Repost of 'Reply to Joe'
Question:
Lars asked Chris: Why have you criticized me countless times, but have yet to write a direct post to Tom or Scott where you criticize them? Because you are a fucking loser and douchebag and Scott and I are good guys!!! Lars groaned on: I will not be awaiting your answer with any particular interest, because I know you well enough by now to know that you will never respond. That is why I did, you danish dipshit!! Your american pen pal, TL
Response:
Lars wrote to Chris: "since you don’t mind it when Tom Luby attacks others for no reason." He then wrote:
"Meanwhile your friends Tom Luby and Scott Carlsen have abused dozens of posters" And he droaned on with: "The posts that I have written that you have criticized have all been addressed to mr. Carlsen and mr. Luby who have a long standing history of abusing innocent people," Then with: "Carlsen and Luby are abusers. I am on the side of the victims." Finally, the motor mouthed writer ended with: "Once again "Chris", you have yet to say the same to Tom Luby and Scott Carlsen, even though they have been and continue to be the prime disrupters and aggressors of this newsgroup." Phew!!! I thought he would never "shut up"!!! I will respond to all of lars’ above criticisms, whinings and attacks with his own delusional words. And I quote (what he wrote to Chris): "When ever you criticize me for doing something or urge me to stop doing something, I will take it as an assurance that what I am doing is right." Thanks for the moral suppotive, Larsey pooh!!! I couldn’t agree with your sentiments more. I shall carry on thanks to you. I was about to quit the NG but you convinced me to stay!!! Thank you, again. You razy danish fuckface!!! TL PS Say this sentence out loud, in a childlike, whiny voice and that is how Lars sounds: "That is the injustice you have done to me" BOO FUCKING HOO, LARS!!! "GROW UP", your BF SG would write!!!!
Response:
Scott C. wrote: > Trevor, > Nice to see you posting. I don’t agree with much of what you say, > but you are entitled to your opinions. I do find your comment about the > troll Lomas Tuby to be extremely disappointing.
ROTFLMAO!!! It’s that "disappointing" word yet again! I had weeks of that, Trevor! Basically, if you don’t agree with Scott’s every last dictate then you automatically acquire a status of "disappointing". Next thing you know, Scott labels you as "sad"… it will be your turn next to be "sad", Trevor. It’s like the sun and the moon – one is guarenteed to follow the other. Steve
Response:
Scott C. wrote in message <38BB5E35.7…@borg.nospam.com>… >x-no-archive: yes > Hard evidence about what ?? The troll ?? LOL !!! Sure, there is >plenty….need the url for the archives ?? I could forward you >responses from the troll’s isp….but I think I’ll save them for when >the killing blow is dealt to it.
LAME! LOL! Scott you can’t forward nothing to Trevor because you have nothing ……….. we weren’t born yesterday. Who are you trying to fool?? LMAO!!! Empty threats are all you have. ‘Killing blow’……… ha!!! I’ve been waiting for quite a while for it!!! LOL!!!! …………. maybe I’ll die of old age before my ISP actually acknowledges your little tattle-tale emails!!! Lemme guess ………. you were a ‘hall monitor’ in school right?? ‘I’m telling! I’m telling! I’m telling!’ Face it Scott – although you are trying, like a good power hungry bully should ………you have NO POWER over me. The truth hurts doesn’t it? LT
Response:
L.Ros. wrote: > >Who’s attacking who? > I believe that you were attacking me, and I was responding to you in kind. > Maybe what I said to you was more emotional than what you said to me. But > you shouldn’t have a problem with that, since you don’t mind it when Tom > Luby attacks others for no reason.
I know how Tom Luby is, and I think everyone here with any common sense does, too. He makes no claims to be anything other than what we all see every day. You, on the other hand, pretend to be the victim any time someone disagrees with you. You claim they have attacked you, and then you lash out at them angrily. But somehow you justify this. You always seems to have a reason or an answer for everything you do. > >> I am not playing a game, "Chris". > >I would appreciate it if you would stop putting quotation marks around my > name. > "Chris", I will continue to put quotation marks around your name until you > reveal what name you have previously posted under. Sounds fair, doesn’t it?
No, it doesn’t sound fair. Why is it any business of yours? And what difference does it make? Why aren’t you on Lomas Tuby’s back to get him/her to reveal their real name? > >> I am being very sincere. I would like it > >> very much if every poster here would treat each other with > >> respect. But as long as that doesn’t happen I have a right to speak up > >> against injustice when I see it. And that includes the injustice that is > >> done to me by you. > >I would like it very much if this newsgroup could be a place to get > information > >and support for OCD. I have done you no injustice. > You have continually criticized me and attacked me over very moderate posts > of mine (as we have indeed seen an example of today) for weeks and weeks > now. Meanwhile your friends Tom Luby and Scott Carlsen
First of all, Tom Luby and Scott Carslen are people on a NG that I visit in cyber-land. They are not "friends" of mine. > The posts that I have written that you have criticized have all been > addressed to mr. Carlsen and mr. Luby who have a long standing history of > abusing innocent people, or to Joe who has been attacking me for months. > Carlsen and Luby are abusers.
They have helped just as many people here as they have "abused". Joe has not been attacking you–he has been disagreeing with you. You seem to have a victim complex. > I am on the side of the victims.
That is really hard to swallow. You would like to think you are, but you are not. You are just as guilty of causing trouble as the people you criticize, and I have a long list of examples to back that up. That is my ENTIRE point. Stop playing the innocent victim. > You chose to > side with the abusers and direct your criticisms solely at me. That is the > injustice you have done to me.
I haven’t chosen any "side". I agree with many people from both "sides". This is really getting old. So is this whole discussion…
Response:
Thomas Luby <tel…@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24508-38BB2A61-65@storefull-283.iap.bryant.webtv.net… > Well, well, well……look who’s back? Trevor, the "prodigal son" > returns"!!! Unfortunately, he came back ‘ass backwards"!!! It doesn’t > surprise me that you have sided with your old faggy pals lars and SG. > And you are a fan of ‘tinkerbell"? <whisltes> Pretty sad, trevor.
Yes, sniff, I’m heartbroken. You lamented once when you visited alt.flame you couldn’t get a good fight. Now you have. What’s the complaint? Is tinkerbell throwing too much fairy dust in your eyes? > You wrote: > I don’t consider it to be revenge Lars is after but even if it is, who > are you to decide what this NG is for? > A little defensive, trevor. Psychotherapy not going so well? I know how > you INSP or is it INJK or whatever THAT BS IS, you ctaegorize yourself > as, are so sensitive.
Been here. > You wrote: > It seems ok for Tom to come here and take random revenge on people and > beg forgiveness with the plea "I have anger". > gee, nice to know you are still so "objective"!!! I do not take ‘random
I’m not being objective. I’m stating my own, one-eyed opinion. > revenge" nor have I ever "beg(ged for) forgieveness and pled that ‘I > have anger" Pull your head out of your ass, trevor.
