Re: when are they learned behaviors?


shelly wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2005 17:10:49 -0700, "Ronna" <dogstar716@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> how convenient, but it is not my fault that you acted
> >> offensively toward me.
> >
> >Sure it is.
>
> again, i call bull***. i have no control over your reactions. the
> "shelly made me do it" defense is a crock of ***.

You have control over your own actions. If you can't handle people
being nasty to you, you shouldn't be nasty in the first place, like you
were in your very first post to me.
>
> what gets me is whyever on earth you got your knickers in a knot in the
> first place. my original statement was that you could, if you chose,
> ignore Jack. obviously, you choose not to. that's your prerogative and
> only becomes a matter for comment when you make it sound like you have
> no control over your actions (sense a pattern here?).

Yes, your first post was ever so helpful and friendly. Not. I have
control over my actions, I CHOOSE to read Jack. I never said I
couldn't help reading him, thats some lame excuse that YOU have in your
head and can't seem to get out.



you do.
> ironically, my observation that you choose to interact with him because
> you obviously get something out of the exchange was repeated by you just
> a few posts down the line. WTF? i mean, it's not rocket science that
> it must be a self-rewarding behavior (you're a trainer, so you should
> understand how that works). but for you to get shitty with me for
> saying it, then agree with me later, is pretty rich.

Like I said, if you can't take it Shelly, you shouldn't dish it out.


> >No one forced you to respond to every post I made with a
> >snide little comment. You get what you give.
>
> ah, i do love the smell of hot buttered irony in the morning. i'm not
> claiming that anyone forced me to reply. you are the one who's using
> that bull*** defense.

Please quote where I said you are forcing me to reply?

> i said:
>
> from: Pine.BSF.4.56.0508251018020.32164@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >on 2005-08-25 at 07:46 <dogstar716@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
At any rate, the "altekokker"s opinions mean nothing to me, I
> >>just can't help but read his tirades.

Do you understand what a figure of speech is? I didn't mean I
literally couldn't help it, are you really this dim?


> >
> >i don't buy that you have no choice in the matter.
> >apparently, his opinions mean enough to you that you are
> >unwilling to ignore them.
>
> and, your reply:
>
> from: 1124994987.687419.316320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >How do you prepose I killfile on Google? I see all the posts, doesn't
> >mean I read them.

Did you happen to read the last line there? I said it doesn't mean
that I read them. I see them all. I don't HAVE to read any of them.


> >
> >Who crawled up your ass and died?

Still wondering that.


> >Actually, I believe you called Jack a misogynist, that is name calling
> >whether you like it or not.
>
> no, it is not. his actions are misogynistic, in the same way that
> calling someone a ***, ***, or *** is racist. calling someone who
> uses those slurs a racist is not namecalling, it's a statement of fact.

Oh ho ho! So, if its fact then it's ok to call names? I get it :)
>
> >As for calling you a C$$t not having
> >anything to do with your actions or anything you've said? Oh please,
> >give me a break. Are you really this narcisistic?
>
> the word is ***. c-u-n-t. if you can't even spell it, then you have
> to realize that it's meant to be an especially nasty insult. good
> grief.

I didn't want to spell it out, seeing as to how you seem to be so
hypersensitive you might have keeled over into a faint, and then where
would we be?

> >He didn't just call
> >you that out of the blue for no reason.
>
> actually, he did. i have had no interactions with him in *years*, so
> there's no reason for him to be calling me anything.

Whats that saying? A leopard never changes its' spots?


> >It does if person B says "Jack is an abusive misogynist".
>
> based on his actions, he *is* an abusive misogynist. what i can't
> believe is that certain people don't get that.

What I don't get is your holier than thou attitude, and the
justification you are trying to make for the name calling you have
done.

>
> >Written to you? Yes, I've meant every word of that.
>
> then there really is *no* excuse for you accusing me of being overly
> sensitive.

You said it yourself.

.

Loading