From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 4:54 AM Subject: Re: taking a break for a while...
> I've read the thread in its entirety and I know who said what. I'm not > addressing the validity of your concerns here. I'm saying instead that > this is a public forum, and when you post a statement or opinion here it's > open to anyone and everyone to respond. >I objected to your telling someone to mind his/her business when your reply to the >list made it the list's business. Obviously you didn't read close enough. >Note that I don't care about who the first, second or > third person to reply on-list was, as they're not the ones complaining > about other people butting into their discussion. You are. No. I was not seriously doing that. Robb however was. I was just using Robb's own words, assuming a reader would recognize them as his, just to high light they absurdity, realizing that I was only giving back to Robb what he had thrown at me. This is my message to Robb, which you, Chris, reacted against: "Yeah, yeah, yeah... Blah, blah, blah... I said "please bring that message" - I didn't ask for pointless personal opinion from a Canadian twit, my little man! So bring that message and state your case why it amounts to harassment, or drop it and mind your own friggin business, little Mafud in disguise!" Every objectionable phrase in my message were picked right out of a few of Robb's messages to me on the list. (See below) He called me a "Scandinavian twit" - I called him a "Canadian twit" He called me "my lttle man" - I called him "my little man" He told me to drop it - I told him to drop it. He told me "to mind your own friggin business" - I told him to "mind your own frigging business" He called me "Kirkland Ramsey" - I called him "Mafud in disguise" (The names refer to one and the same person) Here are two of Robb's messages, from which I picked his phrases and returned them: From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:38 PM Subject: Re: My own DOF confusion > I see that Kirkland Ramsey is back, manifesting himself as a > Scandinavian twit. > > Lasse, if you want to continue this to the childlike extreme that you > seem capable of, may I suggest you enter into an offensive sig file > battle, instead of just spewing your own brand of puss > > Here, I even did some homework for you. > > http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/ladenframe.htm > > Regards > William Robb From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 5:37 AM Subject: Re: taking a break for a while... > From: "Lasse Karlsson" > Subject: Re: taking a break for a while... > > Secondly I hope the person who caused Tanya to be upset will make > sure this incident gets sorted out. > > Lasse > > And perhaps at some point, you will learn to mind your own frigging > business. > Let it drop karlsson. > William Robb (And there would be more messages to add.) I was, again, responding to someone who repeatedly accuses me of continuing threads, while he is the one who keeps on bringing up stuff that already is over and past, even when there is nothing specific addressed to him. When I respond to attacks and defend myself, I'm the one who people object to. I might add that even though the initial dispute regarding Collins sig file already long was settled, I had thanked him for it and went back to normal procedures, there were others who kept on bringing stuff up and accused me of doing it! As for the latest message that Chris now brought up, I am sure that Robb fully realized what I was doing in returning his insults word by word, and I would venture the guess that he for the sake of list peace maybe finally would have let it drop. As would I have. Then Chris jumped on it, obviously not fully up to date and misundertanding bits of it (which I may be at fault for), where there was absolutely no need for it. Unfortunately I don't think your message, Chris, will have the effect you desired. Lasse
