[at-l] Semi OT - Shakespeare

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Y'know - we just got home from the weekend and started to dry out.  And when 
I checked the list - this was where this thread seemed to sorta end.  And 
it's appropriate - cause it's screamingly funny.  What y'all don't know 
about me is that waking up to a solid all-day rain with "miles to hike" 
always puts me in an absolutely insane mood - which is where I am right now 
----

Weary wrote:
>Ah. OB. This is not a matter of winning or losing.

Of course it is - otherwise you wouldn't pursue it this far - with personal 
attacks.  <G>

>Or fun. The fun chat is a
>constant. And should be. The question is whether this forum can have 
>serious discussions from time to time, in addition to the "fun."

If that's still in question in your mind, then you haven't been paying 
attention for the last two years.

>I find the intrusion of your negative psychiatric jargon on the 
>shortcomings of
>us less articulate types, less than helpful. A good rule might be, when
>responding to efforts to protect the trail, however, misdirected: "if you 
>don't
>have anything constructive to say, don't say it."

If you don't understand the "jargon" then get educated - it ain't that hard. 
But quitcher whining about it.

>History, as you say, is important. Efforts to discuss same is not 
>"idolatry,
>focused on the past, engaged in excessive ancestor worship." To claim so, 
>as you know, is simply, regressive, childish, playground, bullying.

And this is the part that I almost choked on - first because the 
"discussion" in question is not and has never been a "discussion."  It's 
invariably an unvarying monologue without regard to facts, and based 
entirely one persons monomaniac ideas.  And secondly because you've 
consistently and persistently maintained that you've "never" personally 
attacked anyone on this list.  Really??  Do you still claim so?  We DID 
discuss your personal attack philosophy and style privately - didn't we?  If 
you want to drag that discussion out into public, then have at it.  
Otherwise don't be lying about what was said there - it's not even 
acceptable Internet etiquette to discuss private communications - let alone 
to lie about them.

While we're at it - you wrote -
>First let me confess that I used to try to understand Jim's long messages, 
>but
>after months of experience, I've concluded that the effort is rarely worth 
>it,
>especially since he's told me several times that sometimes he's just 
>testing to
>see how far he can get people to go out on a limb.

the last part of which is simply a lie -  I told you specifically that I've 
sometimes prolonged "conversations" with "you" simply to see how far you'd 
go to WIN.  And frankly - you consistently go a  long, long way - and still 
end up losing.  Except that you nearly always manage to get the "last word." 
  Somehow you've never learned that having the "last word" doesn't 
constitute "winning."  Better your problem than mine.

Not "people", Bob - YOU - and only "you."  And "you" are the one who 
invariably continues to crawl out on that limb, aren't you?  So what's 
you're complaint?  <VVBG>

Don't slip on the wet rocks - or fall off the limb,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus