Re: Fully sick

In news:mjc6325vcu2vquicn9al2ob48ras3mu294@xxxxxxx,
Richard Bollard <richardb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 11:10:46 +0200, "Father Ignatius"
<FatherIgnatius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In news:44308BB8.E9BE1643@xxxxxxxxx,
Reinhold (Rey) Aman <aman@xxxxxxxxx> typed:
Patricia Pasterham wrote:

Peter Moylan wrote:

But you can read.

Shut the *** up.

Look, Nat and Donna.

~~~ Rey ~~~
Shaking his head

Will someone please explain to me, as to someone who does not get
it, why it's okay to flame, belittle and deride Mrs. Pasterham
(optionally obscenely), but it's not okay for her to respond? I
think this might be a valuable steeping-stone along the path to
getting her to discuss English usage, as broadly defined.

Where did Peter flame her? He made some disapproving observations,
warm hints, perhaps, but *flames*? The response is out of proportion
(and tone).

Yes, by that stage, when it had all gone up in flames. I'm more interested
in what set the fire in the first place, which was the flame in question --
JF's gratuitous obscenity. Used, as JF himself remarks elsethread, for
shock effect. Well, guess what? It worked and, after that, for sure, it
was all downhill -- but Pat is JF's puppet here.


--

Nat

"Too much greenery is not a good idea."
--Maria Conlon




.