--- In [email protected], Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Judy,
> 
> I don't think my record here would support anyone thinking that I 
have
> tossed my hat into the "Barry camp."  In fact, he's called me on my
> shit more than anyone here, but he's always done it with a tender
> touch if you ask me.  I try to be respectful of his "odd stuff," cuz
> GAWD I've got odd stuff too.

There's "odd stuff" that deserves respect--or at
least tolerance--and "odd stuff" that deserves
scorn and condemnation, IMHO.

<snip>
> Why are you coming out so strongly when I am testifying, not to an
> opinion, but to an actual memory of mine?  
> 
> And why are you not commenting on John's name calling?

I was responding to *your post*, Edg. You asked
questions, I gave you my answers. You don't like
them. Tough. Don't ask if you don't want to know
what people think.

> If you respect John, then why are you supporting that kind of
> activity, I'd be the first to try to let someone I respected know
> how they're coming off and how at risk their reputation is.

For all I know, John is right, and your reputation
is the one at risk. As I said, I'd take his word
over yours with regard to something about which I
had no information.

Fortunately, in this case I don't have to take a
stand either way regarding what Charlie did or
did not say (and if you imagined I did, read what
I wrote again).

  Didn't I
> actually pad my response with noting John's good qualities?  Why 
> such a forthright dumping of me when so clearly I was trying to 
> give John a face saving "out?"  Seems I've been rubbing you wrongly 
> for some time now, and only now does the boil pop.

You asked.

My guess, BTW, is that John would have taken your
"out" if you weren't being such an ass about suing
him.

> And after I laid into Nab, you chided me on the lowness of my
> response, (and thanks for that, and yet, may I say, it was one of
> my finer put downs?) and I saw that as a correct admonishment of 
> me, yet a "fuckhead" from John is not equally consider to be low
> by you?  And you too now use the word with what I would call a
> very energetic power behind the use -- WTF?

I'll type this very slowly: I WAS RESPONDING TO
YOUR POST.

<snip>
> Judy, this is an actual situation where a lawsuit could be started,

Uh, I doubt that very seriously. If your lawyer
takes it on, he's a fool.

<snip>
> Someone has to stand up to trolls.  Rick isn't doing it.  Me,
> I'm just pissy enough.  Yep.

John's not a troll, but there are lots of ways
to stand up to posters who say things you don't
like that don't involve threatening lawsuits.

BTW, read this part of my post again:

> > You're a bigger fuckhead by far (if at least partly
> > because you're into sticking your neck out and calling
> > attention to yourself).

That was actually intended as sort of a backhanded
compliment. I thought you'd catch it, but you didn't.
(What's on the end of your neck?)

Few of us could withstand the kind of scrutiny you
invite without coming off as a fuckhead. Most of us
don't have the guts to invite it.


Reply via email to