"Kali" wrote in message

In , miguel mjc101
@gmail.com said:
Dumbarse Git wrote:
miguel:

Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside:

You bitched about KM repeating your purported occupation (which you
admit to in another thread), yet it falls within your code of
ethics to post the (alleged) institution and precise location of
someone else.

I'm reading a lecture on ethics from Sean Monaghan, who moments ago
said that it's all about the entertainment. Will somebody please
nominate you for some steaming pile of hypocrisy award? I'm
beginning to think that your intellectual prowess is about the
equivalent of ****stain's, which would be your only defense to said
award.

If Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Department
of Psychology is going to associate my name and occupation with the
word "dog****er," given that she stated she has no trouble with
somebody's name being associated with their posts on usenet, then
where's the problem? Of course, all she needs to do to avoid this is
cease her participation in the google stacking. If you are her
friend, you might think about stopping yourself.

Thank you for this very telling campaign speech.

You are a dolt. In part, though, she has you to thank for this, what
with the fanboi page you did for me. ****stain, too. If you all want
to stop the RL stuff, I'm happy to stop too. Your choice.

The question is - will your public defender find this behaviour to
be acceptable, or will that person continue to rationalise on your
behalf?

It's sad that you dismiss it as rationalization.

miguel

I didn't mention your full name or your occupation (let alone
your work location), you filthy kook.

You have serious reading comprehension problems. I've explained
my position on this very well, and I maintain that position. I
merely cited an example to make a point. You, being the kooky
bully you are, saw a threat in it and decided you were going to
do the same thing, only turn it up a notch. That's what
narcissistic kooks do.

The more you write, the kookier you seem. You're so bent on your
kooky mission that you're willing to drag Rhonda through hell
for it. Say what you want, and have Rhonda try to defend you,
but kooky is as kooky does. This post is just another example.

He's not responsible for my choices.

You can be sure that I have given careful consideration to all the
consequences of the position I've taken. More important to me than any
single person or group of people in this dogfight is whether I will be
able to look myself in the mirror when I'm done.

Dustin (remember him?) had too little faith in my ability to keep his
confidence when I refused to choose between him and KMonster. In the
face of his direct attack on me, I defended myself, but up to that
point, most of what I said was in Dustin's favor, because in my opinion,
the tactics being used on him weren't fair or right.

It's not like I'm not consistent, Kali.

If I had to bend myself like a pretzel over this, I wouldn't do it.
Loyalty to a friend is keeping confidences and offering support in hard
times, not defending the indefensible.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay