Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 17:48:57 (GMT)
From: Feb 07, 2000 To: Feb 16, 2000 Page: 4 Of: 5


Jim -:- Ok, I admit, this REALLY bothers me: RUN! -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 15:06:03 (GMT)
__ Runamok -:- 30-6 Is this a win or lose situation? -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 19:27:51 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- I'll tell you what I'm up to, Run -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 22:18:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ Ms. K -:- With all due respect, Jim... -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 23:09:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- With all due respect, Katie -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 23:42:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Ms. K -:- With all due respect, Jim -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 01:08:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- I never said Jim uses multiple names (nt) -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 03:43:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Then what's this? -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 03:51:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Future Historians owe you a great debt, son. -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 04:11:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Okay, that's not true either -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 05:04:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- With all due respect, Katie -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 01:36:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Ms. K -:- With all due respect, Katie -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 18:06:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Gerry Mr. Guidelines Butt -:- inski with what will make this forum work better.. -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 19:49:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- There you are sweet heart...I found you -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 20:19:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- There you are sweet heart! -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 20:17:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Gerry -:- Nice double blind I'm in, 'Susan' -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 20:50:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- SEE you did it again=your are very, very slow -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 21:15:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- You ARE alive..... -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 20:00:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Jim!!!!! -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 02:14:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Jim!!!!! -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 02:38:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Jim!!!!! -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 02:58:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Excuse me, John -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 02:56:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Here are some samples of Run's posts on RE -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 03:48:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- And my opinion? -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 03:55:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- And my opinion -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 04:19:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- And my opinion -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 04:51:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- And my opinion -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 06:03:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- And my opinion -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 06:09:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ John B -:- 'YOU ASKED FOR IT' -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 05:46:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- 'YOU ASKED FOR IT' -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 06:04:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ John B -:- HarHarHar -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:43:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- HarHarHar -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 13:03:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oops -- same post, proper HTML -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 13:11:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- HarHarHar -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 12:18:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- 'YOU ASKED FOR IT' -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 06:48:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ John B -:- 'YOU ASKED FOR IT' -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:52:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- John B, winning -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:16:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- 'YOU ASKED FOR IT' -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 13:33:10 (GMT)
__ David Koresh -:- They're on the money, Heller(nt) -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 07:36:08 (GMT)
__ __ Janet -:- we will be doing a surprise inspection (nt) -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 07:40:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ Test -:- Empty message. (nt) -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 07:55:35 (GMT)
__ JHB -:- Jim - what bothers me..... -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:57:04 (GMT)
__ __ Selene -:- The fan club - what bothers me -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 07:14:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ Powerman -:- Any Enemy of Jim's... -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 15:51:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Selene -:- yes role models -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 17:08:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- That's bullshit, Selene -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 14:24:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- what bothers me is this... -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 08:49:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Selene -:- late night posts, etc -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 16:00:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- late night posts, etc -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 16:34:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- ok that's better -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 17:23:39 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- I disagree, John -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 01:02:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ JHB -:- I disagree, John -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 01:35:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yes, it's a real dilemna -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 01:50:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Powerman -:- Roger ***==Best of==*** -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 04:58:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Roger ***==Best of==*** -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 05:49:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- My favorite Jim paragraph of all time...and kudos -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 03:55:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Let me clarify my point..... -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 02:03:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Let me clarify my point..... -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 02:35:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Let me clarify my point..... -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:22:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Whatever -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 14:06:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- A 2x Fight -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 17:14:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- A 2x Fight -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 17:25:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- A 2x Fight -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 17:49:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- A 2x Fight -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 18:12:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- A 2x Fight -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 18:38:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Wt -:- A 2x Fight -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 22:29:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- A 2x Fight -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 00:51:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Wt -:- A 2x Fight -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 04:27:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- A 2x Fight -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:11:28 (GMT)
__ Peter H -:- Ok, I admit, this REALLY bothers me: RUN! -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:47:08 (GMT)
__ __ Runamok -:- This bothers ME, Mr Howie -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 03:55:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Time to get 'jimmed', Runanduck -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 14:45:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Okay, I think I've got an opinion on this now -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 15:06:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ Earnest -:- No message (nt) -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 07:49:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Would smoking help? -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 08:36:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ David Koresh -:- Would smoking help? (nt) -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 13:10:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ gerry -:- Oh Bullshit Bungamok... -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 04:20:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Excuse me? -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 04:13:03 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Thanks Pete -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:53:50 (GMT)
__ __ Modest Mouse -:- Good summary of the issue -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:52:47 (GMT)
__ Selene -:- Ok, I admit, this REALLY bothers me: RUN! -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 22:51:36 (GMT)
__ __ Selene -:- oh yeah, so that's why -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 22:53:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Used? By whom? -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:38:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Selene -:- It's OK -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:45:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Now YOU sound like a premie! -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:52:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- I think I'm dumb -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:54:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Selene, this is OH TOO SIMPLE -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:59:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ selene -:- Selene, this is OH TOO SIMPLE -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:03:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:20:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ reluctantly welcome -:- THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:34:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- It's OK -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:50:03 (GMT)
__ Mike -:- So, don't let it -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 18:53:20 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- What IS flaming, anyway? -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:25:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ Flaming Commandments -:- What IS flaming, anyway? -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 21:34:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Robyn -:- What IS flaming, anyway? -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 06:55:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mike -:- Here's my def....and more! -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 16:32:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Agree, disagree, a little this, a little that -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 16:58:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- AND.... my long awaited opinion! -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 20:43:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- AND.... my long awaited opinion! -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 21:12:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- Nah, you don't have any money! -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 21:20:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ selene guilty as charged -:- but... if only I had known!!! -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 21:15:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- 'cuz I like youz guyz! -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 21:32:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- 'cuz I like youz guyz! -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 22:18:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- HEY, HE'S CALLING YOUGUYS LIARS TOO!!!!! -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 22:13:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Mike? -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 01:07:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- THANKS FOR ANSWERING, MIKE (nt) -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 22:08:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT JIM! -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:31:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- You used a word that I was looking for.... -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 18:12:01 (GMT)
__ __ cqg -:- ...got me to thinkin' again (encore?) -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 19:49:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mike -:- author, author!!!! -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 19:56:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ cqg -:- curtain call -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 21:14:41 (GMT)
__ __ Robyn -:- I'm making a web pg to make this the best of! :) -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 19:06:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Typically inane post, Robyn -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:41:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Typically inane post, Robyn -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:49:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Shut up, Robyn -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:55:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Shut up, Robyn -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:08:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Shut up, Robyn -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:00:18 (GMT)
__ Jean-Michel -:- Sadist enjoying watching the fight -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 18:01:55 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Easy for you to say, JM -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:46:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- I've got this too on the French forum !! -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 03:01:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Pints of wine? Sacre Bleu! -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 03:23:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- Pints of wine? Sacre Bleu! -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 03:39:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sounds pretty touchy-feelie to me -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 04:08:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ Powerman -:- Easy for you to say, JM -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:31:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Thanks, Pman -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:43:26 (GMT)
__ Selene -:- Ok, I admit, this REALLY bothers me: RUN! -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 17:55:19 (GMT)
__ Powerman -:- Ok, I admit, this REALLY bothers me: RUN! -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 17:42:31 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Good question, Pman. Maybe it's just me -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:26:36 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- Ok, I admit, this REALLY bothers me: RUN! -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 17:00:37 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Anth, I'm just not in the mood -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:38:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ AJW -:- Jim, send me the jpegs (nt) -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 14:18:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ Sir Mix-A-Lot -:- Baby's got back! NT -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:47:40 (GMT)
__ __ ex -:- Ok, I admit, this REALLY bothers me: RUN! -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 19:01:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Okay, this is delicate, I'm sure -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:48:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ ex -:- Okay, this is delicate, I'm sure -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 11:12:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Harry -:- Tea and scones? -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 22:30:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Tea and scones? -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 22:47:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Harry -:- Tea and scones? -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 22:52:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ex -:- Tea and scones? -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 00:53:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Harry -:- Tea and scones? -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:58:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Zelda -:- with gloves -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 17:53:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Good points, all of them, Zelda -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 01:25:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Ex -:- Good points, all of them, Zelda -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 04:06:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Good points, all of them, Zelda -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 05:28:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Zelda -:- Good points, all of them, Zelda -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 06:50:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Good points, all of them, Zelda -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:33:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- With all due respect, Zelda, what the fuck ......? -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 14:18:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ ex -:- IRMC NT -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 21:18:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- IRMC NT -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 01:30:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Zelda -:- IRMC NT -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 04:20:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- IRMC NT -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 05:22:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ Runamok -:- Thanks for the support -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 20:01:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Don't mention it -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 01:05:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ ex -:- Not so much support of you as critisism of Jim! -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 20:15:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- That was meant for everyone.. -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 21:11:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- That was meant for everyone.. -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:51:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Harry -:- Feel good? -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 00:20:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Feel good? -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 01:04:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Harry -:- Feel good? -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 02:42:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Feel good? -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 02:18:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Feel good? -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 02:41:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- That was meant for everyone.. -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 17:32:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- That was meant for everyone.. -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 18:09:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- That was meant for everyone.. -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 18:21:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Herr Gerr -:- Clarification for you -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 19:31:57 (GMT)


Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 15:06:03 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Ok, I admit, this REALLY bothers me: RUN!
Message:
Maybe I'm a fool to start a thread about this but it's obviously bothering me a lot. I spent far too long yesterday trying to deal with this problem but all to no avail. The problem is Runamok (no pun intended. Great name, eh?).

For one hell of a long time now this guy has been doing some very weird shit, trying to provoke fights with me or whoever he perceives to be my forum 'buddies'. He seems completely hell-bent on getting a rise out of me just so he can accuse me of somehow 'bullying' him. I do that, he says, and thus prove that, like Maharaji, albeit in my own limited fashion, I too am a cult leader. I think the idea is that you guys are my followers. This is sick, sick shit and I'm tired of it.

Now some of you might ask why in the world I take this seriously. Well, my children, I try not to. And, to be sure, in many respects I don't. But what particularly irks me is the fact that Katie has annointed Run the administrator of her Recent Ex forum. I know for a fact that he has spent the lion's share of his time there dissing and lying about me and anyone else who's ever confronted him. I can only see this as entirely and unnecessarily divisive for this forum and I don't like it. I just don't like it. No one can tell me that having a secret forum -- but an 'official' one, dedicated to the discrete, delicate needs of Recent Exes -- which is really just a pretense to gossip and slag other exes is a good thing. And that is exactly what Run is doing there. Believe me. I know.

