wrote in message
oups.com...
My special friend from Avon Lake, the man I can count on to "watch my
back" at all times,
remarked:

Those rules only apply to one person here. And those rules are
constantly
evolving depending on the circumstances.

We of course are held to a different set of rules


*********************
I don't make rules.



Who said I was talking about you?

"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you......"

"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
My special friend from Avon Lake, the man I can count on to "watch my
back" at all times,
remarked:

Those rules only apply to one person here. And those rules are
constantly
evolving depending on the circumstances.

We of course are held to a different set of rules


*********************
I don't make rules.



Who said I was talking about you?

"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you......"


Almost forgot: If the shoe fits.......

"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
My special friend from Avon Lake, the man I can count on to "watch my
back" at all times,
remarked:

Those rules only apply to one person here. And those rules are
constantly
evolving depending on the circumstances.

We of course are held to a different set of rules


*********************
I don't make rules.



Who said I was talking about you?

"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you......"


Almost forgot:

PS Why the need to shadow me Chuck?

"Me and my shadow..." ;-)

Since we are giving out private information whose phone number is:
888-880-882_

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 07:42:43 -0500, HarryKrause
wrote:


Herring lives in Alexandria, Virginia, on ________________________. Well,
that wouldn't be the right thing to do, would it.




Well, let's see. Anyone who can use 'AnyWho' could easily determine it's
on
either Stewart Ave or Mayfair Ln.


Sorry, I am not a facilitator of mischief. You've mentioned often enough
that you live in Alexandria and subteach in the Fairfax County schools.


Unlike you, I have no reason to be paranoid. I've not called enough
names, or
made enough insults to have reason to fear the people in the newsgroup.

It's a shame you're who you are, Harry. I might, otherwise, be interested
in
your boat.

Your loss.

Gould,
What makes you think he was talking about you? He did not mention any
names. You must be very guilty if you think his comment was directed
towards you.

wrote in message
oups.com...
My special friend from Avon Lake, the man I can count on to "watch my
back" at all times,
remarked:

Those rules only apply to one person here. And those rules are
constantly
evolving depending on the circumstances.

We of course are held to a different set of rules


*********************
I don't make rules.

Who is "we"?

Are you self identifying as part of some group?
What group would that be?
Are the other members of the group pleased to be associated with you,
or are you merely assuming that they assent to inclusion?

Here's a free lesson in style and technique for you. Not that you would
ever consider posting an insult, of course, but if you were so inclined
there are more effective and less effective ways to go about it.

People who lack imagination and just don't do nuance at all, will post
"So and so is a such and such!" Fine, but you can hear the same on any
grade school playground in the country and most actual adults will
grant the tirade about an equal amount of credibility.

A more subtle, and probably more effective approach would be to
describe behavior, without naming names, and allow people to draw
personal conclusions about whether the description fits anyone they
know. If the reader associates a description of behavior with a
specific individual, there must be some reason for that association (at
least in the reader's mind). If the description of behavior is
inaccurate and without merit, then nobody will associate any particular
individual with the description and there hasn't been any insult.

For example: If you posted, "Gould is 11-feet tall, has green hair,
bathes once a year whether he needs to or not, cheats on his wife,
kills and eats the neighborhood dogs, and is plotting with Al Qaida to
overthrow the Bush Administration......" that would be a direct insult.
However, if you posted, "One of the posters to this group is 11-feet
tall, has green hair, bathes once a year whether he needs to or not,
cheats on his wife, kills and eats the neighborhood dogs, and is
plotting with Al Qaida to overthrow the Bush Administration......"
without naming any names, there is no direct insult. In fact, if my
*own behavior* had in no way already confirmed your charges, nobody
would have the slightest idea who you might be talking about.

Here's where it gets to be pretty funny, as well. After posting
something (for example) about the childish or destructive behavior of
an individual or group but without specficially naming anybody, the
denials and countercharges begin rolling in. IOW, the very people you
avoid identifying so often jump up and identify themselves.

As I said, no charge for the lesson. Why would I charge you for
something you will never use?
Just yesterday you posted that you carry on discussions without
resorting to personal insult, and why would I be inclined to brand you
a liar? Should you ever resort to insult, either as an aggressor or
defender in a discussion, consider taking a more subtle approach. It
stings your victim far worse than a mere "nonny nonny poo poo", if
that's what you have in mind to accomplish.

"Dr. Dr. & Mr Karen Grear" wrote in message
...
Gould,
What makes you think he was talking about you? He did not mention any
names. You must be very guilty if you think his comment was directed
towards you.


Well didn't he say this:

"If the reader associates a description of behavior with a specific
individual, there must be some reason for that association (at least in the
reader's mind). If the description of behavior is inaccurate and without
merit, then nobody will associate any particular individual with the
description and there hasn't been any insult."

How absolutely delightful.

Some people try to place themselves above it all, while wallowing in the mud
like a pig doing a great imitation of a ridiculous asshole whose life is a
series of failed endeavors.


"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Dr. Dr. & Mr Karen Grear" wrote in message
...
Gould,
What makes you think he was talking about you? He did not mention any
names. You must be very guilty if you think his comment was directed
towards you.


Well didn't he say this:

"If the reader associates a description of behavior with a specific
individual, there must be some reason for that association (at least in
the reader's mind). If the description of behavior is inaccurate and
without merit, then nobody will associate any particular individual with
the description and there hasn't been any insult."

How absolutely delightful.

Gould,
What makes you think he was talking about you? He did not mention any
names. You must be very guilty if you think his comment was directed
towards you.


******

1. You said, "Thanks for clarifying the rules."
2. JimH responded that the rules I clarified only applied to a single
person.

Other than that, nice try fellas. Maybe you will learn something from
my post a little earlier up the line.

As per my reply to the phony doctor:

1. You said, "Thanks for clarifying the rules."
2. JimH responded that the rules I clarified only applied to a single
person.

Other than that, nice try fellas. Maybe you will learn something from
my post a little earlier up the line.

Yes, but no where did he say they applied to you. You must feel that you do
apply a double standard in your life.


wrote in message
oups.com...
As per my reply to the phony doctor:

1. You said, "Thanks for clarifying the rules."
2. JimH responded that the rules I clarified only applied to a single
person.

Other than that, nice try fellas. Maybe you will learn something from
my post a little earlier up the line.