SUCHAK wrote:
> My "neurotic insecurities"?
Your neurotic insecurities.
> You haven't a clue what you're talking about...
Sure I do, just have to observe you. Anybody can learn about neurotic
insecurities by observing you.
> I was responding to a private message from Irv to Charlie that
> Charlie forwarded to me in which Irv say's he thinks I'm an asshole.
It was public on the group. Try again.
> I then sent *PRIVATE* e-mail back to Irv (cc:-ing Charlie) which you
> quoted in your message,
Wasn't very private then was it? You should learn how to work the web.
> requesting that Irv at least have the balls to
> tell me to my face what he thinks of me.
Nooo, that's not what you said. The above has a miocum of courtesy and manners
in it, What you said to Irv completely lacked that, and was threatening.
> Personally I have no problem
> with Irv thinking I'm an asshole,
I'm sure you don't. People like you generally like it.
> quite frankly, I don't exactly start
> every day hoping not to piss off Irv, if you follow me.
Yes, I follow you. You have no manners, no decency, no morals, no sense of
self
worth.
> Again, my only objection was that he chose to sneak around like a > weasel
>instead of bringing it to me like a man.
It's a public forum, deal with it.
> Charlie then forwarded *that* message to the group.
Yep. Glad he did. It's helpfull for people to be able to see you as you are.
Hopefully, people will go over to your web page and notice that your also a
skin
head. They may also notice that bruise on your wife. I think it's very
important for people to fully see things like you under the bright lights of
scrutiny. Don't you agree?
> At which point, *you*, having no idea what you're talking
> about, feel the need to hop in.
Oh I agree with Irv...and Charlie.
> And here we are...
Indeed.
> So, Nolan, not only was my e-mail *NOT* directed to you or the list,
It was too the list. That's where I, and so many others, read your little
tantrum to Charlie, and then Art. If you don't like your threats being made
public, stop making them.
> it was also not motivated out of any need to work thru any insecurities or
> percieved shortcomings
I'm sure you don't perceive your shortcomings.
> (which, however, seem to be front and center in
> *YOUR* psyche... Hmmmm)
Indeed, a man attempting to make himself better by realistically apraising
himself is an alien concept to you. Pitiful, but not suprising.
> If the notion of actually taking criticism directly to the subject of
> that criticism seems foreign to you, perhaps you need to examine *your*
> masculinity..
I'm not the one who felt the need to make in issue of it to prove himself, that
child was you John. But if no one responds, add another bruise to your wifes
face, it'll make you feel better I'm sure. More of a man eh?
> In the mean time, please try to have at least a cursory
> understanding of a situation before you waste my time with your
> comments.
Can't press the enter button on your keyboard John? Got a kid John? Maybe you
can smack your child into telling you how to work it. Heck, you could add that
picture to you web site! Couple of news groups would love em, I'm sure you
know
which ones.
Now, if you'd like to talk Triumphs for a change...
|