Let me particularize a bit. In a thread below, in her inimitable fashion, Selene complained about this Proximitron program Roger's found and which, I think, a number of us now use. Apparently its crashed her computer a bunch. Further, she adds, she's been getting anonymous and untraceable email. Runamok then posts:

She couldn't possibly be experiencing grade-school style pranks from forum members emailing her anonymously with the aid of Proxomitron. I couldn't imagine such a scenario. Disrespect for forum members-perish the thought!
And those system problems- with all those posts on computing, it's odd we were'nt warned about kernel32 problems (which my VAR's advise me to avoid like the plague).

Okay, here's how Run gets going. Obviously, he's suggesting that Roger, the 'Proximotron guy', or maybe Gerry, his 'friend', is the culprit. Plus he's blaming Roger for apparently intentionally sharing a program that's ultiamtely dangerous to our computers' good health.

What follows next is pathetic, although sad to say typical, Run. I ask him if indeed he was suggesting that Roger is both harrassing Selene and sabotaging all the rest of us. And Run? He refuses to answer. The rest of the thread consists of my trying to get him to deal with this oblique (but notenough to be mistaken) accusation -- a fairly serious one, I'd say -- and his refusing to answer. What he does -- and I say 'does' because this isn't the first time he's followed the exact same pattern --is try to talk about anything and everything but that simple question, exposing all the grudges he seems interminably stuck with. And then there's the weird part where I press him further for an answer and he starts laughing and smiling at my frustration. This time my efforts earned me the following appellations: Matt Drudge, Mahatma-Ji, Warnard Erhart (founder of EST) and of course, the big no-no, Asshole.

But that's only what's going on on this forum. If you or anyone you know well posts on the Recent Ex forum ask them what Run's saying, at the very same time, over there. Yes, yes, I know. It's all so secret and everything but maybe, just maybe, if you promise them that you're really sincere or something they'll roughly paraphrase a post or two. Nothing big enough to warrant calling in INTERPOL. Perhaps just a taste.

What they'll tell you is that -- SIMULTANEOUSLY -- Run is telling everyone what a martyr he is, standing up to the evil Heller and those who would reduce this gentle forum into nothing but a flame war. And what they'll also tell you is that others who post there join Run in his tsk-tsk-ing, offering him all sorts of 'support' for his valinat efforts.

Now let me ask you all something? Is it any different for an ex to evade questions than it is for a premie? We've all had our moments losing it with the likes of the various premies who post here but who can't afford to answer questions honestly and directly. Anyone who hasn't felt that way just hasn't been engaged. And we've all had evasive premies accuse us of 'bullying' them as a result. Right? Am I missing something? I don't think so. I think this is a fairly noncontroversial point.

But what the fuck is happening when our own Mr. Guidelines, our own Mr. Too-Mature-for-Flames, the very guy who's trying like hell to build his little RE venue as a 'warm' and 'safe' place to 'really discuss' Maharaji, away from the ugliness of F5, does exactly the same thing?

Anyway, this is so weird that I thought I just had to say something about it.

Your thoughts?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 19:27:51 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: 30-6 Is this a win or lose situation?
Message:
I am not going to read all of Jim's posts so I am making one (hopefully) last statement in this post.

I like to answer reasonable questions from reasonable people. I don't consider Jim rational or reasonable. IMO he is obsessed with winning arguments over having any kind of learning or growth experience. However...

I doubt he and I will ever be friends but it's possible we might co-exist better. I resent a lot of personal innuendo coming from him and I don't plan to apologize for anything, but I do find the whole situation boring.

One caveat before answering: When I answer Jim's questions (as I did later in this thread), if Jim (and club) doesn't like it, they will say I am lying (as they do later in this thread). Jim will also change the question and say I didn't answer it.

I did answer Jim and said I was not accusing Roger (which I was not). The point is that Proxomitron , which is hacker software as I understand it, makes it easy to send anonymous and untraceable emails. Not necessarily something that I would like some of the people around here to have. The point was that whoever sent Selene spam may well have been using the Proxy software.

The other point (which is a separate question altho Jim mixes the two up down the thread) is that since Roger/Barney/Kerde et al is going to post ad infinitum about computer stuff (or had been at the time), it seems like mentioning the Kernel problem would have been a good post to include. My computer guys chew me out about programs that cause Kernel32 problems, saying shit like 'don't expect me to fix that for free', etc.

This is my 6th post on this thread. Jim is at 30. Am I 'nipping at his heels'? This is typical of many discussions turned arguments with Jim.

When I first saw the thread there were about 12 response to Jim all of which felt good to me, altho there was a mixture of 'sides'. Then Jim plastered the thread with posts.

Are they informative? His repeated claims that I don't answer are not true but the chances are greater that you will see one of his posts saying that then read one of mine with the answers.

I do not mind dealing strictly with facts although this stuff is certainly tedious for new people or lurkers (and me). For Jim to accuse anyone of wanting to start fights has to be the pot calling the kettle black at best.

I also think it would be more appropriate to have these arguments (if they have to be had), on other forums, like exes only or AG. I don't mind discussing all this stuff but the innuendo wears pretty thin.

And Jim, I don't want to borrow your car. That's kind of a moot point.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 22:18:32 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Runamok
Subject: I'll tell you what I'm up to, Run
Message:
Run,

As I posted below (HEY, HE'S CALLING YOU GUYS LIARS TOO!!!!!) I'm out to persuade people that you're not fit to be the FA on the Recent Ex forum. I'm not sure if I'll persuade people or not but I'm going to try.