Yes you have. You’ve made comments about being ashamed when you’ve seen others in similar flame fests because it looks like you. > You wrote: > But if anyone else has anger they are viewed as trolls and > troublemakers. > You got it, baby!!! It is all aboyt sides and subjectiveness and we know > whaty side you are on!!!! Aren’t you over due for your ‘High qality" and > intellectual discussions with your shrink??
Yes it’s subjective. And I’m on the side of you being free to post what you want and on other side to do what they want. Which is fight with you. > You wrote: > Lars could take it to email and be ignored by Joe, a very likely > possibility. Instead he’s chosen to be ignored publicly as I doubt if > Joe will respond. Maybe that’s his point? Silence condemns. > Tell SG and lars that!! they cionfuse ’silence" with fear of what they > call ‘debating". Your friends are morons. I hope you are not judges by > the company you keep. Even in cyberland.
I think you just told them yourself. > You wrote: > At least Lars vents his anger towards people who have actually upset him > and not against people who just happen to be in the wrong thread at the > wrong time or who just happen to mention their name in passing, unlike > some. > What bullshit and fuck you, you little wimp for your insinuation. Lars > is a vry fucked up and worhtles person. He has a seruious case of OCPD > and has a serious case od insecurity and obsessiveness. he is also a > congenital liar.
An opinion you are free to express. I’ve not denied you anything Tom. Actually, I’ve seen a good improvement in Lars confidence as a result of all this flaming. You should be proud, Tom. You’ve done a good thing. > You wrote: > It’s a trifle extreme, > "trifle extreme"?? He calls everyone he dislikes a nazi or Hitler. By > now, it is a joke.
I guess he’s trying to be original. You’ve used up most of the really foul language so I guess it’s slim pickin’s for the rest of us. > You wrote: > but perhaps you can consider it a measure of how strongly Lars feels > about the subject and take into consideration that he may also have > needs and that this is an appropriate expression of his feelings? > Fuck lars and fuck you. What a lame ass and onesided explanation. Why > not crawl back into hybernation, trevor?? Since when are lars’ feelings > so important? He is an overlysensitive pussy and freak.
They are as important as yours. And you are not oversensitive? You’ve admitted this yourself. > You wrote: > In the past Lars has been inclined to hold back in his language. > Another mistruth. Trevor, you sure you have been reading regularly on > here? I think not!!!! Lars has used as foul language as anyone calling
I’m talking about way back when Lars first started posting. > Chris worthless and below respect and calling joe "not the brightest > bulb in the box". > Lars has the same victim complex as SG. To SG, everyone he deems a > "bully" is his father and everyone he deems a "victim" , is him, his > loser brother and is mother.
Maybe, but aren’t you the biggest critic of armchair diagnoses and psychobabble? > You have really gone downhill in my estimation trevor. Sexual > frustration?
You forget that I’m impotent. I have no sex drive. I’d love to be frustrated, lol! And being high in your estimation is well… > You wrote: > If it does him good to call you a Nazi then so be it. > What hypocrisy. So, Lars can write whatever he wants but you criticize > me for doing it. Go back to your cracker box apt. What? Are you a homo > too, along with Simon, Lars and SG and Tinkerbell??
I didn’t criticise you Tom. You got that quite wrong. I was criticising the inequity of people turning a blind eye to some of your flaming but not to others. Either all should be criticised or none. I said you could flame all you want. > trevor, you are both a azi and a maoist.
Is that all? You’re running out of steam, Tom. > You wrote: > I hope he feels better. > I don’t. I hope he chokes on his puke.
I hope you feel better for saying that. > You wrote: > That seems to be Toms justification and he uses far worse language but > you don’t confront him over it. > No, Chris doesnt.
Which is why I was talking to Chris. He should if he wants to be consistent with his own words. If he wants to though, I can’t make him, he’s free to do as he pleases. You seem to forget Tom that I post here for the sake of my own expression. I don’t care if anyone listens or agrees but I’ll say it anyway. That’s why your insults are so ineffectual against me. You make good sport sometimes but little else. On the other hand, when you do get your anger under control and make some really good supportive posts (and you’ve been doing heaps of this lately) I can feel really good and think how well you are doing. I can like the part I like and not give a rats arse about the part I don’t like. Hence I am happy and sleep well at night. A very grey way to be is it not? Perhaps you can try it sometime. > But, Tinkerbell, SG, WhataDRIP, Lars , tait and simon > do!!! So, if I confron these weasals and so does Scott, Chris, jo and > grindo, in the past, so what. I is like a cyber space brawl.Big fucking > deal!! Fuck them and fuck you, ittle man.
C’mon, don’t hold back, Tom. Tell us how you really feel. > You wrote: > He is not playing. > How do you know? He is an asshole, no matter what!!!
’tis too, ’tis not, ’tis too, ah, the thrill of a spirited debate. That’s what I like about you, Tom. > You wrote: > He has a valid point. > I mguess t takes one psycho to understand another. "valid" my ass.
I will take your word for it that you have a valid ass, I really don’t want to check it personally. > You wrote: > And if Lars wants to make that point in public he has very right to do > so. > yada, yada, yada……….
ping, ping, ping…. Your turn…. > You wrote: > I’ve lurked here for months now and I amazed at the way Tom’s behaviour > is excused or ignored where some others in a desperate state of mind > have suffered dreadfully at the injustice of it. > says who? How do you know who has suffered and who hasn’t? How much have > they sufferred? You are speculating, at best. You do not shit.
I have private email correspondence. I lurk for a reason, to keep up on what’s going on for the sake of those I correspond with. And no, you’re not getting names. Call me a liar if you want, make no difference to me. > Who is excusing or ignoring my behavior, mate?
Chris and Scott, at least in terms of talking to you directly. Both admit in a sideways fashion they don’t approve of your flaming but refuse to step into the fray. > I get flamed by about 5-6 > people every time I post. I am not complaining, just stating an obvious > truth you so conveniently left out to make your dishonest point with.
I was talking to Chris in the context of his argument with Lars about the way he deals with you. No dishonesty at all. > Plus, even if I am flamed, how can anyone stop me? You just > contradicited yourself when you stated that Lars had every right to > write whatever he wants but I can not (without being admonished). Ever > hear of favoritism, oh 1% er?
Exactly. I said you can flame all you want, and Lars too. No favouritism. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You wrote: > Then, when some (the ‘posse’) try and defend what they believe to be > true they have to suffer your aberrant intellectualism’s as to how we > would all have peace if only they’d just go away. > WE WOULD!!!! They suck!!! Of corse, the ther "side" feels if just if I > would go away and Scott and grindo as well. maybe they want Chris and > Joe to leave as well. Who knows what those freaks want. they do not even > know. > You wrote: > I have no problem with the fighting here. > You sure? Then why write that you "can’t believe that Tom’s behavior is > ignored and excused". Get your act together, trevor.
See above. I’m commenting to Chris about his argument with Lars. Context, context, context. > You sound like the other "side". They always lie, contradict and committ > hypocrisy, too.
