Re: "Mission Statement" from the BoD

<alexbclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote ...
Dennis M. O'Connor wrote:
<alexbclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
Whatever, it just demonstrates his obsession with me.

The person who is obsessed with you is you. If I am obsessed with you,
prove it.

Sure: I posted in a thread you weren't in, responding
to a third party. You jumped in with a post attacking
me, one that didn't address the point being debated at all.
A completely OT post. You invested no-trivial effort in doing so.
Now you tell me: why would you do that ?

He certainly doesn't understand that ultimately one
can only be embarrassed by one's own acts, including
postings. . . .

How can anyone "understand that ultimately one can only
be embarrassed by one's own acts", when it isn't true?
Maybe that's how you are, but if so you are atypical.

So, you take emotional responsibility (i.e. you get embarrassed)
by things you have no control over that aren't your fault ?
Sounds irrational to me.

So, what motivated you to post your attack
on me, Alex ? C'mon, if it is an honorable
motive, you can share it, right ?

Yes, I certainly can. In the last few weeks, you wrote at least two
flames in this newsgroup, to persons other than me, in which you showed
an apparent lack of understanding of what the previous poster had
written.

Bullshit.

In one, you responded directly to a literal meaning as if they
hadn't implied anything by it, when they obviously had.

More bullshit. I already kicked your ass on that one.
What you may have _imagined_ they said, they didn't say.
And why didn't the poster dispute my response ? Because
I had it right, that's why, and _they_ can learn. And BTW,
carrying over your bad memories from an old thread as an
excuse to start a flame war is exactly what net.vendetta is.
And you just admitted to it.

In another, you
overlooked the subtleties of their choice of words and treated what
they had said as if it had been much more offensive and "narrow-minded"
than it really was.

Once again what you image they said and what they said
are at odds. And again, the _poster_ never disputed my
interpretation of their post. Apparently you are such a conceited
ass that you think you know what people mean better than
the people who actually write the posts.

And did either of these people ask you to present
the "correct" interpretation of their post ? No ?
The by what authority are you claiming to know it ?

You have been on Usenet long enough that you should
have learned better years ago.

I've been on USENET long enough to know not
to pretend to know that what another person wrote
isn't what they actually meant. I always assume that
people mean what they plainly mean. You seem to think
that whatever you want to believe they meant is what
they did mean, even when it goes against the plain meaning.
What do they call that, delusions of grandeur or something ?

If you would
practice giving the benefit of the doubt to what others write even when

Hypocrite. Where is the "benefit of the doubt" you show me ?

you are tempted to assume the worst, and disagreeing (when you do so)
in a way that suggests good intentions rather than contempt, you could
take away my motive for satirizing you. But would you want to do that?

What exactly is your motive for attacking me, again ?
You beat around the bush but never actually got to the point.
I believe it's the humiliation you suffered because I pointed
out the many flaws in your posts. It's hard to imagine any
_noble_ motivation: hell, jk is on this newsgroup spouting
nonsense and outright defamatory lies, and you haven't seen
fit to do anything about _that_, have you ? Or the random
trolls that have popped up in the recent past. Nope, you are
focused entirely on attacking me, IIRC. Now why is that ?

And BTW, you're _reinforcing_ my behaviors, fool,
not discouraging me. So again, what's your motive ?
--
Dennis M. O'Connor dmoc@xxxxxxxxxxxx


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Billings Montana Boycott?
    ... >I take it you are OK with her attacking everyone who doesn't share her ... I think she was responding to the ... Prev by Date: ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT - Insults gone too far
    ... Nor was I attacking the poster. ... I was responding to an attack. ... For a free lance writer, ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: I dont get it
    ... Have you stopped fellating any of the Steve Carroll's you comment about? ... are you responding to my every post? ... She is just obsessive whacko whose obsession has been very, ... repeatedly spoke of your fantasies of my calling you (maybe that is ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: I dont get it
    ... Have you stopped fellating any of the Steve Carroll's you comment about? ... stupid. ... are you responding to my every post? ... She is just obsessive whacko whose obsession has been very, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: I dont get it
    ... Have you stopped fellating any of the Steve Carroll's you comment about? ... stupid. ... are you responding to my every post? ... She is just obsessive whacko whose obsession has been very, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)