 |

|
|
|
|
#9114 - 05/05/08 02:44 AM
Re: Byrne Fund
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
|
Originally posted by IvanJim: I was still disturbed enough by the way he was posting to send him an e-mail cautioning him about the way he was posting as it was coming across as overly angry and inappropriate in it's confusion. Nice exaggeration douchbag. You sent ONE email about a year ago, regarding ONE line in ONE post, politely suggesting any mention of Paul's wife might be over the line, in your opinion and I politely agreed and went on to apologize to a non-concerned Paul. You were the one who went got all pissed at me for having the temerity to remind you of it a year later, in the midst of your MULTIPLE posts with implications involving how Paul met his wife.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#9115 - 05/05/08 02:46 AM
Re: Byrne Fund
|
Member
Registered: 06/16/01
Posts: 2865
Loc: Los Angeles
|
Originally posted by stevv: Originally posted by IvanJim: ...your posts often contained absurd phrasing You mean like: “about a year ago, to be exact”? Yep, I did use that sloppy phrasing. Fortunately I make nowhere near the same amount of slips as you, Geedis or SlowJoe, so I'll forgive myself an occasional error. (See, that's how you take responsibility when you're caught in an error. I know some folks prefer to hurl cuss words at the person who catches them, but that would be a little too like Geedis for most folks.)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#9116 - 05/05/08 02:51 AM
Re: Byrne Fund
|
Member
Registered: 07/23/05
Posts: 1579
Loc: The Bristol, Cuba St
|
Originally posted by stevv: You have a handful of rhetorical tactics you use over & over, whether arguing with Sondersted or anyone else. (One of which is to call “out of context” any time you get caught in a contradiction.) Well, even you, Ivan, would have to admit that I called this one (if you weren't either dishonest or totally oblivious).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#9117 - 05/05/08 02:55 AM
Re: Byrne Fund
|
Member
Registered: 06/16/01
Posts: 2865
Loc: Los Angeles
|
Originally posted by Joe Lee: Originally posted by IvanJim: I was still disturbed enough by the way he was posting to send him an e-mail cautioning him about the way he was posting as it was coming across as overly angry and inappropriate in it's confusion. Nice exaggeration douchbag.
You sent ONE email about a year ago, regarding ONE line in ONE post, politely suggesting any mention of Paul's wife might be over the line, in your opinion and I politely agreed and went on to apologize to a non-concerned Paul.
You were the one who went got all pissed at me for having the temerity to remind you of it a year later, in the midst of your MULTIPLE posts with implications involving how Paul met his wife. Amusing. You can't even consistently spell your cuss words. Regardless of that, you happen to be lying here.It wasn't that I suggested that any mention of Paul's wife was over the line, I suggested that your particular mention of his wife was inappropriate. While I may have been polite to you, I was also clear that it was your abusive reference that I thought was over the line. You also are choosing to create a false scenario where in I was angry that you mentioned the e-mail I sent you, as opposed to being annoyed at your patently false misinterpretation of what I wrote. Are you actually this unaware or are you just trying to twist facts because what actually happened makes you look so foolish? I imagine it's a combination of the two, but who knows what goes on in that befuddled head of yours.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#9118 - 05/05/08 02:56 AM
Re: Byrne Fund
|
Member
Registered: 07/23/05
Posts: 1579
Loc: The Bristol, Cuba St
|
Originally posted by IvanJim: Originally posted by stevv: Originally posted by IvanJim: Joe-
I've got quite a bit of respect and affection for you (mostly),… Originally posted by IvanJim: …I have to admit that I had an issue with your angry, ragged and intellectually vacant posts prior to this thread. …
I may not have chosen to pick a fight with you, that was your choice, but please don't mistake that for my having had any regard for your thinking or manners. Even with your out of context editing of my earlier post...The original context makes no difference, but fine, here it is in full: Originally posted by IvanJim: Joe-
I've got quite a bit of respect and affection for you (mostly), which is why I feel perfectly comfortable throwing a little shit back your way, and I don't mind jousting with you a little bit. The boundaries are still there but they're not where you think they are.
You may be reading anger into my posts but mostly I get a kick out of twitting Paul because he's as close to pornography as a human being can get (no redeeming social value). If you look at the last 50 posts before this you'll see that about 2/3's (33 to be exact) of them have been devoted to playing this game. Your last 50 have 15 entries to Paul or Byrne related threads (that'd be 30%). Does that make you half as angry and obsessed as me or are your obsessions and anger just more concentrated? Back to now… Originally posted by IvanJim: Actually, you delusional dimwit, ... a known angry emotionally immature dimwit ... is quick to attack using insults that betray his stunted emotional development.
...you look like a petty vindictive fool, Awww, the respect and affection is touching...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#9119 - 05/05/08 03:00 AM
Re: Byrne Fund
|
Member
Registered: 06/16/01
Posts: 2865
Loc: Los Angeles
|
Originally posted by stevv: Originally posted by stevv: You have a handful of rhetorical tactics you use over & over, whether arguing with Sondersted or anyone else. (One of which is to call “out of context” any time you get caught in a contradiction.) Well, even you, Ivan, would have to admit that I called this one (if you weren't either dishonest or totally oblivious). As usual, you're mistaken or being dishonest. That often happens when you use the words of someone else but ignore what they were referring to. Since I wasn't caught in an error, you're just twisting words. Just because you aren't very bright or honest, don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone else is the same way. Mostly it's just you and your new little friends that don't bother with having integrity or thinking things through.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#9120 - 05/05/08 03:04 AM
Re: Byrne Fund
|
Member
Registered: 06/16/01
Posts: 2865
Loc: Los Angeles
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#9121 - 05/05/08 03:06 AM
Re: Byrne Fund
|
Member
Registered: 07/23/05
Posts: 1579
Loc: The Bristol, Cuba St
|
Originally posted by IvanJim: As usual, you're mistaken or being dishonest. That right there is another of your recurring rhetorical tics.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#9122 - 05/05/08 03:31 AM
Re: Byrne Fund
|
Member
Registered: 07/23/05
Posts: 1579
Loc: The Bristol, Cuba St
|
Originally posted by IvanJim: I guessed you missed the part where I informed you that any respect or affection I had for SlowJoe had long since dissipated. Originally posted by IvanJim: …I have to admit that I had an issue with your angry, ragged and intellectually vacant posts prior to this thread. ...
I may not have chosen to pick a fight with you...but please don't mistake that for my having had any regard for your thinking or manners. Emphasis added, so that even Ivan should be able to grasp it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#9123 - 05/05/08 03:33 AM
Re: Byrne Fund
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
|
Originally posted by IvanJim: Amusing. You can't even consistently spell your cuss words. Seriously, a typo again? Isn't this how the joyride started? Well, at least it has the virtue of being one of your few fact-based tactics.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |