Re: Reclaiming SRQ for Quaker discussions; possible at last?
- From: "Yowie" <yowie9644.DIESPAMDIE@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:03:37 +1100
Engineer wrote:
<kaseybeck61@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yowie wrote:
David, I have always been polite with you and have never 'abused'
you. Disagreement is not 'abuse'. I am saddened you have found my
comments in any way abusive, they were not meant to be.
To avoid any further hurt on your part, I am no longer going to
engage with you - if my replies to you are 'abuse' in your eyes to
continue would be cruel and hurtful, something I do not wish to be.
Naturally, you don't want to intentionally hurt David, Yowie - but
honestly, if David is the sociopath that I suspect him to be, he
doesn't feel hurt and cruelty as do those of us who are not
sociopathic. Knowing this is not an excuse to be cruel or hurtful to
any sociopath, but it does shed a different light on things.
I believe that David actually revels in what he is dishonestly
terming as "abuse", as it fulfills the need for his narcissistic
supply. I do find it interesting that he has even placed you on his
list - as far as I have seen, you have always been polite with David
(and all other posters). Personally, I view David's placement of me
at the top of his list as a sick way for him to let me know that
he's enjoyed my "abuse" of him and is desperate for me to start
responding to him again.
He's a sick man, Yowie, and really needs to be ignored by the Usenet
community by-in-large. In so doing, he will be forced to get his
unhealthy fulfillment elsewhere and hopefully the treatment he needs.
I have been saying this for years, but there have allways been
those who don't agree, and as long as he gets replies he will
dominate this newsgroup and drive away users. If the two of you
really are willing to stop replying to him, sign me up as well;
I will be glad to simply stop reading his posts. I have never
been able to understand why so many people are unwilling to stop
replying to David but are willing to stop replying to everyone...
A few people I admire encouraged me not to 'plonk' David outright, but
rather, simply to killfile the subjects I wasn't interested in. They thought
this would be a more kind and compasionate - and Quakerly - way of dealing
with the issue. The Spirit lead me to believe that this was the correct
course of action and I kept to it, even though I know you disagreed with my
decision on that one, Engineer. The decision was not made lightly, and I
think I've already given you my other reasons based on other folks in my
life with whom controlled interactions are necessary (if not, feel free to
ask)
However, since David has listed me as one of his abusers, and I *know* that
I haven't ever intentionally hurt the man, I can only conclude that even my
very careful interactions with him must somehow appear abusive to him. As
such, and at his implied request, I am going to stop replying to anything he
posts. He will no longer receive any 'abuse' from me.
Yowie
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Reclaiming SRQ for Quaker discussions; possible at last?
- From: Whiskers
- Re: Reclaiming SRQ for Quaker discussions; possible at last?
- References:
- Re: argumentum ad hominem
- From: Yowie
- Re: argumentum ad hominem
- From: <<<~A John 3:16 Whosoever~>>>
- Reclaiming SRQ for Quaker discussions; possible at last?
- From: Engineer
- Re: argumentum ad hominem
- Prev by Date: Re: Reclaiming SRQ for Quaker discussions; possible at last?
- Next by Date: Re: many scientific facts found in quran and many
- Previous by thread: Re: Reclaiming SRQ for Quaker discussions; possible at last?
- Next by thread: Re: Reclaiming SRQ for Quaker discussions; possible at last?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
