--- In [email protected], "Ann" <awoelflebater@...> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
(snip)
> > 1. AUTHORITY
> > A. I have a natural talent for influencing people.
> > B. I am not good at influencing people.
> > C. I am *excellent* at influencing people, even though I've
> > been trying to influence a few of them for over a decade now,
> > with little or no effect. It's not me..it's them. They're
> > just too STOOPID to admit my influence over them.
> > 
> > 2. SELF-SUFFICIENCY
> > A. I rarely depend on anyone else.
> > B. I sometimes depend on other people to get things done.
> > C. I am so self-sufficient that I no longer have to do
> > anything to "get" the people I don't like; my many toadies
> > and minions do it for me.
> >
(snip)
> Barry, you get a grade 'B' for creativity in rehashing an old 
> subject and further revealing that old, crusty, pus-y thorn in
> your side in a slightly more original way than usual.  Although
> this is still primarily about Judy and your frustration with
> the damn woman, this little self quiz has some elements of
> slight humour present. Some of this humour is unintentional
> because of the way it jerks back and catches you unexpectedly
> and trips you up

What cracks me up are the inadvertent self-contradictions,
such as between 1C and 2C above. Plus 1C is contradicted
by the fact of Barry's having gone to the trouble to write
the post in the first place (not to mention the zillions
of others he's written boasting of how I've failed to get
him to pay any attention to me).

He really *is* just too STOOPID to admit my influence over him.




> but that is the price we sometimes pay for the larger pleasure of exacting a 
> form of revenge. Still, I found this insignificant post (on this backwater, 
> inconsequential forum) making me smile, just a little. Keep going, you might 
> just stumble upon a subject and a way of writing about that subject in a 
> fresh new way one of these decades. Have a really, really great day in 
> whatever city you may be in today.
> >
>

Reply via email to