Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 23:22, Chad Perrin wrote:
>
>>I'm taking this off-list, you sanctimonious little nematode.
>
>
> The sad thing is that people think I'm talking morality.
> I'm not at all, nothing is further from the truth.
> But the assumptions are as such, so I can't even begin to state
> otherwise.
No, Bryan, the sad thing is that you jump to conclusions like this one.
Nobody said you were talking about morality. In the rare instance
when morality has come up (and I think the term was only used off-list
before this), it wasn't to say "you're making a stink about morality,"
but you seem to see the very existence of the word as an excuse to take
on the role of persecuted minority.
No, that's not the sad thing about it either. The sad thing about it is
that I said I was taking this off-list, AND YOU RESPONDED TO IT BY
POSTING SOMETHING TO THE LIST. What kind of attention-seeking nit are you?!
Never mind. I don't want to know.
> I just said it is probably the best example of how not to relate to
> women, and how to keep them from showing interest.
Liar. I guarantee that if your words had simply been "[This] is
probably the best example of how not to relate to women," this
discussion would never have gotten so acrimonious. I would bet money on
that. I'd bet a month's pay on it, if there were any way to actually
settle the wager.
> Now I'm just the victim of the _assumptions_ of _others_, and what they
> _said_ I said. As I said, I can't even explain it to 95% of you guys.
> And that's just sad.
Your victim mentality is well-known here, Bryan.
-- Chad ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:05:59 EDT