
>On Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:54:44 GMT, in message
><382eb65f....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, mdm...@worldnet.att.net
>(Tom Robertson) wrote:
>
>>They reveal his inability to distinguish between people and what they
>>do, resulting in a destructive and contagious willingness to wish
>>people ill for nothing more than disagreeing with him.
>
> |bzzzzt| Wrong. Apparent comprehension failure.
>
>>No matter what Wulf, Laura, Nicole, I, etc., etc., have written, his
>>hatred is far worse.
>
> |bzzzzt| Wrong again. Lawless posts his feelings right up front so
>you can read them. He doesn't sneak around in email whining about
>people who disagree with him. What Lawless does is called "honesty."
Let's say person A writes that "all submission is sexual." Let's say
person B believes that some submission is sexual and some isn't.
Let's say person B truthfully responds to what person A has written by
writing "person A, because you believe that all submission is sexual
and have written something with which I disagree, I hope you die a
painful death, and I'd love to help you die." You are saying that
your primary response to person B's post is to praise it for how
honest it was. While agreeing that an expression of hatred should be
assumed to be honest, I am saying that person B's post reveals a
destructive insecurity (or perhaps, assuming the majority agrees with
person B that not all submission is sexual, a cowardly sheep mentality
taken to a ridiculous extreme) in person B. That your response seems
to be the norm in this newsgroup tells me something about the "BDSM
community." If, rather than expressing disapproval of such ugly
hatred, it admires it for its honesty and imagination, maybe it
deserves at least whatever fear and persecution it gets from
mainstream society.
Tom Robertson
>In article <382eb65f....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) said:
>
>> LawLess "despises" me for, as far as I can tell, his perception that
>> I'm wrong about something having to do with relationships. I'm saying
>> that that is a destructive response to a perception of someone being
>> wrong. It certainly hasn't changed any opinion I have, and it has
>> unnecessarily made us enemies. Wouldn't it have been better to
>> patiently explain to me how I was wrong? I'm willing to listen. He
>> still hasn't done so, or even tried, as far as I can remember,
>> preferring, rather the cowardly cop-out of calling me a "troll." He
>> is the typical fundamentalist - arrogantly believing that his way is
>> the only true way, and that anything that disagrees with him is to be,
>> not understood, but violently opposed.
>
>But Tom, you _are_ a troll.
If, by "troll," you mean someone who is willing to disagree with the
majority, then anyone who isn't a troll is a coward.
LawLess
: I don't see the relevance. We're discussing whether personal hatred
: is an appropriate response to a disagreement of opinion. You and
Presuming that I "hate" you, and Laura, and Nicole, and others, you
really ought to learn to comprehend that it isn't on account of a
difference of opinion : I have major differences of opinion on a
regular basis without hating the other person : Dog knows I've had
occasion to flame people because the differences of opinion were so
heated. Yet I doubt if Bob King (most recently), or Arrow Blue, or
Ian or Trinity, to name a few, would think that I hated them or that
I confused despising what they advocated with despising them.
: I wouldn't know where to begin. I was once trying to teach someone
: something that he was having trouble with. Repeatedly, he would ask
: me what the answer was, and I tried various approaches to get him to
: be able to know the answer for himself. LawLess hates me for, among
: other reasons, his belief that I am "stupid." This person was much
: more stupid than even I am, and yet I never insulted or ridiculed him.
Ah, that person on the gambling mail list. Tom, I don't loath you on
account of you being stupid, nor on account of your often assinine
beliefs about relationships, submission, or even hatred. Is it so very
difficult for you to understand that my loathing is based on personal
traits that you evidence, that it's because you are a type of person I
despise, and that you time and again display those traits?
Sniping at spelling - that'd be an incredibly minor example of it.
Hint - there's an operating system called Unix, and while there are
spell checkers, they really don't coordinate well with all the various
newsreaders and editors. Your sanctimoniousness - farcical as it is,
given that you condemn -my- behaviors while comparing me elsewhere to
Charles Manson. Let's see - have I murdered anyone that you know of,
Mr Robertson? Certainly I've never killed anyone simply for my kicks,
as Manson and his crew did. But you compare me to him, all the while
bemoaning my habits of character assassination.
*grin* So, you've been worried about me ever since back when I was on
Eskimo, eh? Must be a horrible existence, being so easily frightened,
to the point where you collect my more colorful words relating to
violence, albeit you've missed some. But actually, I can somehow
picture you in bed late at night, sharpening your pencil as you think
about me and my words for a nicely twisted erotic thrill. So, Tom,
how many times have you gotten off while thinking about me?
Kook Monitor
<38604f7e....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, mdm...@worldnet.att.net
(Tom Robertson) wrote what appear to be some serious questions:
>You see it as a virtue to hope that someone, because s/he has
>expressed an opinion with which one disagrees or which one regards as
>"stupid," die a painful death, and to honestly express that hope?
Yes. I don't agree necessarily with Lawless' choice of words, but I
respect him for making his honest feelings clear.
>Would you ever see honesty as a vice?
Perhaps, but *very* rarely. Just like physical force, honesty can be
used intentionally as a bludgeon. Had Lawless written what he did
without provocation, I would probably have taken issue with him. But
he had plenty of provocation, and I think the response was entirely
appropriate.
