(OT) Does this make any sense?

Sorni wrote:
A lightbulb just went off. When wrote (originally
in a private e-mail):

Then, to have you--in your cutesy little way, yet again--make the
thinly-veiled reference to my inability to--what was it? "WORK--"

Neil, as usual you thought something was about YOU that wasn't. When
I wrote "I actually have WORK to do" I was poking fun at ME. You
know me. You know my "self under-employment" work hours are minimal,
to say the least. I meant that I actually had some work to do that
morning! (Gee, sort of what it says, isn't it?) NOT EVERYTHING IS
ABOUT YOU, NEIL.
To re-cap. Months had gone by with no "contact" between us. Hell, I
thought maybe you'd moved or something (a real heart-breaker, that
would be). Then you posted that rather obscure reference in the "pot
thread" and a few people engaged you on it. Not I (although I admit
I Googled trying to find the "study" you cited, but no go). One
poster asked you for a reference and you didn't reply for a few days,
so I posted a little "blowing tumbleweed" remark THINKING YOU STILL
HAD ME PLONKED and wouldn't even see it (first-hand, anyway). Almost
instantly you replied (to the poster) with some long-winded thing or
another.
Then Bob wrote something about pot smokers being impaired, and I
referenced your post WITHOUT USING YOUR NAME OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFYING
YOU, and next thing you know I'm getting page-long whiny e-mails from
you (saying that *I* should move on! LOL).

I'll clue you in on something, Neil. No one else on here cares about
this. No one else on here even picks up on a subtle jab, yet you
reply with PERSONAL, CURSE-LADEN FLAMES and then have the temerity to
accuse me of being unbalanced.

You also wrote that I "have no friends" on here, and threatened to
team up with your fellow lefty ideologues to ridicule me mercilessly
(like they don't already . I haven't made THAT one public yet. I'll
have you know that I correspond regularly with a number of
regulars on here -- an not just "conservatives", either. You
admitted to being a bully before ("I'm not JUST an intellectual bully
-- I have about two-score IQ points on you"), so why would you need
your pals from the peanut gallery to pile on? Typical bully behavior.

You e-mailed a tirade to me, and then concluded with {quote}

Respond/don't respond. It's your choice. I do have you filtered,
though, so--at least--I won't see your e-mails. I'm just taking the
high ground (IMO) here and suggesting that you need to figure out why
you seem totally incapable of dropping this and leaving *me* alone.

{unquote}

If you can't see the hypocrisy and basic dishonesty in that tactic,
then you're in denial and perhaps YOU need help.

This has taken up WAY too much time last few days. I *did* block your
e-mail so I won't be subjected to any more of those unwelcomed and
unfair intrusions. I'll try to refrain from EVER daring to notice or
comment on ANYTHING you ever write or reference ever again, no matter
how ridiculous or hypocritical it might be. If I slip up and make a
REALLY subtle poke at you, then be sure to post a crude,
invective-laced personal (but unfounded -- esp. with the booze thing)
attack on me. It's REAL
balanced and shows just how obsessed *I* really am.

Take care (preferably elsewhere),

Bill

OK, I have to admit... That was GOOD.

ROTFL

I got Baka. You got him. Neither should be proud.

wrote:

I got Baka. You got him. Neither should be proud.

Neither of us or neither of /them/?

Sorni wrote:
A lightbulb just went off. When wrote (originally in a
private e-mail):


Then, to have you--in your cutesy little way, yet again--make the
thinly-veiled reference to my inability to--what was it? "WORK--"


Neil, as usual you thought something was about YOU that wasn't. When I
wrote "I actually have WORK to do" I was poking fun at ME. You know me.
You know my "self under-employment" work hours are minimal, to say the
least. I meant that I actually had some work to do that morning! (Gee,
sort of what it says, isn't it?) NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU, NEIL.

To re-cap. Months had gone by with no "contact" between us. Hell, I
thought maybe you'd moved or something (a real heart-breaker, that would
be). Then you posted that rather obscure reference in the "pot thread" and
a few people engaged you on it. Not I (although I admit I Googled trying to
find the "study" you cited, but no go). One poster asked you for a
reference and you didn't reply for a few days, so I posted a little "blowing
tumbleweed" remark THINKING YOU STILL HAD ME PLONKED and wouldn't even see
it (first-hand, anyway). Almost instantly you replied (to the poster) with
some long-winded thing or another.

Then Bob wrote something about pot smokers being impaired, and I referenced
your post WITHOUT USING YOUR NAME OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFYING YOU, and next
thing you know I'm getting page-long whiny e-mails from you (saying that *I*
should move on! LOL).