No, I was saying either let everyone flame their hearts out or confront all equally. And I wa saying it to Chris in the context…you know the drill. > You wrote: > It’s real life in the small. > Well, I finally may agree wih you if you mean, on the grand scale of > things, this NG doesn’t amount to a pile of dried dogshit.
Then why are you so upset about it? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You wrote: > If Tom wants to blow up, fine. If Steve, Lars, Lomas (count me as fan > #9) > Pathetic!!!! The guys sole desire on ere is to disrupt and cause > disenscion. His words.
… read more »
Response:
Chris <ezra…@excite.com> wrote in message
news:38BA8924.B47CE6EE@excite.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi Trevor: > You make some good points here. > Trevor Lampre wrote: > > Lars could take it to email and be ignored by Joe, a very likely > > possibility. Instead he’s chosen to be ignored publicly as I doubt if Joe > > will respond. Maybe that’s his point? Silence condemns. > But Trevor, I don’t think Joe deserves to be "condemned". He has always been a > good contributor here. The only thing he is guilty of is asking if Lars was > Lomas Tuby. Lars then flipped out on him.
I like Joe too. He’s a great guy. Lars has overreacted a bit, but then he has OCD. I’m not making excuses for Lars any more than I am Tom. I was explaining why ars chose to post in a public forum rather than email. I think Joe should respond and I think they could probably sort it out given some effort. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > At least Lars vents his anger towards people who have actually upset him and > > not against people who just happen to be in the wrong thread at the wrong > > time or who just happen to mention their name in passing, unlike some. > Agreed. > > In the past Lars has been inclined to hold back in his language. If it does > > him good to call you a Nazi then so be it. I hope he feels better. > Indeed, I hope it does make him feel better, but I still think references to > Nazi Germany are inappropriate. I would prefer if he called me an "asshole" or > something similar.
Well, the nazi bit goes back the silence people held during the holocaust that Lars referred to previously. I guess the idea has stuck. > > I’ve lurked here for months now and I amazed at the way Tom’s behaviour is > > excused or ignored where some others in a desperate state of mind have > > suffered dreadfully at the injustice of it. Then, when some (the ‘posse’) > > try and defend what they believe to be true they have to suffer your > > aberrant intellectualism’s as to how we would all have peace if only they’d > > just go away. > My whole point is that in many cases the ‘posse’ isn’t just defending, but > starting the trouble in the first place. I’ve said it before that I’m not > defending any abhorant behaivor here. But when all is said and done, and this > NG is a quiet place, why stir things up?
There are two issues here, one where the ‘posse’ leaps in to defend someone and two where they have some old scores to settle. Both are human nature. The flaming in this group over the last few months has left a lot of hurt feelings. I’m hoping the tit-for-tat stuff will eventually die down. Regards, Trevor
Response:
Scott C. <cny…@borg.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:38BB5E35.7E41@borg.nospam.com… > x-no-archive: yes > Trevor Lampre wrote: > > Scott C. <cny…@borg.nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:38BB4973.6473@borg.nospam.com… > > > x-no-archive: yes > > > Trevor, > > > Nice to see you posting. I don’t agree with much of what you say, > > Of course you don’t. > …and of course we can both be entitled to our opinions…correct ?
And free to express them too. In a public forum if they choose. That was my point to Chris. > > > but you are entitled to your opinions. I do find your comment about the > > > troll Lomas Tuby to be extremely disappointing. > > I don’t see Lomas as a troll. I see him as a former poster with a grudge to > > settle with you and Tom and for whatever reason has chosen to do it > > anonymously. > This suprises me….but honestly I think you have an agenda on this
Please show evidence of my agenda. > issue. There is no proof that Lomas is a former poster. He started > with Tom, rather obvious from his name, and then has moved on to me and > others. Calling him a simply a former poster with a grudge is nothing > more than nonsense…again just my opinion.
Given Lomas’ knowlege of the people here and his ability to parody Tom so well I would say it is someone who’s been aroind a while and has an axe to grind. And Lomas has a pretty fine edge on his axe too. > > > You are an intelligent > > > and usually extremely rational person (and I know you won’t let those > > > comments sway your opinion…ha) > > True, I prefer to let hard evidence sway my opinions. You got any? > Hard evidence about what ?? The troll ?? LOL !!! Sure, there is > plenty….need the url for the archives ?? I could forward you > responses from the troll’s isp….but I think I’ll save them for when > the killing blow is dealt to it.
This is obfuscation, Scott. Claims to evidence is not evidence. > > >….but can you honestly tell me that if > > > the troll had come here as "Levor Trampre" or "Rars Los" or "Geven > > > Seorge" and abused others in the manner he/she has done, that you would > > > have the same opinion ??? Please don’t tell me yes. > > You ask me to be honest and then dictate what I should say? This is typical > > of you, Scott. > Yeah whatever Trevor…so let’s see if you can be honest.
Whatever, whatever. When you can’t respond constructively it’s whatever. For someone who advocates against avoidance you set a poor example. > > Yes, sorry honesty wins out. Lomas has targeted only a select few for > > "payback". He has used a strange approach for sure but I see the intent. > > Lomas has anger and OCD just like Tom. > Come on Trevor…you said honesty wins out??!! Oh, I get it…the > troll is cool because he didn’t target Lars or Steve or Simon ?? > Ooops…you’ll accuse me of putting words in your mouth…sorry.
Lomas anger is with Tom. He said so. I’m not saying he’s cool either. I’m say he’s directing his anger at somebody who specifically annoys him. That is Tom and you. I also said Tom is doing a better job of that himself now and this is healthy sign for him. You chose to cut out my compliment regarding Tom. I have no axe to grind with Tom myself. I like Tom but don’t approve of some of his behaviour and have confronted him over it at times. Frankly, I don’t think Tom likes some of his own behaviour either. Tom has a good nature underneath all the abusivness but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be confronted over it. This is the sticking point of this whole argument. Tom flames with foul language and few stand up to him. Those who do are accused of causing trouble. This is bad for Tom. We may as well become his codepenants if we just do that all the time. The issue is that you, Scott, for one who doesn’t have OCD and facilitates real life support groups, should know enough to step in now and again and say "Tom, that’s enough". But you never have. Instead you get into fights with people who do have OCD along with other disorders telling them to leave Tom alone. Little wonder these other people miss out on the support they need when they get criticised. Little wonder some of them have been pushed into depressions as a result of obsessing over the injustice. It doesn’t help Tom or anyone else. You of all people should know better and rise above all of this. > > He’s doing nothing Tom isn’t but in a > > methodical theraputic way. > Therapeutic ??? LOL !! I’m going to stop here…this is just plain > nonsense. Later, Scott
Much later. Trevor P.S. You got mad at Simon for calling you by your full name but have no problems being called "Bubba" by Roger. I find this very confusing.
Response:
Chris skrev i meddelelsen <38BA8924.B47CE…@excite.com>… >Hi Trevor: >You make some good points here. >Trevor Lampre wrote: >> Lars could take it to email and be ignored by Joe, a very likely >> possibility. Instead he’s chosen to be ignored publicly as I doubt if Joe >> will respond. Maybe that’s his point? Silence condemns. >But Trevor, I don’t think Joe deserves to be "condemned". He has always been a >good contributor here. The only thing he is guilty of is asking if Lars was >Lomas Tuby. Lars then flipped out on him.