>Is it never possible to be too honest?
Honesty is honesty; you're either honest or you're not, hm?
>I define tact as limiting the expression of truth, even
>lying, for the sake of good will. Is tact never a virtue?
Not under that definition; not if it involves lying.
>I doubt if I understood the question. I probably should have asked
>for clarification.
Probably so. Seemed pretty clear to me.
>I don't like Charles Manson's "style," either. Do you? He is about
>as honest and as in love with violence and hatred as LawLess is.
And you figured out all that from his strenuous objection to being
attacked and harassed by some of the cutesy kissy-face twits around
here? Why not just call Lawless a Gestapo agent so we can end this
thread, hm?
Regards, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitor
Godwin R Us Division, Kook Central Registry, Official Usenet Cabal
Kook Monitor
<38706083....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, mdm...@worldnet.att.net
(Tom Robertson) wrote:
>Let's say person A writes that "all submission is sexual."
No, let's suppose that person A posts a commercial post in SSBB,
thereby violating the charter.
>Let's say person B believes that some submission is sexual and some isn't.
No, let's next suppose that person A tries to bluster through the
situation by slamming the newsgroup's rules and the people who help
enforce them. And let's say person B speaks up strongly in defense of
those people.
>Let's say person B truthfully responds to what person A has written by
>writing "person A, because you believe that all submission is sexual
>and have written something with which I disagree, I hope you die a
>painful death, and I'd love to help you die."
[1] Tom left out the part where person A more or less viciously
attacks person B by making a complaint to person B's ISP, while
"tactfully" failing to mention that it was a public NG post, not
email.
[2] Tom also left out the part about person A and person C forming a
tag team in email to snipe at person B, apparently with the express
intention of provoking a response.
>your primary response to person B's post is to praise it for how
>honest it was. While agreeing that an expression of hatred should be
>assumed to be honest, I am saying that person B's post reveals a
>destructive insecurity (or perhaps, assuming the majority agrees with
>person B that not all submission is sexual, a cowardly sheep mentality
>taken to a ridiculous extreme) in person B.
As I said before: [3] "Only if the reader is capable of assessing
character. Some can, some can't. Sometimes it's obvious." In this
case, it's pretty obvious that Tom is missing a few marbles in the
ring when it comes to assessing character from NG posts.
>That your response seems to be the norm in this newsgroup tells
>me something about the "BDSM community."
See [3] above. Also see statements here in SSBB by the FF and other
trolls to the effect that SSBB explicitly does *not* represent the
"BDSM community." Tom and the other trolls really need to get their
acts synchronized, eh?
>If, rather than expressing disapproval of such ugly
>hatred, it admires it for its honesty and imagination, maybe it
>deserves at least whatever fear and persecution it gets from
>mainstream society.
What, is this "Tommy's Grandiose Unified Theory of the Relationship
between BDSM and the Mainstream Society" or something?
I'd be interested in what the perpetrator of an egregious charter
violation and subsequent attacks on a long-standing NG subscriber
might somehow "deserve" from "mainstream society" under this theory,
eh?
What Tom probably should have noticed (see [3] above) is that this
episode did not happen in a vacuum, and cannot be dissected as if it
had been. In actual fact, the initial provocation was clearly
malicious. Lawless' response was likewise clear, but also honest, and
in my opinion, well justified.
Regards, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitor
Not planning to waste a witty remark tonight on Tom.
Bob Mc
Robertson) wrote, following liberal snipping:
Tom:
> A while back, I was asked for examples of situations in which a "flame-fest"
> was caused by the majority, rather than an individual who was out of
> line. I've often been disappointed with how certain individuals have
> responded to the ill will they have received in this newsgroup and its
> predecessor for disagreeing with the majority. But, primarily due to
> my experience, I doubt if there has ever been an example of an
> individual who has started the ill will. I'd be willing to bet that
> it has always been at the initiative of the majority.
Bob:
IIRC this thread has involved whether calling a spade a, well, spade -
is honesty or hatred. It looks as if you are calling in a back hoe
with which to dig a much bigger hole, into which you unfortunately
seem intent upon leaping.
Sorry Tom, a bit of literary license to make a point. And you are
digging yourself a hole insofar as I am concerned. Who is/are this
majority? Do you mean the oft mentioned cabal, which we know doesn’t
exist. Do you mean the majority of all of us who post to ssbb? I’m
really hoping that I have simply not understood your point. You
certainly don’t mean to suggest that I, or others, allow our opinions
to be molded for us by anyone else, regardless of their stature or
longevity in this NG do you? I would hope not because that would be,
well, insulting. Extremely so. And that wouldn’t make any sense put
beside your pro-activity for civility and concern for the individual.
So, have I just read you wrongly?
-30-
Bob Mc.
Kook Monitor
<386e28fc....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, mdm...@worldnet.att.net
(Tom Robertson) wrote:
>Could you give me an example of tact that doesn't involve being less
>than completely truthful?
Well, I could, but others here have already done it, so I'm not going
to bother.
>I infer that you would never disapprove of embarrassing someone or
>calling attention to faults.
