Inventive, nah. Invective, probably. Who knows Regards Ian
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]>wrote: > > Couple of years ago > Seasick Steve > Was the festival novelty > Token redneck > Now turns out > He's the real thing > Here endeth the lesson > Down on the farm > Go fuck yourself > And comeback the wiser > Ian > > > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Ian Glendinning < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> No love without freedom. >> No freedom without love. >> Dido >> Regards >> Ian >> What's so funny 'bout .... >> >> >> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 5:50 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I can, dmb, leave the substance out of it, and object to your treatment >>> of Marsha. Don't confuse the two. Your venom is the issue. >>> >>> This makes my fourth post. So please chill out. >>> Sent by DiGi from my BlackBerry® Smartphone >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: david buchanan <[email protected]> >>> Sender: [email protected]: Fri, 3 May 2013 >>> 10:54:18 >>> To: [email protected]<[email protected]> >>> Reply-To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [MD] Exist >>> >>> >>> Khoo said: >>> Well, have it your way dmb. You have proven your "obsession" with >>> deriding Marsha personally and its getting rather distasteful to have to >>> read them day after day, post after post. And moreover trying to justify >>> it. There is no justification for the treatment you mete out to her. >>> Whatever she does or says, if you persist on an eye for an eye, you will >>> both end up blind. Just recognize you have gone way beyond argumentation >>> and it does not do you nor your reputation any good. >>> >>> >>> dmb says: >>> Since you haven't said a single word about the substance of the dispute, >>> how can you pass judgement as to whether the criticism is justified or not? >>> Since you have said nothing about the content of the argument, on what >>> basis are you declaring that I've gone "way beyond argumentation"? Like I >>> said, it's no accident that nobody ever defends Marsha against the content >>> and substance of my criticisms, as if the ideas are just incidental. Aren't >>> you, in effect, putting social values over intellectual values here? I >>> think manners are relatively trivial and petty compared to the content of >>> my concerns. If you or anyone else wants to step up and defend Marsha on >>> the ACTUAL SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER, that's fine. That's fair. I'd be glad >>> to hear it. But, again, let's not pretend that she's an innocent victim. >>> >>> In this particular case, for example, my so-called "venom" is a response >>> to a series of aggressive provocations aimed directly at me. When that >>> failed to get any response, she cranked it up even further. But your >>> complaints, Khoo, make no mention of her part in this. I'd say it's Marsha >>> who's obsessed with personal derision and I think anyone who took a fair >>> and honest look at the larger context would come to that conclusion too. >>> But, of course, one cannot come to ANY conclusion one way or the other in >>> the absence of the content of the dispute and its context. Without that, >>> complaints about table manners empty - or trivial at best. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>> Archives: >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>> Archives: >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >>> >> >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