"Chris", the post that you have attacked me for posting today, contains a very thorough and detailed account of what Joe is ‘guilty’ of. I suggest you read it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> At least Lars vents his anger towards people who have actually upset him and >> not against people who just happen to be in the wrong thread at the wrong >> time or who just happen to mention their name in passing, unlike some. >Agreed. >> In the past Lars has been inclined to hold back in his language. If it does >> him good to call you a Nazi then so be it. I hope he feels better. >Indeed, I hope it does make him feel better, but I still think references to >Nazi Germany are inappropriate. I would prefer if he called me an "asshole" or >something similar.
I was not merely trying to offend you. I said that you were the type of person who would have turned up the radio on the ‘Night of the broken glass’ because I genuinely believe that to be true, after having observed you in this newsgroup. If this shocks you then take it as an indication that you need to change some things, in stead of blaming me for pointing it out. >> I’ve lurked here for months now and I amazed at the way Tom’s behaviour is >> excused or ignored where some others in a desperate state of mind have >> suffered dreadfully at the injustice of it. Then, when some (the ‘posse’) >> try and defend what they believe to be true they have to suffer your >> aberrant intellectualism’s as to how we would all have peace if only they’d >> just go away. >My whole point is that in many cases the ‘posse’ isn’t just defending, but >starting the trouble in the first place. I’ve said it before that I’m not >defending any abhorant behaivor here. But when all is said and done, and this >NG is a quiet place, why stir things up?
Why have you not *once* criticized your friends Scott and Tom for "stirring things up" as you and Scott likes to call it? This is the fourth time you have been asked this question. And it will no doubt be the fourth time that you do not respond. Regards Lars
Response:
Chris skrev i meddelelsen <38BA844F.762FD…@excite.com>… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->L.Ros. wrote: >> I have not disrupted anything. I have written a polite and calm post and I >> think both Joe and myself would benefit from it, if he would reply to it in >> the same spirit. >While your post to Joe was indeed polite, I think it would be more appropriate >if you two settled this issue off the NG. >> "Chris", it is in fact you who are disrupting the peace by suddenly >> attacking me – again, even though I had not done anything to you. >I did not attack you. My post was: "We have all dropped this subject, and >wouldappeciate it if you would do the same." >You then came back at me with the following: >"…and >attacking people who stand up to them, in the true nazi-spirit." >"I regard you as the embodiment of the lowest and most despicable >traits of human nature." >"When ever you criticize me for doing something or >urge me to stop doing something, I will take it as an assurance that what I >am doing is right." >Who’s attacking who?
I believe that you were attacking me, and I was responding to you in kind. Maybe what I said to you was more emotional than what you said to me. But you shouldn’t have a problem with that, since you don’t mind it when Tom Luby attacks others for no reason. >> I am not playing a game, "Chris". >I would appreciate it if you would stop putting quotation marks around my
name. "Chris", I will continue to put quotation marks around your name until you reveal what name you have previously posted under. Sounds fair, doesn’t it? >> I am being very sincere. I would like it >> very much if every poster here would treat each other with >> respect. But as long as that doesn’t happen I have a right to speak up >> against injustice when I see it. And that includes the injustice that is >> done to me by you. >I would like it very much if this newsgroup could be a place to get information >and support for OCD. I have done you no injustice.
You have continually criticized me and attacked me over very moderate posts of mine (as we have indeed seen an example of today) for weeks and weeks now. Meanwhile your friends Tom Luby and Scott Carlsen have abused dozens of posters, and you have not once criticized them or attacked them in a post that was directly addressed to them. The posts that I have written that you have criticized have all been addressed to mr. Carlsen and mr. Luby who have a long standing history of abusing innocent people, or to Joe who has been attacking me for months. Carlsen and Luby are abusers. I am on the side of the victims. You chose to side with the abusers and direct your criticisms solely at me. That is the injustice you have done to me. I don’t know why you can’t >take these personal issues off the NG and into private emails.
Once again "Chris", you have yet to say the same to Tom Luby and Scott Carlsen, even though they have been and continue to be the prime disrupters and aggressors of this newsgroup. I asked you last week why that was. You did not respond. Trevor asked you the same question earlier today. You did not respond. I will now ask you again: Why have you criticized me countless times, but have yet to write a direct post to Tom or Scott where you criticize them? I will not be awaiting your answer with any particular interest, because I know you well enough by now to know that you will never respond. Regards Lars
Response:
Scott C. wrote in message <38BB4973.6…@borg.nospam.com>… >x-no-archive: yes >the >troll Lomas Tuby
Hey Scottie, Grab a spine and answer my question. How come I am labelled as a troll and Tom is not? I have OCD. Tom has OCD. I have anger. Tom has anger. I have written stuff to piss people off. Tom has written stuff to piss people off. I have written some supportive posts. Tom has written some supportive posts. Why am I a troll and Tom is not? A sincere and valid question. LT What are you afraid of Scott? Are you afraid of the answer?
Response:
Scott C. <cny…@borg.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:38BB4973.6473@borg.nospam.com… > x-no-archive: yes > Trevor, > Nice to see you posting. I don’t agree with much of what you say,
Of course you don’t. > but you are entitled to your opinions. I do find your comment about the > troll Lomas Tuby to be extremely disappointing.
I don’t see Lomas as a troll. I see him as a former poster with a grudge to settle with you and Tom and for whatever reason has chosen to do it anonymously. > You are an intelligent > and usually extremely rational person (and I know you won’t let those > comments sway your opinion…ha)
True, I prefer to let hard evidence sway my opinions. You got any? >….but can you honestly tell me that if > the troll had come here as "Levor Trampre" or "Rars Los" or "Geven > Seorge" and abused others in the manner he/she has done, that you would > have the same opinion ??? Please don’t tell me yes.
You ask me to be honest and then dictate what I should say? This is typical of you, Scott. Yes, sorry honesty wins out. Lomas has targeted only a select few for "payback". He has used a strange approach for sure but I see the intent. Lomas has anger and OCD just like Tom. He’s doing nothing Tom isn’t but in a methodical theraputic way. A big part of anger management is learning to get angry at the right people for the right reasons. Lomas is further down that path than Tom. But I will admit Tom is getting much better. > You know enough > about ng’s and the internet than to be encouraging trolls…
Long enough to tell the difference between a real troll and a fake user id being used for a real purpose. > Missed your posting here but you lost me on this one.
I can imagine. Trevor
Response:
Trevor Lampre wrote in message … >If Steve, Lars, Lomas (count me as fan #9) want >to fight back then let them. They have as much right to their anger and >their opinions as anybody.