Seems to me that while drawing inferences, Tom might ponder the
possibility that there can be compassionate honesty as well as brutal
honesty. Both approaches are nevertheless honest, and there are
circumstances in which either one may be appropriate.
>Would you feel no qualms about announcing "look at how that lady looks
>like shit" to everyone, or might you believe that it would be better
>not to call attention to it?
Refer to answers posted by several other people.
>I thought I was the last person to realize that truth and
>goodness don't always coincide.
Unfortunately, Tom probably is *not* the last person to think that
dishonesty and goodness always coincide.
Goodnight, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitor
Zzzzzztinczzzzzz......
Laura Goodwin
> Yes. I don't agree necessarily with Lawless' choice of words, but I
> respect him for making his honest feelings clear.
Many people have complained about Lawless, but only the same few defend
and even praise his behavior, over and over. Oddly, they don't seem to
find similar behavior in others equally charming.
If you are going to respect "honesty" in whatever form, then respect
everybody's. Start with mine.
Here's my honesty: I'm in good company and speak for many when I say
that Lawless's unusually savage attacks are far beyond simple flaming
and are utterly contemptible to the final extreme, and must not be
tolerated. I also honestly feel that people who defend such thuggery
are deeply misguided, and ought to change their ways.
--
As Mother Mary Harris Jones would say: "FIGHT LIKE HELL!"
Laura Goodwin
Fighting like hell for your rights since 1983
lady angel
LawLess <law...@links.magenta.com> wrote in message
news:7k1r0b$hif$2...@links.magenta.com...
>
> *grin* So, you've been worried about me ever since back when I was on
> Eskimo, eh? Must be a horrible existence, being so easily frightened,
> to the point where you collect my more colorful words relating to
> violence, albeit you've missed some. But actually, I can somehow
> picture you in bed late at night, sharpening your pencil as you think
> about me and my words for a nicely twisted erotic thrill. So, Tom,
> how many times have you gotten off while thinking about me?
>
> --
> -- \_awless is : Chase Vogelsberg | SSBB Undiplomatic Corps, Tampa
> -- Wormwood and wine, and the bitter taste of ashes. \ ICQ #19100721
Thanks a lot, Lawless!!!!!*LOLOLOLOLOL* You made me laugh so hard that i
snorted my Lipton iced tea out of my friggin' nose! i had to clean my
monitor and my keyboard. And, my sides are hurting so bad that it hurts to
breathe!*LOLOLOLOL*
And, yes, the above description is gross. i apologize if anyone is too
grossed out, but it is true.*LOLOLOL*
lady angel~slave to Lord Panther
To reply directly to me, remove the kitty.*S*
--
~There are many who take life too seriously, but it isn't nothing that a
good vibrator won't fix!~
*****
Loving Differently
http://come.to/lovingdifferently
Tom Robertson
>Tom Robertson spewed:
>: I don't see the relevance. We're discussing whether personal hatred
>: is an appropriate response to a disagreement of opinion. You and
>: LawLess believe it is. I disagree. [....]
>
>Presuming that I "hate" you, and Laura, and Nicole, and others, you
>really ought to learn to comprehend that it isn't on account of a
>difference of opinion : I have major differences of opinion on a
>regular basis without hating the other person : Dog knows I've had
>occasion to flame people because the differences of opinion were so
>heated.
And others can't quit smoking. I guess we all have our weaknesses.
>Yet I doubt if Bob King (most recently), or Arrow Blue, or
>Ian or Trinity, to name a few, would think that I hated them or that
>I confused despising what they advocated with despising them.
>
>: I wouldn't know where to begin. I was once trying to teach someone
>: something that he was having trouble with. Repeatedly, he would ask
>: me what the answer was, and I tried various approaches to get him to
>: be able to know the answer for himself. LawLess hates me for, among
>: other reasons, his belief that I am "stupid." This person was much
>: more stupid than even I am, and yet I never insulted or ridiculed him.
>
>Ah, that person on the gambling mail list. Tom, I don't loath you on
>account of you being stupid, nor on account of your often assinine
asinine (or was that deliberate?)
>beliefs about relationships, submission, or even hatred. Is it so very
>difficult for you to understand that my loathing is based on personal
>traits that you evidence, that it's because you are a type of person I
>despise, and that you time and again display those traits?
No, besides how stupid and asinine I am, I don't see why you loathe
me. Is it because I want to impersonally discuss subjects that
interest me, whereas you want to get personal?
>Sniping at spelling - that'd be an incredibly minor example of it.
>Hint - there's an operating system called Unix, and while there are
>spell checkers, they really don't coordinate well with all the various
>newsreaders and editors.
You need more of a sense of humor.
>Your sanctimoniousness - farcical as it is,
>given that you condemn -my- behaviors while comparing me elsewhere to
>Charles Manson. Let's see - have I murdered anyone that you know of,
>Mr Robertson?
You have the spirit of a murderer. Given the confidence of getting
away with it, anyone who writes the way you do would commit murder.
Words mean things. My default is to take them literally.
>Certainly I've never killed anyone simply for my kicks,
>as Manson and his crew did. But you compare me to him, all the while
>bemoaning my habits of character assassination.
