[email protected]
Mon, 19 Oct 1998 20:50:48 EDT
It certainly does not go to you.
<<i'll quickly go over this but one more time >>
Yes, let's shall we?
<< the *fact* remains i made an initial simple 23 word comment
directed at no one in particular on an *issue* that moved
*beyond* your rhetorical remark.>>
Okay well here are the *23* words you initially wrote
<<it's like letting someone in your house to use your bathroom
and they steal something from you. not a nice thing to do. >>
Now before these words you clipped Nico's statement about going to the loo
without a tape player ... so ... by relating those two points together in the
same post ... with no other information no other statements just you and Nico,
your comments were directed to no one in particular. Do I understand that
clearly? Hummm ...
<<- the *fact* remains patty c(ongeniality) is the individual who
initiated the personal attacks, but i suppose you (nico) consider
that inconsequential. >>
Hummm ... "unqualified thousands of yous?" ummm "small strained sense of
humor?" "grumpy drummerboy" -- oh no wait that was Larry.
Personal attacks? Hardly ... I would just call them insightful comments, based
on an uneducated and quite bitchy post made by an uptight fan who needs to get
out more.
And why should nico consider the consequences of someone else's post?
<>
Yes, I believe you are. Not to mention a few other things as well.
<<gee, i can't imagine why... >>
Imagination lost? That's ... That's just sad.
You almost had us going for a second there.
In the name of Sparky
Shannon Carey-Thorpe
I'm here where I want to be
Seven thousand miles from infinity
No one knows where I am ... but me
-- Meryn Cadell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Oct 19 1998 - 17:53:55 PDT