--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> 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.
<chuckle> If Edg pursues it it'll show what a complete crackpot he is. I'd suspect that almost any judge would laugh him out of a courtroom or roll his eyes in disgust at such stupidity. His lawyer might be unethical enough take the case though, just to make money ...from Edg. > > <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. >