>
>*grin* So, you've been worried about me ever since back when I was on
>Eskimo, eh? Must be a horrible existence, being so easily frightened,
>to the point where you collect my more colorful words relating to
>violence, albeit you've missed some. But actually, I can somehow
>picture you in bed late at night, sharpening your pencil as you think
>about me and my words for a nicely twisted erotic thrill. So, Tom,
>how many times have you gotten off while thinking about me?
I thought I was in your dreaded "killfile." If you're hitting on me,
it's only fair to tell you that I'm spoken for. But you're right. I
shouldn't take threats so seriously. I hate what they tempt me to do,
and I really should avoid conflict more than I do. Having too much to
lose always puts me at such a disadvantage with those who don't.
Tom Robertson
>Geez, i don't believe this one!
>
>
>Tom Robertson offered opinions regarding Re: Tact and Honesty Re:
>Character assassination problem (Re: Email):
>
>
>>I infer that you would never disapprove of embarrassing someone or
>>calling attention to faults. What if there are many people at a party
>>at a beach, and you noticed that a certain woman's makeup has smudged.
>>Would you feel no qualms about announcing "look at how that lady looks
>>like shit" to everyone, or might you believe that it would be better
>>not to call attention to it?
>
>i would feel no qualms about telling the woman, quietly, that her
>makeup had smudged, and maybe she'd better take a look at it.
Why quietly? Why deprive everyone else of the truth?
>That
>your first guess is to ask a group of people to look and see how
>someone looks "like shit" seems to say a WHOLE bunch about you.
No, it says a whole bunch about what I perceive to be the best analogy
to the subject we're discussing, which is whether, while being honest,
there's any limit to how insulting someone can rightly be. I'm saying
there is, and I'm astonished to find that some say there isn't.
>>Isn't it more honest to say what you
>>think about it? Would you say that if the only way you can have her
>>friendship is if you don't embarrass her and insult her, you don't
>>want it?
>
>Yes. There is a way to be tactful and honest.
Could you give an example of tact that doesn't require a limitation on
honesty?
>i'm glad i don't run
>in your circle. Sheesh!
>
>--
>kajira hill odal...@iols.net kaj...@magenta.com
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Happily owned by the best man in the universe!
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You must submit to supreme suffering in order to discover the
> completion of joy. -- John Calvin
Tom Robertson
>On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:08:38 GMT, in message
><386e28fc....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, mdm...@worldnet.att.net
>(Tom Robertson) wrote:
>
>>Could you give me an example of tact that doesn't involve being less
>>than completely truthful?
>
>Well, I could, but others here have already done it, so I'm not going
>to bother.
I must have missed them. Could you refer me to them?
<snip>
>>I thought I was the last person to realize that truth and
>>goodness don't always coincide.
>
>Unfortunately, Tom probably is *not* the last person to think that
>dishonesty and goodness always coincide.
You're being dishonest.
lady angel
<snip of kajira and Tom>
> Could you give an example of tact that doesn't require a limitation on
> honesty?
She did and you responded to it: Quote of kajira- "i would feel no qualms
about telling the woman, quietly, that her makeup had smudged, and maybe
she'd better take a look at it."
Tact and honesty. Tact= doing it quietly. Honesty= being truthful that her
makeup was smudged.
Your response to what she said: "Why quietly? Why deprive everyone else of
the truth?"
Ummmm Hmmmmmm......
LawLess
: You bitches b crazy.
:
: And I'd like "got there first" defined please.
: ::: sweet smile ::::
*chuckle* Does seem like Trystilarn could claim "pride of place" on this
particular "firstness". ;-)
NightStalker DarkChild
> LawLess wrote:
>>Ah, that person on the gambling mail list. Tom, I don't loath you on
>>account of you being stupid, nor on account of your often assinine
> asinine (or was that deliberate?)
Oh, look. Such a cute little spelling flame. My, goodness. You're
working right up the levels of flaming, there, Tom.
Good god. Don't you have anything *better* to pick on than the spelling
of words? If you can't figure out how to flame someone decently, it's
better to keep your mouth shut that flame spelling and show everyone how
completely petty and stupid one really is.
moonlight - SSB Diplomatic Corps, Kansas City, MO
She runs back down the hallway and through the bedroom door.
She reaches for the pistol kept in the dresser drawer.
Tells the lady in the mirror, he won't do this again.
Cause tonight will be the last time she'll wonder where he's been.
-Garth Brooks, "The Thunder Rolls"
skyd...@kc.net
Kook Monitor
<37649162...@altavista.net>, Laura Goodwin
<lal...@altavista.net> wrote:
>Here's my honesty: I'm in good company and speak for many when I say
>that Lawless's unusually savage attacks are far beyond simple flaming
>and are utterly contemptible to the final extreme, and must not be
>tolerated. I also honestly feel that people who defend such thuggery
>are deeply misguided, and ought to change their ways.
Seems to me that the operative words here are "I'm in good company and
speak for many." I read that to mean that Laura feels a need somehow
to justify her comments to others.
Obviously, her stated opinions are perfectly acceptable, but how shall
we know if they're really *her* opinions, and not just part of the
overall game she and her cronies seem to be playing here in SSBB?
