No way, don't want to get whacked three times again.
Nasty? Oh, Ms. Helen, it's merely a factual comment of human behavior. If I do get nasty you will know it, no doubt. If the moderators don't delete it, and me, first. However, with that ruler I will try to be on my best behavior, I need my hands to type.
posted on May 11, 2001 08:30:26 PM new
Well, you guys are boring me. I suspect the
reason is that there was not a lot of content
in you or the subject...did I get that right?
posted on May 11, 2001 08:37:09 PM new
"Tonight, for example, your true love sent
me a letter from Hell and it's still intact for all the world to read."
So much for a sense-of-humor.
Is'nt it funny also, that when trying to lose something, they bring it forward themselves? It would seem to me if they were conspiring to hide something, they would just have shread it, or buried it? No one knew about the papers but them, until they contacted superiors. Very strange thing to do.
typo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[ edited by mint4you on May 11, 2001 08:45 PM ]
I just wanted everyone to know that when I
said above, "Well, you guys are boring me. I suspect the
reason is that there was not a lot of content
in you or the subject...did I get that right?
It sounds somewhat like a bushism gone awry."
That I was referring to your signature line
and trying to remember the "exact" wording.
I believe that I got the "drift" but not the
exact wording. I see that you have
stopped using it so we have solved that problem.
About the FBI
They loose so much and then they find it
and blame it on the computer. I wonder how
much they have "lost" and will never "find."
Unfortunately, there was no sense of humor
involved in the letter from Hell. I have
a very good sense of humor and can recognize
it right off the bat.
I don't want to overwhelm you with the details, but just a few remarks should make
it clear to both you and the moderators that
this letter was intended to attack my character and my sanity...No bones about it.
First, he begins with a remark from my previous post that I made in this thread,
MY REMARK
"We are concerned about his failure to stop and try to help, just as he would be expected to do if he hit a young child running loose in the street."
GRAVID'S ANSWER
I am sorry...dog=people is wrong
dog=better than people is worse.
People who like dogs better than people hav a serious, serious defect relating to other people.
An animal may display affection but if you die and he can't get out of the house he will be eating you the second or third day. To say they offer unconditional love is a slur on love. You are saying love from people is less valuable because they expect something of you. Shouldn't they???
Loving something that can't talk back of disagree with you is a whole lot easier than loving a complex person that has it's own thoughts and feelings and does not live for you to come hope an run the can opener.
THEN HE GOES ON TO TELL A TALE OF A VICIOUS
DOG AND PROCEEDS TO ATTACK ME BASED ON THIS
STORY EVEN THOUGH I HAD NOT MENTIONED A WORD
ABOUT VICIOUS DOGS.
HE CONTINUES...
I am sure if someone told the lady whose little girl's face was half ripped off that you prefer the dog over her little girl she would be happy to agree .....
you have no place among humanity
END OF GRAVID'S REMARK
Now, Mint, How can you possibly call this
HUMOUR?
This is a vicious attack without any
justification
other than the fact that I said that said that I love dogs better than people. I probably should have qualified that remark
for people such as Gravid to say "some people"
Most people don't need such clarification.
SO DON'T CALL THAT NOTE HUMOUROUS.
It is not.
Helen
Edited to add bold.
edited to add the word, as
[ edited by Hjw on May 12, 2001 08:04 AM ]
[ edited by Hjw on May 12, 2001 08:08 AM ]
posted on May 12, 2001 08:02:41 AM new"Tonight, for example, your true love sent me a letter from Hell and it's still intact for all the world to read"
I find this to be more of a "problem". This is an insult to the person who really loves me. Such a comment was not called for, and is in extreme poor taste, IMO. Maybe before you throw stones, you should look at yourself. Such comments are often those of a troubled person, I hope that is not so in your case. For you to have a "problem" with my signature, and say the above, is rather puzzling, to say the least.
Back to the topic. Last night I saw where McVeigh's attorney said 30 days was not enough time to react to the 3100 papers that were found unread. Which brings this question to mind. If I remember correctly, there were over 220,000 pages of documents and photographs in this case. McVeigh's lawyers claim 30 days may be enough time to read them, but not formulate a plan to deal with them? At 30 days per 3100 pages, that would roughly average out to about six years if his attorney read all of the papers prior to the trial. That doesn't even take into consideration formulating a trial plan. Seems we have a time problem of possibilities here. How much did they really read to begin with?
"I don't want to overwhelm you with the details, but just a few remarks should make
it clear to both you and the moderators that
this letter was intended to attack my character and my sanity...."
"First, he begins with a remark from my previous post that I made in this thread,...."
"MY REMARK"
"We are concerned about his failure to stop and try to help, just as he would be expected to do if he hit a young child running loose in the street."
???? Now you have me totally confused? Are you in the right thread????
I think that I made my point and it was
directed to you and you are here. I'm
sure that krs will excuse me for just this
one off topic remark in his thread. You
seem to have created quite a few yourself.
First of all, in the interest of clarity, please respond to any comments in the thread in which they occur.
Also, your comments are extremely close to being considered disruptive. Everyone has the right to express his/her opinions unless they violate the CGs.
Obviously, you have issues with a couple of posters here. Please consider using your ignore button, and if you can't do that, you might consider simply not responding.
posted on May 12, 2001 08:59:12 AM new
Can a person be so obtuse as to not realize that by saying "You are making comments aimed at ME, that were made to YOU" the person has admitted to the same high crime of which the person makes complaint?
posted on May 12, 2001 09:11:50 AM new
Certainly an action within a thread is to topic unless it's directed at another person. Why else would you post your last? Look who calls the kettle black.