By the way, if you claim that you did answer my question why not go to Time to get 'jimmed', Run post where I've collected all your posts from that thread and simply point to your answer? That's not asking too much, is it?

Or is it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 23:09:12 (GMT)
From: Ms. K
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: With all due respect, Jim...
Message:
You wrote:
As I posted below (HEY, HE'S CALLING YOU GUYS LIARS TOO!!!!!) I'm out to persuade people that you're not fit to be the FA on the Recent Ex forum. I'm not sure if I'll persuade people or not but I'm going to try.

Here's what it takes to administer Recent Exes:
1. The willingness to put in the time it takes to read all the posts, consider applications from new members, and so forth.
2. Ability to run the forum software.
3. Ability to follow and enforce the guidelines of that forum, which ARE: no flaming and confidentiality.

I should add that the people who post there, including the administrator, are not expected to conform to the 'no flame' rule on any other ex-premie forum.

Under these guidelines, Run definitely qualifies to be the forum administrator of Recent Exes. Furthermore, not ONE person on there has raised any objection to him BEING the forum administrator.

Look, Jim, EVERYONE who reads this forum knows that you and Run don't like each other. Do you really think that people here don't have the discriminatory ability to take that into consideration when they are reading either of your posts?

I have not met a single person here who can't make up their OWN mind about a fellow poster on the forum based on what that person says, not what is said about them by someone else. Actually, I have two very close friends who post here who don't get along at all. That hasn't affected how I feel about either one of them, and as far as I can tell, it hasn't affected how anyone else on the forum feels about either one of them.

IMHO, this whole anti-Run crusade has gone way too far. You have made your point, and I don't think you're going to get any more satisfaction than that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 23:42:34 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Ms. K
Subject: With all due respect, Katie
Message:
Katie,

I know full well that Run has used his perch as FA on RE to slag me either directly or obliquely from day one. You know that too.
You tell me how you'd feel knowing that he was somehow appointed to welcome recent exes to that little private conversation pit if you wre the subject of his lies and what not.

Katie, sometimes it's not enough to just pop into a dispute in order to say You GUYYYYS!!. You appointed Run and I think it's clear that he's not trustworthy. Or are you in a position to assure that he will never slag me again over there? Never lie about my posting under false names again, for example? Quit his own insidious anti-Jim Cult-Leader campaign? Is that what RE's for? Because you know as well as I that Run can't help but use it for exactly that purpose.

Look, the guy's clearly a snivelling little creep who's not above calling anyone who agrees with me a 'follower'. He's a hypocrite of the highest order. He simply doesn't have the bvasic character trait of being able to admit he's wrong even when he's busted beyond dispute. Instead, once again, as he did today, he lashes out at any one who calls his number. Is that the kind of person who should be running anything around here?

If you just reduce this to a 'personality difference' you're doing the typical Katie and, quite frankly, I resent it. You care about your reputation every bit as much as I do. When Roger posted his accusation-toned questions about you and brian possibly commingling your interests in providing the software and maybe even commingling funds as well, you were incensed! Your reputation matters to you and so does mine. Easy for you to say 'big diff' but that's jsut because it isn't you that this ... fellow's slagging. It's me.

This is your doing and now I'm calling on you to be responsible and responsive to the situation. Run is not psychologically appropriate for the job. He's not trustworthy in the most essential terms, that is he's not willing to be fairly accountable for anything he says. He's proven that here ten-fold.

If you don't remove him I will continue to try to find out what he's saying about me and will do all I can to counter his secret anti-Jim campaign. That can't be good for either forum, now can it? And yet I have every right to do just that. Your 'don't worry about it' attitude is bizarre. What if this were Brian we wre talking about and not me?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 01:08:00 (GMT)
From: Ms. K
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: With all due respect, Jim
Message:
Hi Jim -
There's a big difference between lying about someone, and expressing your personal opinion about them. You said:
When Roger posted his accusation-toned questions about you and brian possibly commingling your interests in providing the software and maybe even commingling funds as well, you were incensed! Your reputation matters to you and so does mine. Easy for you to say 'big diff' but that's jsut because it isn't you that this ... fellow's slagging. It's me.

First, the accusations/questions that Roger made were FACTUAL questions that could, and HAD been, addressed factually. Actually, a simple e-mail to either me or Brian would have sufficed to clear up any of his confusion. The only complaint that I can find that you have against Runamok that is FACTUALLY based is that he said you posted under different posting names. This is not true. I said that on the RE forum, and I'll say it again now. If he says it again on that forum, I will correct him.

To address the rest of your question (and some of the other things you said in your post), I didn't say 'YOU GUYYYS' or 'big diff' or 'don't worry about it' or call it a 'personality difference'. I know you and Run don't like each other - maybe you HATE each other, who knows? I was just trying to be realistic.

Look, I've been flamed plenty of times on this forum, and on AG, for being 'a hypocrite', 'politically correct', 'pretending to be a therapist', 'typical Katie' and so on ad nauseum. You are right that it really bothers me. Can I do anything about it? NO. It's just something I have to live with - I'm an opinionated person, and a lot of people on here don't like my opinions, or don't like ME - or who they think I am from my posts. Ditto for you.