Well Helllooooo Trevor! Welcome back!!! Fan number 9!!!!!! Woooo-hooooo!!!!! Hey Tommy, see that???!!!!! NINE fans!!!! How many do YOU have????? Na-na nah na-na!! I have more fans that youuuuuuuu :-P LMFAO!!!!!! LT
Response:
Hey Trevor!!! Good to see you posting again!!! Shana shaynuh…@aol.com
Response:
Well, well, well……look who’s back? Trevor, the "prodigal son" returns"!!! Unfortunately, he came back ‘ass backwards"!!! It doesn’t surprise me that you have sided with your old faggy pals lars and SG. And you are a fan of ‘tinkerbell"? <whisltes> Pretty sad, trevor. You wrote:
I don’t consider it to be revenge Lars is after but even if it is, who are you to decide what this NG is for? A little defensive, trevor. Psychotherapy not going so well? I know how you INSP or is it INJK or whatever THAT BS IS, you ctaegorize yourself as, are so sensitive. You wrote:
It seems ok for Tom to come here and take random revenge on people and beg forgiveness with the plea "I have anger". gee, nice to know you are still so "objective"!!! I do not take ‘random revenge" nor have I ever "beg(ged for) forgieveness and pled that ‘I have anger" Pull your head out of your ass, trevor. You wrote:
But if anyone else has anger they are viewed as trolls and troublemakers. You got it, baby!!! It is all aboyt sides and subjectiveness and we know whaty side you are on!!!! Aren’t you over due for your ‘High qality" and intellectual discussions with your shrink?? You wrote:
Lars could take it to email and be ignored by Joe, a very likely possibility. Instead he’s chosen to be ignored publicly as I doubt if Joe will respond. Maybe that’s his point? Silence condemns. Tell SG and lars that!! they cionfuse ’silence" with fear of what they call ‘debating". Your friends are morons. I hope you are not judges by the company you keep. Even in cyberland. You wrote:
At least Lars vents his anger towards people who have actually upset him and not against people who just happen to be in the wrong thread at the wrong time or who just happen to mention their name in passing, unlike some. What bullshit and fuck you, you little wimp for your insinuation. Lars is a vry fucked up and worhtles person. He has a seruious case of OCPD and has a serious case od insecurity and obsessiveness. he is also a congenital liar. You wrote:
It’s a trifle extreme, "trifle extreme"?? He calls everyone he dislikes a nazi or Hitler. By now, it is a joke. You wrote:
but perhaps you can consider it a measure of how strongly Lars feels about the subject and take into consideration that he may also have needs and that this is an appropriate expression of his feelings? Fuck lars and fuck you. What a lame ass and onesided explanation. Why not crawl back into hybernation, trevor?? Since when are lars’ feelings so important? He is an overlysensitive pussy and freak. You wrote:
In the past Lars has been inclined to hold back in his language. Another mistruth. Trevor, you sure you have been reading regularly on here? I think not!!!! Lars has used as foul language as anyone calling Chris worthless and below respect and calling joe "not the brightest bulb in the box". Lars has the same victim complex as SG. To SG, everyone he deems a "bully" is his father and everyone he deems a "victim" , is him, his loser brother and is mother. You have really gone downhill in my estimation trevor. Sexual frustration? You wrote:
If it does him good to call you a Nazi then so be it. What hypocrisy. So, Lars can write whatever he wants but you criticize me for doing it. Go back to your cracker box apt. What? Are you a homo too, along with Simon, Lars and SG and Tinkerbell?? trevor, you are both a azi and a maoist. You wrote:
I hope he feels better. I don’t. I hope he chokes on his puke. You wrote:
That seems to be Toms justification and he uses far worse language but you don’t confront him over it. No, Chris doesnt. But, Tinkerbell, SG, WhataDRIP, Lars , tait and simon do!!! So, if I confron these weasals and so does Scott, Chris, jo and grindo, in the past, so what. I is like a cyber space brawl.Big fucking deal!! Fuck them and fuck you, ittle man. You wrote:
He is not playing. How do you know? He is an asshole, no matter what!!! You wrote:
He has a valid point. I mguess t takes one psycho to understand another. "valid" my ass. You wrote:
And if Lars wants to make that point in public he has very right to do so. yada, yada, yada………. You wrote:
I’ve lurked here for months now and I amazed at the way Tom’s behaviour is excused or ignored where some others in a desperate state of mind have suffered dreadfully at the injustice of it. says who? How do you know who has suffered and who hasn’t? How much have they sufferred? You are speculating, at best. You do not shit. Who is excusing or ignoring my behavior, mate? I get flamed by about 5-6 people every time I post. I am not complaining, just stating an obvious truth you so conveniently left out to make your dishonest point with. Plus, even if I am flamed, how can anyone stop me? You just contradicited yourself when you stated that Lars had every right to write whatever he wants but I can not (without being admonished). Ever hear of favoritism, oh 1% er? You wrote:
Then, when some (the ‘posse’) try and defend what they believe to be true they have to suffer your aberrant intellectualism’s as to how we would all have peace if only they’d just go away. WE WOULD!!!! They suck!!! Of corse, the ther "side" feels if just if I would go away and Scott and grindo as well. maybe they want Chris and Joe to leave as well. Who knows what those freaks want. they do not even know. You wrote:
I have no problem with the fighting here. You sure? Then why write that you "can’t believe that Tom’s behavior is ignored and excused". Get your act together, trevor. You sound like the other "side". They always lie, contradict and committ hypocrisy, too. You wrote:
It’s real life in the small. Well, I finally may agree wih you if you mean, on the grand scale of things, this NG doesn’t amount to a pile of dried dogshit. You wrote:
If Tom wants to blow up, fine. If Steve, Lars, Lomas (count me as fan #9) Pathetic!!!! The guys sole desire on ere is to disrupt and cause disenscion. His words. Weak minded fish like you would worship some psycho loser on a support group for fucked up people. You wrote:
want to fight back then let them. They have as much right to their anger and their opinions as anybody. Gee! Thanks!!! We were all waiting for your permission!!! You wrote:
You are the one who is irrational Chris. No even close, trevor. You should go back to that INSP shit. Your common sense is sadly lacking. You wrote:
You want the fighting to stop. Dream on, but it won’t. It will come back again and again. This is a group full of people with anger, much of it justified and in need of letting it out. And it’s got people who will try and stand up for the weaker ones when the stronger ones go berserk. "Bullies" and "victims". Black and white. Trevor, for a non-OCDer, you seem to lack a lot of grey!!! You wrote:
It’s the way life works Chris. Thanks for the tip, oh wise one. Drop in anytime and share some of that ‘down under" wisdom with us 99%er’s. TL
Response:
Hi Trevor: You make some good points here. Trevor Lampre wrote: > Lars could take it to email and be ignored by Joe, a very likely > possibility. Instead he’s chosen to be ignored publicly as I doubt if Joe > will respond. Maybe that’s his point? Silence condemns.
But Trevor, I don’t think Joe deserves to be "condemned". He has always been a good contributor here. The only thing he is guilty of is asking if Lars was Lomas Tuby. Lars then flipped out on him. > At least Lars vents his anger towards people who have actually upset him and > not against people who just happen to be in the wrong thread at the wrong > time or who just happen to mention their name in passing, unlike some.
