Subject:
|
Re: Lego Direct (was Re: Georgia LEGO Outlet is Cool!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:25:41 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1759 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Richard Marchetti writes:
> For the record: that wasn't my intention. And actually, I resent the
> implication that it WAS my intention -- but I will give you the benefit of the
> doubt, and assume instead that your words get sloppy sometimes too.
You resent it? Poor baby.
Given the fact that you said this:
> I don't imply things Larry, I state them explicitly.
and this:
> [...]my incendiary mode of expression[...]
and this:
> But wait, there's more from the man whose every word is a golden droplet
> of...well, something...
(by the way, is that implicitly vulgar?)
and this:
> Why, just to annoy you of course!
(oh and as an aside, when you said this:
> And I am perfectly willing to be judged by what I
> write here.
I guess you weren't saying explicitly what you meant, right? Because if we
judge you by what you write then your intentions ought to be clear, right?
But "such was not [your] intention." Hrmmm....)
onward:
> I like to say what I mean, and I am not opposed to flourishes of venom! Get
> in my way and here's some spunk in your eye...
(So you're not opposed to flourishes of venom and you have an incendiary mode
of expression... and you say what you mean. What was that you said about
intentions?)
and just for good measure, an explicity vulgar putdown:
> And I think it should stop here, because you are really revealing yourself to
> be such a self-absorbed, self-obsessed ass as to defy future apology.
Pretty explicit, right? You're saying what you mean? Was it actually your
INTENTION there to inflame the situation, as we must assume from your
statements that you state things explicitly, or are we to believe that this
was, in fact, a genuine attempt on your part to engage in a calm, rational
discussion? Do you get to have it both ways all the time, or do you just flip-
flop when it suits you?
And those come from just two posts you made. I'm sure I could find others
that were as bad or worse. Worse even perhaps than "stuff 'em", no matter
which meaning you attach to the phrase.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
51 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