You also wrote:
If you don't remove him I will continue to try to find out what he's saying about me and will do all I can to counter his secret anti-Jim campaign. That can't be good for either forum, now can it? And yet I have every right to do just that.

Well, I am NOT going to 'remove him' because it's not up to me. It's up to the people who use that forum, and as I said, no one has complained about Run being the administrator. And I don't see his posts as a 'secret anti-Jim campaign'! It's his goddamn opinion! Do you really think that he, or you, or me, or any one else on here, has so much influence over other people? Look, I understand that it bothers you that he's said negative things about you on that forum. I understand because it bothers me when people say negative things about me in their group e-mails, or on this forum, or on AG. I want people to like me, and get upset when they don't. However, I've been convinced, albeit unwillingly, by the FA's on this forum, and also by Brian, that responding to this stuff is counter-productive to the goals of the ex-premie forums.

Jim, I believe that you are capable of shutting down the Recent Ex forum and derailing this forum if you really want to. And, as you say, you have the 'right' to do it. But the question is, do you really want to? Is what Runamok thinks about you more important than what both you and Runamok think about Maharaji? This is one thing that really bothers me on the forum (not that I haven't been guilty of it myself) - it sometimes seems like the ex-premies spend more time arguing with each other than working towards a common goal. And I have heard from several people that premies who read the forum laugh at us - and, honestly, I understand why.

Look - I am willing to work with you on this, but I'm NOT willing to accept your view of Runamok. Here is what I hear you saying - and please correct me if I am wrong:
1. You didn't like Runamok saying that you used multiple posting names.
2. You don't like Runamok implying that you are a 'cult leader'.
3. You don't like Runamok saying that he doesn't like your - or other people's - flaming posts when he posts flames himself.
4. You don't like Runamok being able to express his opinion of you on a private forum of which you are not a member, and thus cannot defend yourself.

I'm sure there is probably more, but that is what I hear you saying. I would be willing to post a rebuttal to these points on 'Recent Exes' (but you have to follow the guidelines!).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 03:43:50 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Ms. K
Subject: I never said Jim uses multiple names (nt)
Message:
I have never complained about Jim using multiple pseudonyms.

I asked Roger to list his- it looks like he's talking to himself a lot in some threads. But he clearly makes up numerous names in a continuing quest for sarcasm.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 03:51:08 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Runamok
Subject: Then what's this?
Message:
Heller did post under aliases quite a bit after he was blocked from F3.

The original guidelines on ex-premie.org (which I gather do not exist anymore) asked that people post under a single name to avoid confusion, but did not require that the name be one's legal name.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 04:11:04 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Future Historians owe you a great debt, son.
Message:
Yes, you did on AG and I did remember that. How silly of me! But it wasn't a problem for me. You did for maybe a week (just guessing). Forgot I had mentioned it- someone must have asked or something.

These are really important issues, Jim. I'm so glad you have clarified this.

I'm surprised you didn't want to post my RE stuff as a new thread. Do you think enough people will be proud of your work so far down on the active index?

And could you refresh our minds as to the time I called you an asshole (hint: it was not in conversation with you).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 05:04:05 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Runamok
Subject: Okay, that's not true either
Message:
Run,

I did NOT post anonymously on AG. Ever. Nor did I post under fake names on F3 when I was blocked which is what you clearly meant in your post on RE.

You have no credibility. None.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 01:36:46 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Ms. K
Subject: With all due respect, Katie
Message:
Katie,

You didn't answer my last question which was how would you feel if it were Brian getting dissed over there?

Let's remember:

1) RE is not Anything Goes, and it's miles and miles from private email. It's a private, secret semi-official forum that you guys are planning to promote to all recent ex's and whoever else you choose to include.

2) Run has indeed used his 'position' there to slag me abundantly. Are we going to get into a credibility dispute on that? If so, I'll win and you know it.

You wrote:

And I don't see his posts as a 'secret anti-Jim campaign'! It's his goddamn opinion!

making it sound as if the two propositions are somehow mutually exclusive. How could Run be pushing his anti-Jim craziness if it's his opinion that he's expressing? That's nonsense, isn't it?

You also wrote:

Is what Runamok thinks about you more important than what both you and Runamok think about Maharaji? This is one thing that really bothers me on the forum (not that I haven't been guilty of it myself) - it sometimes seems like the ex-premies spend more time arguing with each other than working towards a common goal. And I have heard from several people that premies who read the forum laugh at us - and, honestly, I understand why.

I've got room for several issues at the smae time, don't you? If Run's been abusing his position at FA he should be removed. That has absolutely nothing to do with Maharaji. Give me a break. As for premies 'laughing' at us -- who the fuck cares? They can laugh all they want. We're not in a cult and they are. So we argue. They're muzzled.

You also wrote:

To address the rest of your question (and some of the other things you said in your post), I didn't say 'YOU GUYYYS' or 'big diff' or 'don't worry about it' or call it a 'personality difference'. I know you and Run don't like each other - maybe you HATE each other, who knows? I was just trying to be realistic.

Okay, LET'S be realistic. Do you think Run lied about answering me? What do you think of his calling anyone who thinks otherwise my 'follower'?