Agreed. > In the past Lars has been inclined to hold back in his language. If it does > him good to call you a Nazi then so be it. I hope he feels better.
Indeed, I hope it does make him feel better, but I still think references to Nazi Germany are inappropriate. I would prefer if he called me an "asshole" or something similar. > I’ve lurked here for months now and I amazed at the way Tom’s behaviour is > excused or ignored where some others in a desperate state of mind have > suffered dreadfully at the injustice of it. Then, when some (the ‘posse’) > try and defend what they believe to be true they have to suffer your > aberrant intellectualism’s as to how we would all have peace if only they’d > just go away.
My whole point is that in many cases the ‘posse’ isn’t just defending, but starting the trouble in the first place. I’ve said it before that I’m not defending any abhorant behaivor here. But when all is said and done, and this NG is a quiet place, why stir things up? Best, Chris
Response:
L.Ros. wrote: > I have not disrupted anything. I have written a polite and calm post and I > think both Joe and myself would benefit from it, if he would reply to it in > the same spirit.
While your post to Joe was indeed polite, I think it would be more appropriate if you two settled this issue off the NG. > "Chris", it is in fact you who are disrupting the peace by suddenly > attacking me – again, even though I had not done anything to you.
I did not attack you. My post was: "We have all dropped this subject, and wouldappeciate it if you would do the same." You then came back at me with the following: "…and attacking people who stand up to them, in the true nazi-spirit." "I regard you as the embodiment of the lowest and most despicable traits of human nature." "When ever you criticize me for doing something or urge me to stop doing something, I will take it as an assurance that what I am doing is right." Who’s attacking who? > I am not playing a game, "Chris".
I would appreciate it if you would stop putting quotation marks around my name. > I am being very sincere. I would like it > very much if every poster here would treat each other with > respect. But as long as that doesn’t happen I have a right to speak up > against injustice when I see it. And that includes the injustice that is > done to me by you.
I would like it very much if this newsgroup could be a place to get information and support for OCD. I have done you no injustice. I don’t know why you can’t take these personal issues off the NG and into private emails. Regards, Chris
Response:
A+ on this post, Trevor. Don’t take that in the wrong way, Chris. The reason I stopped being a lurker and started posting was because I saw how some posters were being brutally attacked by certain angered individuals, and no one attempted to do anything about it. I get angry when posters try to exploit the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of others with the OK of the OCD Sheriff’s Patrol. Some people have to prey on others to "vent", because they don’t have the "balls" to confront their problems in the "real" world. To attack people and try to break them when they are already more on the verge of breaking down than your average Joe is, that my friend is an act of cowardice. Calvin
Response:
Chris skrev i meddelelsen <38BA003A.C2D4C…@excite.com>… >L.Ros. wrote: >> Who are the ‘we’ who have dropped the subject, and would appreciate if I >> would do the same? As far as I remember the conversation took place between >> Joe and myself. >This NG has settled down over the last week, but yet you insist on disrupting >things with your personal agenda. If you’ve got a problem with Joe, send him an >email. This NG is not the place to revenge your hurt feelings.
I have not disrupted anything. I have written a polite and calm post and I think both Joe and myself would benefit from it, if he would reply to it in the same spirit. There have been a lot of arguments going on here, in the last couple of days though. Your friend Scott have taken part in all of them, but you did not have anything to say to him. No posts to Scott saying: ‘This ng is not the place to revenge your hurt feelings’… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Last week the two of us were debating your bias and the fact that you are >> continually supporting and defending people who abuse others on this ng, and >> attacking people who stand up to them, in the true nazi-spirit. >In the Nazi spirit? I hope I am not the only one here who is offended by this >statement. I let it go last week because I was stepping down from the stupidity >of the thread you and I had going. But you obviously can’t leave well enough >alone. That is a sick, sick comparison, and I am truly sorry if you can’t see >that. >> When the >> going got too tough, you decided that you did not wish to debate with me any >> further, and in return you promised not to harass me again when I stood up >> for my self or tried to protect others from the abuse of your friends. >BS, Lars. I stepped down because it is not productive to debate such nonsense >here. I am not intimidated by your debating skills. You have proved, yet again, >that you cannot let things lie quietly; you must disrupt the peace to prove >your point.
"Chris", it is in fact you who are disrupting the peace by suddenly attacking me – again, even though I had not done anything to you. >And I am not the only one here who sees it that way, either.
No, I am sure that Scott, Tom Luby and Joe all agree with you. I know for a fact that the posters who I respect, and whose opinion matters to me, all agree with me. >> "Chris", your lack of fairness and judgment, your double standards, and your >> hypocrisy is so overwhelming that it makes me feel sick. And I mean that >> literally. I regard you as the embodiment of the lowest and most despicable >> traits of human nature. When ever you criticize me for doing something or >> urge me to stop doing something, I will take it as an assurance that what I >> am doing is right. And should the day ever come where you were to applaud me >> for something, I would bow my head in shame because then I would know that >> what I had done was wrong. >I’m sorry, but you are truly sad. You start problems here again and again,
It is you who start problems here again and again by playing cyber-policeman, and repeatedly telling people who you do not like, how to behave. then >when someone confronts you about doing so you slam them back, but all of a >sudden you pretend to be the victim.
This statement applies very well to your self. >Get real. Everyone knows your game, Lars, >so stop playing it.
I am not playing a game, "Chris". I am being very sincere. I would like it very much if every poster here would treat each other with respect. But as long as that doesn’t happen I have a right to speak up against injustice when I see it. And that includes the injustice that is done to me by you. I have no intentions of suffering in silence. I believe that your purpose for your first post to me was to protect your friends, and attack me because I am on the other side. If your purpose really was to keep this newsgroup calm, as you claim, then you chose a very wrong way to go about it. If you want to reduce the arguments on this newsgroup then my advice to you is this: Do not ever reply to any of my posts again, or criticize me in any way. Because if you do so, I will reply to you in kind, and the result will most likely be an argument, such as the one that is sadly starting to take place between us now. Regards Lars
Response:
Chris <ezra…@excite.com> wrote in message
news:38BA003A.C2D4C0AB@excite.com… > L.Ros. wrote: > > Who are the ‘we’ who have dropped the subject, and would appreciate if I > > would do the same? As far as I remember the conversation took place between > > Joe and myself. > This NG has settled down over the last week, but yet you insist on disrupting > things with your personal agenda. If you’ve got a problem with Joe, send him an > email. This NG is not the place to revenge your hurt feelings.
I don’t consider it to be revenge Lars is after but even if it is, who are you to decide what this NG is for? It seems ok for Tom to come here and take random revenge on people and beg forgiveness with the plea "I have anger". But if anyone else has anger they are viewed as trolls and troublemakers. Lars could take it to email and be ignored by Joe, a very likely possibility. Instead he’s chosen to be ignored publicly as I doubt if Joe will respond. Maybe that’s his point? Silence condemns. At least Lars vents his anger towards people who have actually upset him and not against people who just happen to be in the wrong thread at the wrong time or who just happen to mention their name in passing, unlike some. > > Last week the two of us were debating your bias and the fact that you are > > continually supporting and defending people who abuse others on this ng, and > > attacking people who stand up to them, in the true nazi-spirit. > In the Nazi spirit? I hope I am not the only one here who is offended by this > statement.