Judging by the role Laura appears to have played in the attack on
Lawless, I would guess that her definitions of "honesty" and
"thuggery" differ greatly from mine.
Regards, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitor
|this line intentionally left blank|
LawLess
: Lawless:
: >Your sanctimoniousness - farcical as it is, given that you condemn
: >-my- behaviors while comparing me elsewhere to Charles Manson. Let's
: >see - have I murdered anyone that you know of, Mr Robertson?
:
: You have the spirit of a murderer. Given the confidence of getting
: away with it, anyone who writes the way you do would commit murder.
"The spirit of a murderer"? Yep, it's lovely seeing you live up to
the standards you keep preaching about. One of us is stooping, c'est
vraimante.[1] One of us isn't, given that I've not pretended to lofty
morals and ideals - and, fwiw, yes, there are circumstances under which
I would commit murder even knowing I wouldn't get away with it. It's
a rare human being that wouldn't.
BTW, Tom - there have been murderer's whose souls I'd be -proud- to
call my own, attempted murderer's as well. Von Stauffenberg[sp], for
instance.
: I thought I was in your dreaded "killfile." [...]
You were, but it only seemed right and proper to read your responses to
me, under the circumstances. Waste of time though, and a waste of NG
traffic as well - not much to do with BDSM, nor particularly amusing to
the general audience. Ciao.
And Tom? May you have -just- the life you deserve.
[1] So my foreign languages generally suck, at least (or especially)
in the written form.
LawLess
: Tom, have you ever considered that there are those of us out there
: that are generally sub but would top/dom Lawless in a minute should he
: choose to show an interest in that? [1] I mean, come on. I don't see
: Lawless as having that much trouble getting whatever he would want.
I -am- flattered. And certainly if I should have the misfortune *g* of
being out Kansas City way (or if I should get an invitation out that way)
I'll be delighted to look up you and yours, what with having been somewhat
acquainted with some of y'all for some time, and what with y'all seeming
like intelligent, interesting and "together" kinds of folks.
But, sadly, I -do- have considerable trouble getting some things I want,
I confess. For example, I want good beer, and that's perishingly hard to
come by in this dreary state. ;->
Regards and salutations,
Steven S. Davis
Tom Robertson (mdm...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Steven S. Davis wrote:
: >But, that said, if he is a troll I have to wonder if he isn't
: >an extraordinarily clever and benign one, because the comments
: >he makes, however thoroughly bizarre they often seem to me,
:
: Like the time when I wrote that someone dying of a drug overdose was
: evidence of addiction, and you disagreed? Your point seemed to be
: that, since not all people who die of drug overdoses were addicted,
: dying of an overdose is not evidence of addiction. But this overlooks
: the fact that all evidence involves probability.
No. Evidence does not involve probability, it involves facts.
Interpretations of evidence will involve probability,
however.
Since death from drug overdose does not require drug addiction
(and drug addiction does not always or even usually result
in death from overdose) a death from a drug overdose is not
evidence of drug addiction.
It's suggestive of it, yes, in the same sense that meeting the
profile of a drug courier is suggestive that one is a drug
courier. But just as meeting a profile is *not*, repeat *not*
evidence, nor is it probable cause (a small hot button of mine),
however suggestive some police my find it, dying of a drug
overdose is not evidence of drug addiction.
: That the type of
: blood that was found at the scene [...] matched [suspects] blood type is
: evidence that he did it,
No, it's evidence that someone with that blood type was at the scene.
That is all that it is evidence of. That evidence may, with other
evidence, support a conclusion that he did it, but it is not evidence
that he did it. Don't confuse evidence with conclusions drawn from the
evidence.
: that it might have been
: the blood of someone else with the same type notwithstanding. Does
: that still seem bizarre to you?
That you consider the presence of blood of a certain type at
a crime scene - note that we're talking about blood types, not DNA
matches, which is another issue - as evidence that a specific person
did the crime does seem bizarre to me. It can be evidence that zie did
*not* commit the crime, and the fact that the evidence does not exclude
someone from consideration as a suspect is relevant data, but that
the blood at a crime scene matches a blood type evidences that a person
with that blood type was at the scene of the crime. It does not evidence
that any particular individual with that blood type did the crime.
NightStalker DarkChild
> NightStalker DarkChild wrote:
> : Tom, have you ever considered that there are those of us out there
> : that are generally sub but would top/dom Lawless in a minute should he
> : choose to show an interest in that? [1] I mean, come on. I don't see
> : Lawless as having that much trouble getting whatever he would want.
> I -am- flattered. And certainly if I should have the misfortune *g* of
*heh* I could go on for days how KC would be an improvement of the *last*
place that I was located, but I won't...It's been ages since I've been
down near Tampa, so I can't even *begin* to speculate which would be
"better"... :)
> being out Kansas City way (or if I should get an invitation out that way)
Dearest Lawless, I think that Tiger *alone* would be offended if you didn't
attempt to at least have dinner. :) I can't tell which of us gets a bigger
kick out of reading some of your stuff. He gets positively *GLEEFUL* when
he sees something from you. (So, yes, you can consider that a standing
invitation. I have plenty of room, even if the other part of the family is
somewhat cramped. If you can put up with a somewhat large, overlyfriendly,
rather *ahem* stupid dog and two cats. :)
> I'll be delighted to look up you and yours, what with having been somewhat
> acquainted with some of y'all for some time, and what with y'all seeming
> like intelligent, interesting and "together" kinds of folks.