And then you wrote:

Look - I am willing to work with you on this, but I'm NOT willing to accept your view of Runamok. Here is what I hear you saying - and please correct me if I am wrong:
1. You didn't like Runamok saying that you used multiple posting names.
2. You don't like Runamok implying that you are a 'cult leader'.
3. You don't like Runamok saying that he doesn't like your - or other people's - flaming posts when he posts flames himself.
4. You don't like Runamok being able to express his opinion of you on a private forum of which you are not a member, and thus cannot defend yourself.

Fine, you won't accept my view of Runamok. But why's that? Am I missing something? Run accused me of being irrational today. Do you agree? He also said that he'd answered my question in that thread but that anyone looking for it might not find it because they're somehow under my sway or, alternatively, I jsut posted too many damn posts for your average ex to be able to wade through and find his answer. And your response to these comments of his is:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Please use other side if needed]

Now, as for your list of my objections about the guy, yes, that's pretty well it. When you say you'd be willing to post a rebuttal on RE, I take it you're talking about giving me a one-time shot to defend myself. Is that it?

Katie, wake up! Would that satisfy you if Brian was being slandered there? Would you be content to let this kind of person continue to do his thing, welcoming in recent exe's and putting his own strange spin on the art of communication?

PLEASE answer that question!

Aren't you somewhat repulsed by Run's cowardly approach to this whole matter? Or again, are you afraid to answer that?

Finally, even if I took you up on your offer, waht guarantee is there that Run won't just keep on going? Are you going to 'supervise' him or 'monitor' him and report to me every time he does it again? Hows' taht supposed to work anyway?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 18:06:05 (GMT)
From: Ms. K
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: With all due respect, Katie
Message:
Jim -
You wrote:
You didn't answer my last question which was how would you feel if it were Brian getting dissed over there?

Of course I hate it when people flame and criticize Brian! What would you expect - he's my partner! However, the fact is that Brian has gotten flamed and dissed all over ex-premie land, and I have had to learn to hold my tongue - what good is a response from me going to do? I'm obviously going to be prejudiced in Brian's favor, and everyone knows that. This situation is different (and I think you know that) in that I can be more dispassionate. I wouldn't even get INTO this argument if it was about Brian.

You wrote:
Run has indeed used his 'position' there to slag me abundantly. Are we going to get into a credibility dispute on that? If so, I'll win and you know it.

For one thing, I don't see how he's 'using his position' or 'abusing his position'. You yourself have said that FA's should be able to post their own opinions on things, and that they are not regarded as authority figures. Are you changing your mind on this? It seems like you are saying that people will naturally agree with Run's posts just because he is the FA. Personally, I don't see this happening on that or any other forum.

You also wrote:
Okay, LET'S be realistic. Do you think Run lied about answering me? What do you think of his calling anyone who thinks otherwise my 'follower'?

OK, Jim - I just read that WHOLE thread again - it's gone inactive and is about to get archived. Here is what I got from it. I think Run is saying that he answered you when he said 'I get more kicks from scholarly discussions...'. Yes, this is very oblique. He says it's an answer, you do not. Is Run lying - NO. Do I think it was clear what he meant - NO. Does that answer your question.

I also never read anywhere in this thread that he called 'anyone who thinks otherwise' your follower. But there may be some posts I don't remember in total.

You wrote:
Fine, you won't accept my view of Runamok. But why's that? Am I missing something? Run accused me of being irrational today. Do you agree? He also said that he'd answered my question in that thread but that anyone looking for it might not find it because they're somehow under my sway or, alternatively, I jsut posted too many damn posts for your average ex to be able to wade through and find his answer. And your response to these comments of his is:

You have called Run about every name in the book - is it any wonder I won't accept your view of him? If it's any consolation to you, I don't accept HIS view of YOU, either.

As far as being irrational, I don't think YOU are generally an irrational person, but the intensity of your anti-Run crusade strikes me as being somewhat irrational and lacking in perspective. I also feel the same way about Run's feelings toward you.

Now, as for your list of my objections about the guy, yes, that's pretty well it. When you say you'd be willing to post a rebuttal on RE, I take it you're talking about giving me a one-time shot to defend myself. Is that it?

That's what I had in mind. Can you think of another solution? What exactly is the problem here? Is it that Run is the Forum Administrator, and that he writes stuff criticizing your methods of posting on the forum? If he wasn't the Forum Administrator, would these posts be OK? Would they be OK on another forum but not on Recent Exes? What would you suggest as a solution? It sounds like you are saying that you object to these posts because Run is the Forum Administrator. Is that true?

You wrote:
Katie, wake up! Would that satisfy you if Brian was being slandered there? Would you be content to let this kind of person continue to do his thing, welcoming in recent exe's and putting his own strange spin on the art of communication?

Jim, in the first place, I don't view Run's posts about you as 'slander', except for possibly the one about you using multiple posting names. I read ALL the posts of Run's that you lifted off 'Recent Exes', and I don't think they are that bad. They are clearly expressed as his opinion. He has said FAR worse things about you on this forum, so I don't see them as 'cowardly' either.

Also, in yet another response to 'what if it was Brian?' - the fact is that people post all kinds of criticisms of Brian all over the place. As I said earlier, of course I don't like it, but I'm learning to live with it. (Brian says that anyone who is crazy enough to volunteer to be a forum administrator deserves all the abuse they are going to get.)

Again, what do you want from this? What do you see as a WORKABLE solution?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 19:49:12 (GMT)
From: Gerry Mr. Guidelines Butt
Email: None
To: all
Subject: inski with what will make this forum work better..
Message:

What do you see as a WORKABLE solution?