I'll clue you in on something, Neil. No one else on here cares about this.
No one else on here even picks up on a subtle jab, yet you reply with
PERSONAL, CURSE-LADEN FLAMES and then have the temerity to accuse me of
being unbalanced.

You also wrote that I "have no friends" on here, and threatened to team up
with your fellow lefty ideologues to ridicule me mercilessly (like they
don't already . I haven't made THAT one public yet. I'll have you know
that I correspond regularly with a number of regulars on here -- an not just
"conservatives", either. You admitted to being a bully before ("I'm not
JUST an intellectual bully -- I have about two-score IQ points on you"), so
why would you need your pals from the peanut gallery to pile on? Typical
bully behavior.

You e-mailed a tirade to me, and then concluded with {quote}


Respond/don't respond. It's your choice. I do have you filtered,
though, so--at least--I won't see your e-mails. I'm just taking the
high ground (IMO) here and suggesting that you need to figure out why
you seem totally incapable of dropping this and leaving *me* alone.


{unquote}

If you can't see the hypocrisy and basic dishonesty in that tactic, then
you're in denial and perhaps YOU need help.

This has taken up WAY too much time last few days. I *did* block your
e-mail so I won't be subjected to any more of those unwelcomed and unfair
intrusions. I'll try to refrain from EVER daring to notice or comment on
ANYTHING you ever write or reference ever again, no matter how ridiculous or
hypocritical it might be. If I slip up and make a REALLY subtle poke at
you, then be sure to post a crude, invective-laced personal (but
unfounded -- esp. with the booze thing) attack on me. It's REAL balanced
and shows just how obsessed *I* really am.

Take care (preferably elsewhere),

Bill


Wow,
A flame war and I get to watch.
Heh, heh.
Bill

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:07:16 GMT, slithering even lower than his
previous depths,"Sorni" related:

Someone on this newsgroup keeps e-mailing me privately concerning some
issues he has with me -- especially if I even hint at referencing him on
here.

So this morning's offering ends with this:

\snip
Publicly posting private correspondence without the author's consent
is the scummiest stunt on Usenet, scum.

Sorry to take up the group's time with this, but enough is enough. (And
fair is fair.)

It's fair to say that you don't get it.
Dragging your petty OT squabble into the newsgroup makes no sense
unless your aim is to otherwise convince those who might still doubt
you're both an asshole and an idiot.

Bill "not angry, just perplexed" S.

Had you pulled that crap with me, goof, I'd just deny having sent you
anything. You can't prove that I wrote what you posted. "If it ain't
PGP, it ain't me.", dumfuk.
--
zk

Bill Baka wrote:

Wow,
A flame war and I get to watch.
Heh, heh.

Nah. Show's over. (Although I am itching to answer that long private
e-mail just to set the record straight on some points; won't undo the damage
done, however.)

Don't worry, Bill. I'll be back flaming YOU before ya know it

Snooty Putz wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:07:16 GMT, "Sorni" related:

Someone on this newsgroup keeps e-mailing me privately concerning
some issues he has with me -- especially if I even hint at
referencing him on here.

So this morning's offering ends with this:

\snip
Publicly posting private correspondence without the author's consent
is the scummiest stunt on Usenet, scum.

Right, asswipe. That's why I wanted to answer it privately. Maybe you like
being abused; I don't. (And this isn't the first time MY personal issues
and info have been made public by this person, so **** off Snoot. You don't
know what you're talking about.)

Anyway, as usual you're a day late and a toilet roll short. It's been
handled.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 05:27:31 GMT, in a typically unintelligible
sputtering, someone allegedly called, "Sorni"
again posted nothing worthwhile:



\whack
yawn

Kook.

Publicly posting private correspondence without the author's consent
is still the scummiest stunt on Usenet.

You have _no_ defense for that, scum.
--
zk

Zoot Katz wrote:

You have _no_ defense for that, scum.

Yawn. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, chum. (As in fish
guts, Putz.)

Sorni wrote:
Zoot Katz wrote:

You have _no_ defense for that, scum.

BTW, dick face, the part I "published" was not sensitive, private material
in any sense of the phrase. I posted a blatant "Catch 22" wherein someone
had sent me an unwelcomed long, insulting harangue (NOT posted by me) and
then invited me to reply or not, while at the same time saying my e-mail is
blocked. I did NOT post the harangue itself -- in fact the other party
later did that (based on totally misreading something I wrote, BTW -- it
WASN'T directed at him) -- just the contradictory "reply or not, the choice
is yours" which was dishonest, hypocritical AND unfair.

But by all means though keep stirring things up; you can use that gross
appendage you call a nose to do it.