Well, thank you. I'd like to think I'd been getting it more together of
late. :) The last couple of years have been....not so pleasant.
> But, sadly, I -do- have considerable trouble getting some things I want,
> I confess. For example, I want good beer, and that's perishingly hard to
> come by in this dreary state. ;->
Well, you can come sing that refrain with Tiger. Being a Canadian transplant,
apparently he misses "real" beer. Me, I stick to ciders. :)
TyMeDwn1st
>But, sadly, I -do- have considerable trouble getting some things I want,
>I confess. For example, I want good beer, and that's perishingly hard to
>come by in this dreary state. ;->
Hmmmm.... I'm pretty much a teetotaler myself, but I have been told the little
microbrewery places in *my* corner of the state are pretty good.
That was a clue, dear.
Ty
Who is mostly just
a slightly skewed
Donna Reed
Official Depooty of Sheriff of Nettingham's Charter Enforcers on SSBB
(To reply via email, simply remove my pearls...)
Steven S. Davis
: -=- kajira hill -=- wrote:
: >>I infer that you would never disapprove of embarrassing someone or
: >>calling attention to faults.
And if your inferences are wrong - as they are - would it be more
tactful that no one point this out, and allow you to proceed upon
false presumptions ?
: >> What if there are many people at a party
: >>at a beach, and you noticed that a certain woman's makeup has smudged.
: >>Would you feel no qualms about announcing "look at how that lady looks
: >>like shit" to everyone, or might you believe that it would be better
: >>not to call attention to it?
Either action would be cruelty, and neither would be truthful.
That a woman's makeup is smudged does not mean that she looks
like shit, but it is something which it would be a kindness
to bring to her attention. To be "tactful" and not bring it
to her attention in some manner (there are ways to accomplish
that w/o having to directly address the information to her;
for example, asking her to accompany one to the ladies room
where she might observe it for herself in the mirror), and thereby
allow her to appear in a manner she would not wish to before
an indefinite number of people before someone - perhaps cruelly -
brought it to her attention, would be quite unkind.
One of the many mistakes you are making is thinking that because
an ugly truth might need to be told to someone in an ugly fashion
that somehow that means that an unpleasant piece of data also
needs to be conveyed in an ugly fashion.
: >i would feel no qualms about telling the woman, quietly, that her
: >makeup had smudged, and maybe she'd better take a look at it.
:
: Why quietly? Why deprive everyone else of the truth?
They are all quite capable of seeing that her makeup is smudged.
There's only one person present who can't easily see that.
: >That
: >your first guess is to ask a group of people to look and see how
: >someone looks "like shit" seems to say a WHOLE bunch about you.
:
: No, it says a whole bunch about what I perceive to be the best analogy
: to the subject we're discussing,
Which does indeed say something about you. For example, it further
demonstrates your tendency to see matters in false dualities.
: which is whether, while being honest,
: there's any limit to how insulting someone can rightly be. I'm saying
: there is, and I'm astonished to find that some say there isn't.
You haven't found that. You've found that when presented with the
false choice of being unkind or untrue, brave and intelligent people
- those not willing to allow bad situations to remain due to their
own desire to wish to avoid an uncomfortable situation - opt for being
unkind, because when one is untrue one is also going to be unkind.
But as that isn't a choice that people must make - since it is very
often possible to be both truthful and kind (there is, however,
no way to kindly convey to someone the truth that she's at best
delusional and more probably a lying bitch) - your discovery isn't
very meaningful.
: >>Isn't it more honest to say what you
: >>think about it? Would you say that if the only way you can have her
: >>friendship is if you don't embarrass her and insult her, you don't
: >>want it?
I would say that anyone who can't hear the truth from me is someone
I don't want as a friend. And that anyone to whom I might need to
tell ugly truths about zirself is also someone that I would not seek
for a friend. But that if I had a friend who needed to be told an
ugly truth about zirself then I would tell her that truth though
it would hurt zir; if I wouldn't do so, well, then I wouldn't be
zir friend, just someone pretending to be zir friend.
: >Yes. There is a way to be tactful and honest.
:
: Could you give an example of tact that doesn't require a limitation on
: honesty?
You've already seen one. But to make it more clear to you, telling
someone "your makeup is smudged" when zir makeup is smudged requires
no limitation on honesty, as it's the simple statement of a fact
which informs the person of all that zie needs to know. You seem
to feel that the failure to also include other statements which
may also be true is a limitation on honesty. Arguably so, if the
statement is being made for the benefit of the speaker, in which
case it might perhaps be important to not only inform the person
that zir makeup is smudged but to also add one's opinion of that
fact. But since most of us are not quite so narcissistic as
to believe that how we feel about a fact carries equal weight
to the fact itself, few of us feel that the failure to add an
expression of our opinion concerning a fact when conveying factual
information constitutes a limitation on honesty.
