A Plea for Sanity

Ken writes:
I had never, so far as I knew, ever had a cross word with you,
hell I've never even met you, when you ripped off a vicious
personal attack. I was surprised and I didn't know what to think.
You've repeated the performance on a couple of occasions since.
Therein lies your hypocrisy.

ok, Ken, we have a semantics issue here.
By personal attacks, I was referring to attacks taking a low road(ie: attacks
dealing with an individual's personal life,
health, relatives,etc). I realize perfectly well that exchanges between
individuals here, or anyplace, will involve pointing a single person out. My
"attacks" upon you were an expression of my dismay on the seemingly ignorant
manner you choose to display when attacking others. Yes, I feel you behave like
a complete asshole on here. Yes, I believe you behavior influences the choices
of others to be here. Further,
I feel you are a perfect example of the kind of Usenet participant who talks
one way online, and hasn't the balls to do the same in person. I would be more
than happy to say so to your face, should I encounter you.
All this said, you were far from the source of my original post here. I was
responding to a seeming avalanche of poor interpersonal communication.
hypocrisy my ass,
Tom

Tom Littleton threatens again:

ok, Ken, we have a semantics issue here. ...

Semantics, my ass, you sanctimonious little prick, and I'd
be more than happy to say that in your face if I'm ever so
unfortunate as to cross paths with you.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken states:
Tom Littleton threatens again:

sorry you feel threatened.

Semantics, my ass, you sanctimonious little prick, and I'd
be more than happy to say that in your face if I'm ever so
unfortunate as to cross paths with you.

ho-hum!
Tom

Tom Littleton wrote:

sorry you feel threatened.

Are you now ? That would make you a liar and a hypocrite.

Well, that went about as well as a Pollyanna plea could be
expected to go. Let that be a lesson to all of us.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken writes:
sorry you feel threatened.

Are you now ? That would make you a liar and a hypocrite.

where did I threaten you? Trust me,chum, if you are trying to read between the
lines and get a threat out of it, you don't have a clue about me. Not that I
would be surprised over that, but.....If I wanted to threaten you, it would be
dead obvious, trust me.
Well, that went about as well as a Pollyanna plea could be
expected to go. Let that be a lesson to all of us.

as noted, you seemed to be the only one who stated any offense, so I figure
that bodes well. It seems, Ken, that you want to see things in Black and White,
Good and Evil, Friend and Foe. Kinda like our Commander in Chief, with
different politics.
That sort of stuff is a little shallow for my tastes, most of the time. I do
agree that a lesson might be learned by all, but not in the sense you see it.
Tom

Tom Littleton wrote:

... Trust me,chum, if you are trying to read between the
lines and get a threat out of it, you don't have a clue about me. Not that I
would be surprised over that, but.....If I wanted to threaten you, it would be
dead obvious, trust me.

I have more than a clue about you, "chum", I know you way better
than you'd like to think. I choose my words carefully and when I
refer to you as a sanctimonious little prick I do so as an astute
and experienced observer of Usenet personae.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken blathers on:

point out the threat, Ken. I just don't like someone claiming I threatened
them, when I clearly did not. BTW, if you are gleaning your info from USENET,
your sources are a bit lacking, dontcha think?
EOT, at least insofar as wallowing with you is concerned.
Tom

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Tom Littleton threatens again:


ok, Ken, we have a semantics issue here. ...


Semantics, my ass, you sanctimonious little prick, and I'd
be more than happy to say that in your face if I'm ever so
unfortunate as to cross paths with you.



Better watch it Tom, the last time Ken called you a sanctimonious little
prick wannabe, this time you've graduated to a full fledged
sanctimonious little prick. I'm jealous. I thought he had that label
reserved just for me.

Willi

Willi notes:
this time you've graduated to a full fledged
sanctimonious little prick. I'm jealous. I thought he had that label
reserved just for me.

Shoot, I was just getting to like "Dumbo"...
Tom

"Tom Littleton" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Willi notes:
this time you've graduated to a full fledged
sanctimonious little prick. I'm jealous. I thought he had that label
reserved just for me.

Shoot, I was just getting to like "Dumbo"...
Tom


You see? You can´t forget either. Once something is said on here, then no
amount of apologising, sincere or otherwise is going to make it unsaid.

Replying in kind, is not the way to "sanity".

TL
MC