"SBD" wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 6:40 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"SBD" wrote in message


Who do you want to hold the money? I remember challenging you to my
server
records, and I remember you not taking it up. But as I said, I did copy
other people here in this very newsgroup - and after your previous
denials I
believe they did mention it in public! Not as to embarrass you, but more
on
the 'no good deed goes unpunished line,'

Phil, you lost that one hands down. You couldn't distinguish a
newsgroup post from an email. Plus your recollection is incredibly off
the mark. I suggest a little brain training for the old noggin.

I suggested to you then, as I do now, that an OBJECTIVE way is to consult
server records.

Now Steven - you are off your feed, you are an unhappy camper, and argue
without content, on this and every issue, including the dreaded nom topic.
It does me no good to speak intellectually to what is essentially emotional
in you, and it does your intelligence no credit to intellectualise without
looking at what is objectively a fact.

You are unwell. I repeat below what I have said before, and then you have
any last words you wish - it gives me no pleasure to address anyone like
this, and in fact while we must talk as if from ideas, your instigations
originate elsewhere, and those cannot be well discussed in this way nor in
public.

In consideration of your condition and need to be publicly lovely, then
let
you be so.

Say what?

You are posing in public for applause, and in 3 threads ignoring the topic,
and any attempt at understanding others, and your writing is simply aimed at
discrediting your correspondent's // topic // in each instance, by reducing
the worth of the topic's writer.

Nothing new in that on Usenet, nor in USCF 'discussions'.

You and I know what's true, and whatever 'no one' will think is
up to them. We both have our needs, and mine is to at least try to be
true
to my experience.

What a long strange trip it must have been, Phil.

?

Do you know, BTW, why 'no one' created this thread title, and what the
topic
actually contains? Perhaps it doesn't exist either, or the subject matter
is
not important to you?

(Insert Twilight Zone theme music here)

No attempt at topic, just projected phantasms from Dowd, the tempo of his
writing increasingly doesn't even need a topic. Everytime I write of mine,
it dissapears, yet I am continuously questioned on it.

Please excuse me from diverting from abstractly negative personal
observations to that of content.


You have no capacity to discuss content,

Quite evidently untrue. I keep returning you to the suggtion that /you/
divert from each nominal topic, whether its Hanken's behavior, an unnamed
variation in the KG, and today you abandoned discussion of the use of a
word - and fatuously without admitting either high or low use of that word,
even after being encouraged to look it up, to ask colleagues... to do
something else than vaccously divert the subject to your current
misanthropic mission

Your behavior is the witness to your intention.

as evidenced by your turning
a simple question - what is the name of the child welfare agency you
served on and what was your tenure? - into this mud-slinging fest.
That sort of reversal is pretty juvenile.

What depends on it for you? You rubbish me but can't be bothered to say why
/you/ want to know anything about court diversions systems and procedures,
Big Brother & Big Sister, varieties of counselling programs ... You cut what
is merely a normal response to a demand for personal information, as if you
did not acknowledge that either!

You see, providing more information to such as your request, is not to add
to anything to the topic, but to commit to reducing the level of discussion
to who speaks, not what is spoken - an infamous orientation. Whereas some
people could adjudge the level of other's experience by how they speak of
significant matters !!

If the issue here is that of Hanken, Spinrad's or Laugherty's public
expressions, then you state no context in wishing to address those.

Answer the simple question. That would be content.

You have amply demonstrated an inability to even agree on commonly used
terms - yet I should apply for your understanding?

ROFL!

Phil Innes