| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
posted to alt.usenet.kooks,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.sailing.asa,soc.singles,rec.sport.pro-wrestling
|
|||
|
|||
*Ping* Trippy - Bobo Pool submission { PING Rhonda... [threat] Nomination - "Miguel" for Bullis Foam Duck #27 { NOMINATION -- Kadaitcha Man for Hammer of Thor}}
"Kali" wrote in message
In , Rhonda Lea Kirk said: "Sean Monaghan" wrote in message miguel wrote in : snipped for clarity If you stop, and if you can persuade your friends, who are, frighteningly, even less rational than you, to stop, I'll be happy to pull the plug on this as well. The nerd gimp retard fagbois hold the keys to the kingdom, Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Department of Psychology. Wow. Extortion attempt. No. It's negotiation: Everyone stops. ****ing wrong, Rhonda. We discussed this the other day. I stand by what I said, that I don't think it's right to Google stack, and I certainly don't indend to call *anyone* a "dog****er". I thought I made that clear. I thought you did too. Then you posted this: Message-ID: The discussion was double standards and miguel's kooky threats. I made an example comparison (libel and assault). In my comparison, I used his last name and the word "dog****er". That's not what I read. And if you follow the context in date and time order, he asked for clarification before he retaliated. Your response included calling him a clown. Then your sweetheart came back and spammed my full name and office address several times. He upped the anti. He was probably so foamy he thought I was chiming in with the others, so instead of seeking clarification, he shot his load, revealing his true character: that of a coward no better than Brad Jesness. I explained this in fewer words in an earlier post, and his response was to repeat his cowardly behavior. No remorse, if in fact he did jump the gun. I have read through that part of the thread more than a few times, and I'm not getting from there to here. See above. It wasn't negotiation, it was retaliation. Call a spade a spade. He retaliated, and then he offered a mutual cease-fire. It was characterized as "extortion." I disagree that it is extortion. What I keep hearing over and over again is that he's supposed to sit back and let auk have its fun at his expense. If you set the standard, you have to live with it. You said he upped the ante, but all he did was level the field. A web page for a web page, identifying information for identifying information. "Fair," to me, does not mean "advantage to one side." Your "ethics" are highly conditional, aren't they? You called him a dog****er. You minimized the gravity and impact of calling him a dog****er even though I objected to it strongly many posts ago. How does that make /my/ ethics conditional? I've been consistent about what I think all along. And the one thing I have not done to you is threaten loss of friendship to influence your behavior, but you did that to me way back he On other less talked about matters: It is unfortunate that a so-called friend of yours and Rhonda's would show such blithe disregard for your friendship by attacking your friends. I have higher standards for friendship. and In reality, this kind of thing does have an impact on perceived friendships. Mike has never asked me to choose between you, and he hasn't punished me for disagreeing with him when I thought he was wrong. Nor has he used me as a bat against you. Everyone is entitled to their opinon, Kali. In this case, yours and mine do not agree. snipped -- Rhonda Lea Kirk Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay |
Threaded Mode