Delete Off Topic Threads

Delete posts about the Forum or its participants

The following Posters should retire immediately and allow the Forum to aquire a new 'flavor' :

Jim

Runamok

Powerman

Katie and possibly Robyn

And of course, Gerry.

If your name is on the list report immediately to your local community Heavenly Gates Solient Green factory for further processing...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 20:19:27 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Gerry Mr. Butt
Subject: There you are sweet heart...I found you
Message:
I could tell you few thing but I coose not to, for obvious reasons and I hope this time you do understand. I'm saying just this and don't bother to answer here because you may do it again.

What you did was wrong and I hope you leaarned that your decissions can endangered others.

take care.

I mean it. Do not answer. please.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 20:17:26 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Gerry Mr. Guidelines Butt
Subject: There you are sweet heart!
Message:
I could tell you few thing but I coose not to, for obvious reasons and I hope this time you do understand. I'm saying just this and don't bother to answer here because you may do it again.

What you did was wrong and I hope you leaarned that your decissions can endangered others.

take care.

I mean it. Do not answer. please.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 20:50:00 (GMT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Shifty and Katie
Subject: Nice double blind I'm in, 'Susan'
Message:
Damned if I do respond and damned if I don't.

Fact is you're a fraud. All you've done is come here with your phony accent and whip up some key people emotionally with your fake story and created this 'huge' furor in a tea pot.

And you want nothing more than to cause trouble right here, right now with me. Otherwise you would not have posted as you did. You are transparent. At least to me.

And Katie I'm getting tired of your accusation that I accuse every new person here of being 'Rob.' It's simply not true and I wish you would stop spreading this malicious gossip. There are a number of new people here and of course, I haven't said they were 'Rob.' Thank you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 21:15:42 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: SEE you did it again=your are very, very slow
Message:
extra slow. Nice to have 'met' you.

Good bye

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 20:00:52 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: You ARE alive.....
Message:
Gerry: I was beginning to wonder if youz was still alive? Hadn't heard from you in awhile.

BTW, the post is funny.... :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 02:14:05 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim!!!!!
Message:
Did you get a check minus in kindergarden for: getting along with others?
Run sure as hell isn't:
'Run has indeed used his 'position' there to slag me abundantly.'

Christ, no one posts abundantly and certainly Run's posts aren't all about YOU! Don't flatter yourself so! You just can't stand not having control over the goings on there. Your big campain is to get Run out as FA? Why don't you stop acting like a 6yr old.
Maybe you really love Run like I love you, muffin, and to know he doesn't feel the same drive you crazy, I understand it is the same for me knowing you do not return my eternal love for you.
Oh sure you'll ignore this or give me hell, so fucking be it! Maybe if you lent me your car or gave ME your allowance you wouldn't infuriate me. You see yourself as righteous and persecuted and attacked unfairly. What did you do to me last night, and many times, much worse, in the past, attacked me for no reason, I commented on Mike's post, you didn't attack Mike just me. You think my words are inane so why bother attacking me? Curious. I DON'T say crap about you to anyone anywhere. It is just a waste of time, you know like answering the door and finding the Jehovah's Witness there, fresh for another cyclical round of mumbo jumbo that goes NOWHERE. And I remember a LONG time ago asking you why YOU were chasing me around the forum nipping at my heels and now you are all upset about what you think is the same thing happening to you.
Funny it is ok to do that to me but you can't take it, eh? You act like a spoiled brat.
I read Run's answer your questions more then once but you get so caught up in the fever of your spewing you are like a crazed rabid animal, like my mother when she was spiraling into a violent tirade, there is just no fucking stopping you unless and until everyone agrees with you or gives up because talking to you is pointless and then you see that silence as your winning. UGH! Everything with you is about winning.
You came back as a kinder gentler Jim but as people gave you strokes it built up your ego, you became engorged with all that feedback and now you are releasing all that pent up crap you've been holding back for so long. Hopeless.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 02:38:50 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Jim!!!!!
Message:
Robyn,

The only slim chance that Jim's apparently insane crusade could be justified was if Run really was campaigning on the RE forum against Jim. If as you say Run isn't, then his behaviour makes no sense whatsoever. As people here know, I have had a lot of respect for Jim but it appears he's lost the plot.

Whatever Jim has said about your posts in the past Robyn, this one is as clear as it gets.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 02:58:19 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Jim!!!!!
Message:
Dear John,
I am not saying Run never typed Jim's name on recentexes. He certainly discusses other things, and doesn't post that much so I'd say most of his posts do not mention Jim, and I never saw his mentioning Jim on ocassion as anything remotely close to this champain Jim's got going here.
Anyway thanks, you may well be working up to being flamed by the big Jim man, not quite what you had in mind I think but you'll find being supportive of me won't help you in that regard.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 02:56:08 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: JHB
Subject: Excuse me, John
Message:
Thanks for assuming I'm wrong about Run's posts on RE. I'm not.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 03:48:04 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Jim
Subject: Here are some samples of Run's posts on RE
Message:
Okay, since no one believes me, here are some samples:

Personally I think we blew it with Shp and sent him back to M with our own arrogance, but I could be overestimating. It could be overkill on my part.