Of course, if our opinion is the issue, as for example when she
see's the smudge in the mirror and tidies it and then asks if
it looks alright now, it would be dishonest not to say that it
still looks bad if she's asking for our assessment and our
assessment is that it still looks bad. And if she asked "did
everyone see that ?", it might be less painful to us to assure
her that no one noticed it and spare ourselves the discomfort
or her discomfort, but it is not a kindness to her to let her
believe a falsehood.
William December Starr
mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) said:
>> Your sanctimoniousness - farcical as it is, given that you condemn
>> -my- behaviors while comparing me elsewhere to Charles Manson.
>> Let's see - have I murdered anyone that you know of, Mr Robertson?
>> [LawLess]
>
> You have the spirit of a murderer. Given the confidence of getting
> away with it, anyone who writes the way you do would commit murder.
You're demented.
> Words mean things. My default is to take them literally.
That's your problem, not LawLess'. Or mine, for that matter.
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
lady angel
> lady angel wrote:
>
> >
> >Tom Robertson <mdm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:3875ad5c....@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> ><snip of kajira and Tom>
> >
> >> honesty?
> >
> >about telling the woman, quietly, that her makeup had smudged, and maybe
> >she'd better take a look at it."
> >
her
> >makeup was smudged.
> >
of
> >the truth?"
> >
> >Ummmm Hmmmmmm......
>
> Well, how do those who say that truth can never be wrong justify the
> attempt to conceal the truth from the rest of the crowd? The tact
> involved limiting the telling of the truth.
*shaking head* i feel my migraine coming back.....
lady angel
-=- kajira hill -=- <odal...@iols.net> wrote in message
news:37b3b986...@news.cyberverse.com...
> lady angel offered opinions regarding Re: Tact and Honesty Re: Character
> assasination problem (Re: Email):
>
> Tom Robertson: Could you give an example of tact that doesn't require a
> limitation on honesty?
>
> lady angel: She did and you responded to it: Quote of kajira- "i would
> feel no qualms about telling the woman, quietly, that her makeup had
> smudged, and maybe she'd better take a look at it."
>
> Tact and honesty. Tact= doing it quietly. Honesty= being truthful that her
> makeup was smudged.
>
> Your response to what she said: "Why quietly? Why deprive everyone else
> of the truth?"
>
> Ummmm Hmmmmmm......
>
> justify the attempt to conceal the truth from the rest of the crowd? The
> tact involved limiting the telling of the truth.
>
> people who would see an imperfection in someone within the crowd, and it
> would be imperative for you to let every other person know that there was
> someone's makeup was smudged. That in order for the action to be truly
> honest, everyone must know about a small misgiving in someone's life. Why
> not take your lap top and announce every hair out of place on everyone's
> head to the world?
>
> What is the point of that?
>
> If you were walking around with your fly undone and everyone saw it but no
> one said anything to you and you discovered it hours later, how would you
> feel? Wouldn't you rather it have gone that someone took you aside to
> tell you about it so you could discreetly remove yourself from the
> embarrassment than to have that same someone say "HEY LOOK EVERYONE!
> TOM'S FLY'S OPEN!" It sounds to me as though that is what you'd prefer.
> And you'd think kindly of this person, for being such an ass?
>
> Once again i say i'm glad i don't run in your circle.
Agreeing with kajira!*S* But, then you are talking to an obviously socially
inept person, kajira. So, i think that the intellectual argument you have
placed before him will only create more silly drivel to come out of his
mouth.*LOL*
> lady angel: *shaking head* i feel my migraine coming back.....
> kajira: *handing her an imitrex*
i do not believe i have ever taken an imitrex before, but with the migraine
that some are giving me today.....THANK YOU!*S*
lady angel
Cynthia M.C. Richards-Plahuta <thoro...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990614224137...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
<snip of Tom>
The truth was told to the person it involved. If you've been unfaithful to
> your wife and you have pangs of regret and decide to confess to her, would
you
> take out an ad in the New York Times to proclaim the truth to all? Even
with
> the example above, why are you stopping at only telling the truth to those
> present at the time? Shouldn't you also be taking out an ad in the New
York
> Times, Chicago Tribune, and L.A. Times regarding the smudged makeup also?
>
> Hell, let's call in Tom Brokaw and get Nightline to cover it. After all,
the
> truth's not the truth unless the entire globe knows it. Maybe we can get
NATO
> to slow down just a nanosecond so we can fill 'em in on the Smudged Makeup
> Alert.......
>
> And the Russians, let's not forget the Russians. After all, the Russians
want
> to be part of everything, they really should know this.............
>
> Truly one of those "were you born this stupid or did your mother have to
teach
> it to you" moments.....
>
> Maggie
This is absolutely priceless!*LOLOLOLOLOLOL*
lady angel~slave to Lord Panther
~feeling her migraine start to slip away~
guttersnipe
Tom Robertson to Lawless:
> >: You have the spirit of a murderer. Given the confidence of getting
> >: away with it, anyone who writes the way you do would commit murder.
Me:
And you know this how, exactly? Been around a lot of murderers? Close
enough pals with some to know their "spirit?" A simple case of
it-takes-one-to-know-one?
