jr wrote:

"I myself took the pledge not to respond to me,


Your tongue may have so sworn, but did you pledge with
your *mind*?


so I know how he feels.
I have no idea how you feel, because I have never been either so
fixated
on a person that I write about them all the time, even to say who is
not
writing about them...." (Phil Innes)

Note to the Innes-bashers and Parr-bashers:
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.


In this case, the term "mad" means insane, luny, crazy even.

But I doubt the gods have any such power. More likely, Innes
was driven mad by his own obsession with defending the
indefensible, and it only *appears* the gods wished to destroy him.

IM Innes' madness can be seen here in his luny comments
about having never been "so fixated", when obviously he has. In
fact, one of the reasons I will, when pressed for time, skip over an
Innes post in some random thread is that he is so fixated as to
ignore the main issue, while ranting incomprehensibly (another
sign of madness) about whoever he is fixated on in an attempt
to defend another ratpacker (usually Larry Parr, for he seems
always in need of special help).

Speaking of madness, what about those anons who purportedly
post here "in praise of" themselves? Is this not hubris, combined
with madness? (Or are these postings themselves merely
imagined, and as such, signs of paranoia?)

One of the ratpackers here frequently lashes out at anons for
their alleged lack of courage, the courage to post under their own
names. Is this fellow "projecting" his own feeling? Or is he so
blinded as to be unable to see that these attacks take down one
of his own closest *allies*, jr? Either way, he is fruit-loopy.

For me, it seems oh so much simpler to killfile Mr. Innes,
rather than try to refrain from ever responding to his many
postings here. The former requires but a single act of the will,
while the latter requires constant willpower over an extended
period of time. But then, why stop there? Why not kill(file) off
all villainous characters, leaving only the good and the just?
Let me play devil's advocate for one second: because, if you
destroy all evils, there will be very little remaining -- a nearly
empty (internet) world, if indeed a peaceful one. Evil is what
DEFINES good, just as the oceans are separated by the land.

In sum, I am not yet ready to killfile Mr. Innes, even though
I realise he is beyond my help.

-- help bot