It’s a trifle extreme, but perhaps you can consider it a measure of how strongly Lars feels about the subject and take into consideration that he may also have needs and that this is an appropriate expression of his feelings? In the past Lars has been inclined to hold back in his language. If it does him good to call you a Nazi then so be it. I hope he feels better. That seems to be Toms justification and he uses far worse language but you don’t confront him over it. > I’m sorry, but you are truly sad. You start problems here again and again, then > when someone confronts you about doing so you slam them back, but all of a > sudden you pretend to be the victim. Get real. Everyone knows your game, Lars, > so stop playing it.
He is not playing. He has a valid point. And if Lars wants to make that point in public he has very right to do so. I’ve lurked here for months now and I amazed at the way Tom’s behaviour is excused or ignored where some others in a desperate state of mind have suffered dreadfully at the injustice of it. Then, when some (the ‘posse’) try and defend what they believe to be true they have to suffer your aberrant intellectualism’s as to how we would all have peace if only they’d just go away. I have no problem with the fighting here. It’s real life in the small. If Tom wants to blow up, fine. If Steve, Lars, Lomas (count me as fan #9) want to fight back then let them. They have as much right to their anger and their opinions as anybody. You are the one who is irrational Chris. You want the fighting to stop. Dream on, but it won’t. It will come back again and again. This is a group full of people with anger, much of it justified and in need of letting it out. And it’s got people who will try and stand up for the weaker ones when the stronger ones go berserk. It’s the way life works Chris. Trevor
Response:
Chris skrev i meddelelsen <38B9F1E2.CE0D5…@excite.com>… >Here’s an answer for you… We have all dropped this subject, and would >appeciate it if you would do the same.
Who are the ‘we’ who have dropped the subject, and would appreciate if I would do the same? As far as I remember the conversation took place between Joe and myself. Is it you who decide when a subject that I am debating with another person is to be dropped? Last week the two of us were debating your bias and the fact that you are continually supporting and defending people who abuse others on this ng, and attacking people who stand up to them, in the true nazi-spirit. When the going got too tough, you decided that you did not wish to debate with me any further, and in return you promised not to harass me again when I stood up for my self or tried to protect others from the abuse of your friends. But never the less you are now doing that exact same thing again. "Chris", your lack of fairness and judgment, your double standards, and your hypocrisy is so overwhelming that it makes me feel sick. And I mean that literally. I regard you as the embodiment of the lowest and most despicable traits of human nature. When ever you criticize me for doing something or urge me to stop doing something, I will take it as an assurance that what I am doing is right. And should the day ever come where you were to applaud me for something, I would bow my head in shame because then I would know that what I had done was wrong. Regards Lars
Response:
I spent a considerable amount of time writing this, so I would appreciate an answer, thank you. —- Joe, I think your account of things is very incorrect. I think you are the one who is doing an excellent job of forgetting your own flames. You seem to have forgotten a hell of a lot of the things you have been writing to me over the last month. Let me refresh your memory. You and I had been on friendly terms since August, when you for some reason last month all of a sudden decided to start criticizing me and attacking me. Your first attack on me was launched on the 15th when I had written a post called ‘Some random thoughts’ attempting to stop the ongoing flamewar. In this post I wrote that even though I couldn’t help but feel pleased that Tom and Scott were getting a taste of their own medicine by Steve, Monica and Annmarie, I was aware of the damaging effect that the flamewar had on the newsgroup, and I urged everyone to just come to ASOM in stead of flaming. In response to this post, you wrote that I had double standards, and that you had lost your respect for me, and you continued to write similar things for the next couple of days in other posts. This came as a bit of a shock to me considering our good relationship. During last autumn I wrote a lot of supportive posts and mails to you when you were depressed and having obsessions, and I thought you had chosen an odd way of showing your appreciation. It made me feel hurt and angry with you, so therefore I replied that I had no respect for you either. A flame for a flame. But please notice that it was you who flamed me first, and I who defended my self from you. Some time later, I wrote a post warning people about Tom Luby. A warning that I think the last couple of days have proven to be justified. You replied by writing that I was a dangerous person who had fooled people into thinking I was nice, but that you saw right through me. I responded by telling you that I had as little respect for your opinion as I did for your person. A flame for a flame. But please notice that again it was you who flamed me first, and I who defended my self from you. Never the less you then felt compelled to call me a loser in your next post to me, a flame that I didn’t return. During the next couple of weeks I am pretty sure that you continued to take little jabs at me all the time, but I can’t remember them specifically and I can’t search for them in deja, since you use x-no-archive. Finally a few days ago you accused me of posting as ‘Lomas Tuby’. If you think long and hard about it and try to imagine that it was the other way around, I am sure that you can understand that that was very insulting to me. So I responded by writing the post where I said the thing about the light-bulbs. Again please notice that you flamed me first, and that it was me who was protecting my self from you. You then wrote a post back where you told me that I should ‘fuck off’, that I was a ‘douchbag’, that I was an ‘asshole’, that I was ‘numbnuts’, that I had done nothing with my life, but could only sit in front of my computer causing trouble, and you then finally tried to hurt me by writing that ’shit you can’t even decide what ocd book to buy on your own,you will never be a lawyer.’ I still owe you for that post, Joe. Anyway I would say the pattern is pretty obvious. We were friends until you decided to launch a series of unprovoked attacks on me, that I responded to in kind. Did you think that I would just turn the other cheek and not defend my self from your constant criticisms and flames?? If you did, you thought wrong. You can call me a lot of things, but I’m no Jesus. Finally let me say something about how I see your motives for attacking me. It seems to me that you are doing it out of loyalty towards Scott Carlsen and Tom Luby. I think you owed me a similar amount of loyalty for the support that I had given you throughout the last 6 months but obviously you didn’t agree. That is fair enough I suppose. But the thing that you are not remembering is that the people you are so anxious to protect are guilty of doing a lot of harm and damage to a lot of people. You may not like to admit it, and you may prefer to see me as the big aggressor, but the fact remains that Tom and Scott have been behaving like school-yard bullies, for as long as I have been posting on this group. They are your friends, but when you try to protect them and counter-attack anybody who stands up to them, you become partially responsible for the people they hurt. Regards Lars JMass11162 skrev i meddelelsen <20000219203002.19498.00000…@ng-co1.aol.com>… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->x-no-archive: yes >>From: "L.Ros." >>Joe, if this is how you feel then why did you flame me very angrily and >>obviously deliberately trying to hurt me yesterday? Serious question. >>(Yes, I have given my kill-file a little vacation.) >Lars You forget to tell everyone who started the whole works by telling me i am >not the brightest bulb in the box, was that comment not meant to hurt Lars you >have a keen way of forgetting your posts.let me tell you a little something >about intelligence and i’ve said this before there are two types,people like >you who like to think they are highly intelligent and there is common sense and >if i had to choose between the two i choose common sense,It serves me better in >the real world!,I never claimed to be intelligent but what i write is always >the truth,i wear my heart on my sleave.
Now i am going to take the high road >here and apologise if i hurt you,i was angry and am willing to end this >nonsense right now for the sake of this newsgroup,but you have to realise Lars >that you are not perfect and words coming from your mouth even if you don’t use >profanity can also hurt,
if you must know my intelligence i scored just barely – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->above average and that is good enough for me and my family,i manage to put one >foot in front of the other most of the time,you have told me twice you care >about as much about my opinion as you do me so why is it important to hear from >me now. >take care, > Joe >P.S.this lomas tuby character has one goal and that is to disrupt this >newsgroup,now you may be loving whats going on but i don’t,people don’t need >all this flaming here and tom is back to flaming his ass off and hurting some >people but god dammit he is being provoked big time and is defending himself >the only way he has learned how to.I know some people here that have been hurt >they are my friends also and i hate to see this shit,but i will defend myself >if i feel i need to and i have felt the need to defend myself against you >Lars.
– Lars delete .rat-pie to reply by e-mail ________________________ Moderated newsgroup: alt.support.ocd.moderated website: http://stump.algebra.com/~asom Chat: http://pages.hotbot.com/health/sillychickens/asomchat.html
Response:
Here’s an answer for you… We have all dropped this subject, and would appeciate it if you would do the same. Chris – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -L.Ros. wrote: > I spent a considerable amount of time writing this, so I would appreciate an > answer, thank you. > —- > Joe, I think your account of things is very incorrect. I think you are the > one who is doing an excellent job of forgetting your own flames. You seem to > have forgotten a hell of a lot of the things you have been writing to me > over the last month. Let me refresh your memory. > You and I had been on friendly terms since August, when you for some reason > last month all of a sudden decided to start criticizing me and attacking me. > Your first attack on me was launched on the 15th when I had written a post > called ‘Some random thoughts’ attempting to stop the ongoing flamewar. > In this post I wrote that even though I couldn’t help but feel pleased that > Tom and Scott were getting a taste of their own medicine by Steve, Monica > and Annmarie, I was aware of the damaging effect that the flamewar had on > the newsgroup, and I urged everyone to just come to ASOM in stead of > flaming. > In response to this post, you wrote that I had double standards, and that > you had lost your respect for me, and you continued to write similar things > for the next couple of days in other posts. > This came as a bit of a shock to me considering our good relationship. > During last autumn I wrote a lot of supportive posts and mails to you when > you were depressed and having obsessions, and I thought you had chosen an > odd way of showing your appreciation. It made me feel hurt and angry with > you, so therefore I replied that I had no respect for you either. A flame > for a flame. But please notice that it was you who flamed me first, and I > who defended my self from you. > Some time later, I wrote a post warning people about Tom Luby. A warning > that I think the last couple of days have proven to be justified. You > replied > by writing that I was a dangerous person who had fooled people into thinking > I was nice, but that you saw right through me. I responded by telling you > that I had as little respect for your opinion as I did for your person. A > flame for a flame. But please notice that again it was you who flamed me > first, and I who defended my self from you. Never the less you then felt > compelled to call me a loser in your next post to me, a flame that I didn’t > return. > During the next couple of weeks I am pretty sure that you continued to take > little jabs at me all the time, but I can’t remember them specifically and I > can’t search for them in deja, since you use x-no-archive. > Finally a few days ago you accused me of posting as ‘Lomas Tuby’. If you > think long and hard about it and try to imagine that it was the other way > around, I am sure that you can understand that that was very insulting to > me. So I responded by writing the post where I said the thing about the > light-bulbs. Again please notice that you flamed me first, and that it was > me who was protecting my self from you. > You then wrote a post back where you told me that I should ‘fuck off’, that > I was a ‘douchbag’, that I was an ‘asshole’, that I was ‘numbnuts’, that I > had done nothing with my life, but could only sit in front of my computer > causing trouble, and you then finally tried to hurt me by writing that ’shit > you can’t even decide what ocd book to buy on your own,you will never be a > lawyer.’ > I still owe you for that post, Joe. > Anyway I would say the pattern is pretty obvious. We were friends until > you decided to launch a series of unprovoked attacks on me, that I responded > to in kind. Did you think that I would just turn the other cheek and not > defend my self from your constant criticisms and flames?? If you did, you > thought wrong. You can call me a lot of things, but I’m no Jesus. > Finally let me say something about how I see your motives for attacking me. > It seems to me that you are doing it out of loyalty towards Scott Carlsen > and Tom Luby. I think you owed me a similar amount of loyalty for the > support that I had given you throughout the last 6 months but obviously you > didn’t agree. That is fair enough I suppose. > But the thing that you are not remembering is that the people you are so > anxious to protect are guilty of doing a lot of harm and damage to a lot of > people. You may not like to admit it, and you may prefer to see me as the > big > aggressor, but the fact remains that Tom and Scott have been behaving like > school-yard bullies, for as long as I have been posting on this group. They > are your friends, but when you try to protect them and counter-attack > anybody who stands up to them, you become partially responsible for the > people they hurt. > Regards > Lars
Response:
L.Ros. wrote: > Who are the ‘we’ who have dropped the subject, and would appreciate if I > would do the same? As far as I remember the conversation took place between > Joe and myself.
This NG has settled down over the last week, but yet you insist on disrupting things with your personal agenda. If you’ve got a problem with Joe, send him an email. This NG is not the place to revenge your hurt feelings. > Last week the two of us were debating your bias and the fact that you are > continually supporting and defending people who abuse others on this ng, and > attacking people who stand up to them, in the true nazi-spirit.
In the Nazi spirit? I hope I am not the only one here who is offended by this statement. I let it go last week because I was stepping down from the stupidity of the thread you and I had going. But you obviously can’t leave well enough alone. That is a sick, sick comparison, and I am truly sorry if you can’t see that. > When the > going got too tough, you decided that you did not wish to debate with me any > further, and in return you promised not to harass me again when I stood up > for my self or tried to protect others from the abuse of your friends.
BS, Lars. I stepped down because it is not productive to debate such nonsense here. I am not intimidated by your debating skills. You have proved, yet again, that you cannot let things lie quietly; you must disrupt the peace to prove your point. And I am not the only one here who sees it that way, either. > "Chris", your lack of fairness and judgment, your double standards, and your > hypocrisy is so overwhelming that it makes me feel sick. And I mean that > literally. I regard you as the embodiment of the lowest and most despicable > traits of human nature. When ever you criticize me for doing something or > urge me to stop doing something, I will take it as an assurance that what I > am doing is right. And should the day ever come where you were to applaud me > for something, I would bow my head in shame because then I would know that > what I had done was wrong.
I’m sorry, but you are truly sad. You start problems here again and again, then when someone confronts you about doing so you slam them back, but all of a sudden you pretend to be the victim. Get real. Everyone knows your game, Lars, so stop playing it. Chris
Response:
Related Posts
-
No matches
