Whatever...
Well, there we have it. Enjoy.
Regards,
Bob...
--------------------------------------
"Those who say that life is worth living at any cost
have already written an epitaph of infamy,
for there is no cause and no person
that they will not betray to stay alive."
Sidney Hook
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In a message dated 7/25/01 3:01:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> << Subj: Re: OT-- population control
> >>Your inference that it doesn't bother me is without merit.<<
>
> Why then did you post it?
>
> >>Every damn bit of it bothers me, on every level.<<
>
> That is hard to beleive.
>
> >>As to you, you have a past well known to many. You're a good man, with
> passion. That's admirable. On the other hand, you appear to believe that
> every slight requires not just a response, but a monologue wherein some
> person is a racist and/or a Nazi or whatever you're evil of the day is.<<
>
> Would you have posted that vitriol had it slammed women or Jews? I think
not.
>
> >> What I fail to understand is why you can't seem to get yourself to take
the
> crap off the list.<<
>
> Because you posted on the list, it deserved a list response. Here's a
> question: why didn't ~you~ post ~your~ response (this one) off list?
>
> >>When those posts came up I knew you would vent your vial.<<
>
> It was not ~those~ posts, but ~your~ post I responded to.
>
> >>It's almost as though you salivate to the sound of Pavlov ringing a
bell.<<
>
> There you go again, inferring that a measured response from a person is
> somehow related to dogs; or did you not know the subjects in Pavlov's
> experiments were dogs?
>
> >>Well, I don't buy it. This may have always been your behavior, and I
suppose
> this would be some excuse if you were a dog.<<
>
> Your question above demostrates how little couth you have. Couldn't you
have
> asked a question without corollating me and dogs? Don't you see how
> intemperate your question is?
>
> >>But you're not a dog. You're a man. Your intellect is clearly
exceedingly
> high. You are actually capable of exercising your own will. I therefore
> conclude that you choose to raise every slight to new heights of
acrimony.<<
>
> I always respond to salacious, vicious, mean spirited, racist remarks,
like
> yours.
>
> >>Like me, you have little discipline.<<
>
> Wrong. But then, I ~always~ respond when gratuitous slurs are hurled.
>
> >>Actually, I expect that when you're through with the list this time
(what
> is it, the third or fourth time?), I will actually appear disciplined by
> comparison.<<
>
> I'm never "through" with the list, I sign off, as I will in October.
>
> >>On the other hand, you could surprise us and talk about photography and
> occasionally share a few OT laughs.<<
>
> Until your filth aroused me, ~all~ I talked was photography. How did you
miss
> my topical responses?
>
> >You might even ask folks initiating political, religious or other
> controversial topics to take them off the list!<<
>
> Yeah; so why didn't ~you~? And again, to whom (or what group) did you
address
> your OT messages while I was away?
>
> ++To follow your own suggestion, post your response to this post to me
> directly or to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ________________________________________
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > In a message dated 7/24/01 11:18:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > writes:
> >
> > << Welcome to Mafud land again. >>
> >
> > Bob, your complaint was addressed to me specifically and so, I thought
I
> > would answer.
> > As for further comments from me on this OT thread: anything I had to
say
> to
> > the offender I've already said.
> >
> > What I responded to was racist drivel. You among others know I won't
stand
> > for that kind of talk, not while I breathe. You ~can't~, or shouldn't,
by
> > inference or otherwise, expect to make crude, salacious remarks about
me
> or
> > mine or anybody without raising my ire. Perhaps you're right. I should
> have
> > let his post go by, pretend that my sensibilities had ~not~ been
offended.
> > But they were.
> > What really bothers me now is it seems what he said didn't bother ~you~
> one
> > bit. If you saw no harm in his statement, I must believe that you two
are
> > fellow travelers.
> > FMOI: To whom did you direct your vulgar venom while I was gone Bob? It
> seems
> > that is it ~you~ who hasn't matured, what with the foul language and
> shallow
> > invectives.
>
>
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