Lawless to Tom:
> >One of us is stooping, c'est
> >vraimante.[1] One of us isn't, given that I've not pretended to lofty
> >morals and ideals - and, fwiw, yes, there are circumstances under which
> >I would commit murder even knowing I wouldn't get away with it.
Tom again:
> Does that mean you would only kill Laura, Nicole, Wulf, and/or me if
> you could get away with it?
Me again:
You keep harping on this and acting like you think Lawless really wants
to kill you. I have a couple of thoughts about this. One, if you
*really* thought that he wanted to do you in, I doubt you'd be goading
him on like this. And two, if he *really* wanted you dead, people
could delete your address from their killfiles.
Heidi
the impudent guttesnipe
Tom Robertson
> Judging by the role Laura appears to have played in the attack on
>Lawless, I would guess that her definitions of "honesty" and
>"thuggery" differ greatly from mine.
"the attack on Lawless"
I just love that kind of humor. It reminds of the movie "The Mouse
That Roared."
Tom Robertson
<snip>
>a) Lawless' flames are art, imho. He goes to extremes, but if one
>cannot see the humor in them, and the great creativity, one may fit
>into the category called "truth hurting." One *may*. He spews
>liberally, but i don't think i've seen him say he actually felt hatred
>for anyone (except in the past 10 min., where he did use the word
>"loathe" -- i believe they are the same, but not sure). (Caveat #2 --
>i don't read all flames.)
This strikes me as being similar to some people's contention in the
"Rambling: Growing Up Dom" thread - that if anyone says that what s/he
doing is not sexual, it is therefore not sexual. Are you really
saying that one can write that he wishes certain people would die
painfully and that he would be happy to help out in killing them, and
then claim that he has no hatred, that he therefore has no hatred?
>He does not flame people because their
>opinions differ from his. If those with differing opinions cannot
>accept that there are valid opinions other than their own, and begin
>to be self-centered and get all hurt personally because no one's
>agreeing, then hey: Lawless, go for it.
I've never read a more accurate description of LawLess. What, besides
personal hurt at reading opinions which differ from his own, could
account for the way he "loathes" and "despises" people who write what
he disapproves of?
<snip>
Tom Robertson
>Tom Robertson <mdm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> LawLess wrote:
>>>Ah, that person on the gambling mail list. Tom, I don't loath you on
>>>account of you being stupid, nor on account of your often assinine
>> asinine (or was that deliberate?)
>
>Oh, look. Such a cute little spelling flame.
See, I don't call that a flame, since it wasn't directed towards
anyone personally. That was constructive, good-natured criticism, not
a flame.
>My, goodness. You're
>working right up the levels of flaming, there, Tom.
Oh, I could never aspire to such heights.
>Good god. Don't you have anything *better* to pick on than the spelling
>of words? If you can't figure out how to flame someone decently, it's
>better to keep your mouth shut that flame spelling and show everyone how
>completely petty and stupid one really is.
What about funny?
Tom Robertson
>Tom Robertson wrote:
>: Lawless:
>: >Your sanctimoniousness - farcical as it is, given that you condemn
>: >-my- behaviors while comparing me elsewhere to Charles Manson. Let's
>: >see - have I murdered anyone that you know of, Mr Robertson?
>:
>: You have the spirit of a murderer. Given the confidence of getting
>: away with it, anyone who writes the way you do would commit murder.
>
>"The spirit of a murderer"? Yep, it's lovely seeing you live up to
>the standards you keep preaching about.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but I'll guess that you mean
that I have expressed an ideal of never criticizing, and that I just
failed to live up to that ideal. I've never expressed such an ideal,
as I'm all for criticism, and, assuming I've understood you correctly,
you yet again have shown that you fail to understand the distinction
between criticism and hatred.
>One of us is stooping, c'est
>vraimante.[1] One of us isn't, given that I've not pretended to lofty
>morals and ideals - and, fwiw, yes, there are circumstances under which
>I would commit murder even knowing I wouldn't get away with it.
Does that mean you would only kill Laura, Nicole, Wulf, and/or me if
you could get away with it? What if I wrote "all submission is
entirely sexual?" Would that put you over the edge?
>It's a rare human being that wouldn't.
I agree.
>BTW, Tom - there have been murderer's
murderers
>whose souls I'd be -proud- to
>call my own, attempted murderer's
murderers, dammit.
>as well.
I agree. I never meant that killing was always wrong. There are all
kinds of types of causes which would be worth killing for.
>Von Stauffenberg[sp], for instance.
Oh, that's debatable. Hitler did a lot of good for Germany. But
regardless, if I would murder a Hitler, I wouldn't believe in doing it
out of personal hatred, since that's the worst possible cause.
>: I thought I was in your dreaded "killfile." [...]
>
>You were, but it only seemed right and proper to read your responses to
>me, under the circumstances. Waste of time though, and a waste of NG
>traffic as well - not much to do with BDSM,
No, I've never understood how your personal loathing has anything to
do with BDSM. Discussing how you disagree with what I write might
have been, but I don't recall you ever doing that.
>nor particularly amusing to
>the general audience. Ciao.
>
>And Tom? May you have -just- the life you deserve.
Ooh, now you're really getting dirty. But, in the long run, everyone
gets that, anyway.