On Wednesday 18 July 2001 21:15, you wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 06:12:41PM -0400, Smitty wrote:
> > > So basically, Smitty, you thought you could walk in, act sauve, and
> > > change people's minds?
> >
> > No, you are saying that.
>
> Yes, I am saying that. Because you are acting like it. I'm asking a
> question, you've provided an answer, and your answer kookily (I love that
> word!) conflicts with your behavior.
Weiner, go practice your quack psychiatry somewhere else.
>
> > > Obviously you did, if you approached it from the procedure you outlined
> > > above. If you contribute to <blah>, you're allowed to screw around on
> > > it. Everyone knows it, everyone is happy.
> >
> > Who is everybody? You are speaking in generalities.
>
> All participating members of the situation, that being, active SVLUG
> contributors. "Everbody" is obvious, and you're trying to take the focus
> off your behavior.
So, you are speaking for every active svlug contributor? Don't think so,
weiner. Take your screwed up psychiatry somewhere else.
>
> > > It's not arbitrary, and going right to the top of the food chain
> > > without any support is stupid. Marc is a great guy, and very
> > > reasonable.
> >
> > I disagree.
>
> And you lost! Coincidence? I think not! You've never played any
> strategy games, have you? ;) And Marc *IS* a great guy, and *IS* very
> reasonable. I've met him, have you?
Lost what?? Coincidence of what? I said I disagree and you "think not"?
I have not met him, just exchanged a few emails which did not leave me
with a positive impression of him.
>
> > > > Assumed identities are not identical. You may be referring to the
> > > > NCSU list where I did not care to deal with the offtopic socialist
> > > > politics and unsubscribed myself. You are in no position to publicly
> > > > evaluate my conduct, Paul. I would suggest a discussion off-list for
> > > > your own sake.
> > >
> > > Sounds like a threat to me. You know that's against the law, right
> > > Smitty?
> >
> > Where's the threat? Please cite the law you are refering to. If you
> > cannot cite the applicable law, knock off your b.s.
>
> "I would suggest a discussion off-list for your own sake." If you
> haven't figured it out yet, what the law says is irrelevant. It's how its
> interpretted that counts. I myself took what you said as a threat against
> Paul's wellbeing. I'm sure any rational person would.
So, you have evaded answering the question and "you're trying to take the
focus off your behavior". What laws say are very relevant. If you took my
comment "as a threat against Paul's wellbeing", then you are worse off than I
previously thought. If Paul feels threatened, he is a big boy and capable of
speaking for himself. And I would definitely NOT recommend you see a
psychiatrist. You've had way too much of that.
Smitty
>
> > Smitty
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:26:02 EDT