Bob Calco wrote: >>> No, he meant that you've missed the point for so long that you have >>> even forgotten how it looks like. >>> You should have a picture to look at and sigh whenever you miss it. >>> > > There is something uncharacteristically sentimental in the way you drew that > analogy that I did miss originally. Obviously you're relating "the point" to > the many women in your past whom you would forget if you didn't have any > pictures of them. > > That "the point" reminds you of this is almost Freudian. > > And here I was, thinking Christians didn't like Freud. :-)
>> About the "self-image is challenged" all I can say is I've never seen >> somebody take such harsh judgment based on so little information. >> > > You're obviously not the introspective sort. Do you read any of your own > posts before you whisk them off? > Never! But I'm not Christian and therefore do not strive to render the other cheek. :-) >> And I >> thought Jesus said something about it, but maybe I'm wrong. >> > > Point taken. I'm by no means perfect, either. Just seemed a rather obvious > inference based on knowing you in the admittedly limited (but not exactly > casual) way that this forum permits. > So Jesus said that if it was a "rather obvious inference" then it was ok? What about casting the first stone? :-) > Hmm. To paraphrase your sensitive, non-judgmental advice to Pete, maybe > she's not the problem, maybe you are? > Oh rest assured, we both are! That's why we don't live together any more but are still in somewhat friendly terms. :-) > Maybe just running to new sexual conquests in casual relationships that make > you feel like a conquering stallion is a sign of a deeper problem in who and > what you are, whereas committed relationships bring inner demons out in ways > that cause you to be afraid of yourself? > Mmmm......... no. Not at all. Any normal man could have the same conquests, it does not make me feel anything special (remember it's only three women in two months, it's not a different woman every day). :-) > I'm not judging, I'm just sayin'... > LOL Luckily Jesus said nothing about hypocrisy or you and your priests would be out of a job. ;-) >> You >> see, I abhor of people who abuse their strength or take advantage of >> the weak, so I could not stay. >> > > Blaming her for your violent reactions is not very mature for a man already > at the big five-oh. > God! Is my english so bad? I meant I abhorred MY abuse of strength, and that's why I did not like who I was at her side. You know, eliminate the cause of temptation and you eliminate the sin, your church has used that a lot. :-) > She could have been the TV. Women with "battered wives syndrome" typically > don't get it till it's too late. They keep wanting to reconcile, taking > blame for their beloved's violent outbursts, who is altogether too happy to > oblige in displacing the blame. > Well mate, if you can't tell the difference between a TV and a person.... And the "battered wives" stuff is just another lowly blow, never hit ANY woman and remember I left because of the episode, so you won't be able to tag me with that. :-) > For the record, I don't condemn you at all Ricardo. I know that God loves > you just as unconditionally and undeservedly as he does me or anybody else. > As we breathe, there is hope for us to find real peace and joy. > > All things considered I just thought it was rich that you and Jean were > lecturing me about getting some kind of point when I had not long ago > witnessed your harsh dumping on Pete on the subject of luck with women. We are on different wavelengths. I don't give a damn about Pete, I just dislike his usual misogynous speech, so whenever he gets on with it I try to make him feel uncomfortably. It's like training a dog, he'll finally get it (or we'll know his intellect is below dog's).... oh sorry here you go :-) > I do apologize for sounding harsher than I intended Apology accepted. :-) > (I don't really want to > sound any harsher than you do) An eye for an eye? I thought you were Christian, not Jewish. Try reading the NEW testament instead of the OLD one. :-) > , and didn't mean to wound you in any ways we > aren't accustomed to wounding each other in this enlightened forum. ;) > Oh poor darling! Are you telling us that all this was just to get even? Just because I wounded your feelings in the past? :-) LOL! :-) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
