--- In [email protected], azgrey <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Another EPIC FAIL by authfiend.
Gee, that's funny, I thought it was Curtis's attack on Buck that was an EPIC FAIL. Guess you didn't, huh? > She coulda just called him a "poopy-pants" up > front and got it over with, possibly saving 49 > more posts. Naah. This was just a quickie. If Curtis wants to defend himself at length, that's fine with me. I've said my piece. > --- In [email protected], "authfiend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yep this all reads well like some lot of FFL > > > > pharisaical sophistry. > > > > > > You don't understand the meaning of the terms you > > > are using. You have successfully conveyed a vaguely > > > pejorative intention and used some Jesusy sounding > > > words. I'm surprised you didn't drop in a thus or > > > thou to complete the illusion that you were speaking > > > to us from an old book. > > > > Curtis demonstrates in his response that he is > > practiced in the use of pharasaical sophistry. > > > <snip personality disordered pointlessly antagonistic > rant> See, this is what's so interesting about your attacks: You never even try to address the argument, whatever it may be. That makes one just a bit suspicious that you couldn't if you tried, so instead you resort to, um, conveying a vaguely pejorative intention. One might *almost* think you don't *understand* the argument but just go into attack mode by reflex. I mean, were *you* surprised that Buck didn't drop in a thus or a thou to complete Curtis's illusion that Buck was speaking to us from an old book? > First, note she is not even a party to the conversation. Hey! You weren't either! > I guess she is, once again, just itching to start > another fight. Naah. I made my point. You wanna start one with me? > Second, note her comment to Sal earlier in the posting > week. > > Judy wrote: "Hey, Sal, don't you think you should > apologize to Lurk for having falsely accused him of > lying about some posts you made (and falsely denied > making) before you go after him again?" So you agree that Sal should apologize to Lurk? > Hey Judy, don't you think you should apologize to Curtis > for having twice posted YOU WISHED HE WAS DEAD before > you go antagonizing him again? Naah. Curtis knows what I meant. He may have misunderstood at first, but I cleared it up for him. Maybe if you ask him nicely, he'll explain it to you. Anyway, I didn't lie like Sal did about not having made posts that I actually did make, nor did I accuse Curtis of lying about them. So that's kind of irrelevant. Plus which, you never asked Barry if he thought he should apologize to Raunchy and me when he wished we were dead. Little inconsistent there, aren't ya? Neither did Curtis, BTW. But then Curtis doesn't think it's kosher to defend one person from another's depredations (unless the depredator is God, of course). But *certainly* not if the depredator is his friend. Then he attacks the person his friend has attempted to depredate for mentioning the attempted depredation. Anyway, here you are, defending Curtis from my depredations. Are you afraid he can't defend himself? > At least OffKilter and Shemp had the good sense to > unsubscribe after making complete fools of themselves. Gee, do you really think Curtis needs to unsubscribe? I don't. (And that isn't why Shemp unsubscribed, but that's another story.) > But ooooooooooh nooooooo!!! Judy has to be all "I'm > invincible. It's only a flesh wound." Who dost thou think thou art, Chuck Norris? Come out from behind that tree!