You might remember, I kinda took the lead in saying Shp was up to no good. I am still fairly comfortable with most of that (maybe not 100%), but when Jim decided to weigh into the fight and show who was boss, eventually I got disgusted. At first it was interesting to hear Jim's points. Then.. it was like seeing someone knocked down and not moving. Only bad guys stomp the head in and that's the kind of thing it was with 'idiot', 'fuckyou', 'moron', etc.

Here's one taht refers to 'threats against Mary'. That's me he's talking about. Mary tried to disrupt the forum and I warned everyone that she was about to post again:

Being relatively thick-skinned myself, and having cut my teeth in the forums as a 'heavy' (remember when I took on Shp, for example), I don't think any of the flamers really enjoy it when it turns on them. The whole idea is to out-tough all takers. When people stand up to it, they get hurt too.

The trick is how to stand up to it and not become it and it's tricky. I'm still trying to walk that line. When I was arguing with Shp and Jim was stepping in, I really couldn't see the point in cadencing with 'fuckyuou' and 'idiot' and 'wimp' and all this stuff. ESPECIALLY when I was actually criticizing Shp's points. If I actually wanted him to consider my points, I had to maintain a modicum of civility so there was a way to connect.

Some of the threats that surfaced against Mary really made me feel ashamed to be associated with the forum. While your (Michael) discussion of Ger earlier as 'going through a lot' did make me stop and think (and admire you) I wonder if that is ultimately the best view. (But it is definitely worth something.)

Here's another:

To Michael, I personally think Ger blames me for running Jim off and is at least in part making him howl for blood. I have no idea if that is true because I cannot speak for Jim. I was feeling like Jim had taken the bullying thing too far and that the FA's were not able to control threats (even tho they are technically against the rules). So I did go after Jim sometimes. And he has been gone for the longest period that I have ever seen in years of posting on the forums.

and another:

The thing that really gets me about flames on F5 is that when people are totally provocative and start telling me to fuckoff or whatever they do (I could write f***off but I don't think that's really necessary), it's like you're getting mugged in a deserted alley. My own stratagems for 'standing up' to flamers is based on the lack of emergency response that is the norm

Honestly it shocks me sometimes and makes me wonder about the ultimate value of doing this. AND I really can't enter a thread without getting flamed SEVERELY at this point. So I can't try to stand up to it when I see it because it will absolutely get worse and not better.

Who says assasination isn't effective?

and another:

What is it that makes it so hard to intervene when someone is flaming? It's impossible to tell anyone to just cool it.. what is up with that?

Really seems pretty warped. Not a minor prob but a MAJOR prob. Gets up there with cult behavior.

and another:

As far as 'what is flaming', when people post stuff like 'fuck you you asshole' I would call it flaming. I'm not a prude. I can 'fucking' write 'fuck' but it doesn't accomplish a whole lot.

Currently, I've got 'FUCKYOU RUNAMOK' and 'LISTEN YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE from Roger (among many others). Something like that is so blatant (sometimes is huge red letters from Roger but there's more to it. There are real issues behind the disagreements but by the time the language has gotten there the issues are going to be extremely distorted at best. I try to deal with the actual issues and have a sense of humor about it (and that's why and how I respond). But is it worth it? If I don't respond, does it imply acceptance of allegations that accompany it?

Maybe it doesnt strike people as an issue at all (and that really is how people act most of the time- like it isn't happening), but I think there is something really wrong with what is going on and the apathy that accompanies it.

I know people ignore in the hopes that it will go away. I grew up in New York and was taught not to talk to people who tried to start conversations with you on the street. The end result was weird. People having conversations with themselves a lot. A disjointed environment where crime could and would actually be ignored as 'none of my business'.

I don't want to support or help build a world like that, even online.

and another:

I don't post on the main forum fairly often for fear of provoking a free-for-all. But I find a lot of it pretty sick to be honest. Very hateful and sarcastic in an infantile way. The sarcasm can be funny but gets thin with the constant barrage of it, and especially where it exists in order not to deal with serious issues or to obscure facts and issues.

Trying to say anything about any of this on F5 undoubtedly will cause a fight (at least if I say it).

and another:

I am interested in the topic of communication and aggression. Some people have suggested to me that we're still looking for abusive authority figures and that we have people who are more than willing to do get verbally abusive on the forum. You know, like we didn't get enough of that from M'ragey.

It seems to be in flux now. I don't see that kind of behavior as being acceptable, but I also still am shocked at how verbally violent some people can be without a huge, consensual outpour against them.

and another:

I have posted quite a bit about guidelines on the main forum. I started posting about it as webmaster (well ass't webmaster) and continued some afterwards. I was met with derision by a few and some discussion by others.

People seem turned off talking about. Are they
scared of the reaction that I get from some hardcore flamers? Don't want to get in the crossfire? I wonder. It seems appropriate to deal with shit as it comes up. Instead the forums seem to have a sweep it under the rug kinda attitude.

I personally think the flaming thing has become a permanent issue which won't go away. It was exciting sometimes 2+ years ago to see some of the ex versus premie fights but they became so routine. They became the worst of our culture: wrestling, Springer, etc. and felt very staged, like these TV events.

Then the arguments spread to our own group. IMO, Katie would balance a lot of it out by spending large amounts of time consoling bruised premies (or something like that). But Katie and Brian are justifiably trying to pass the torch to others and things have not been the same.

So it may be boring but I think talking about guidelines and forum shit (as in the stuff that hits the fan) is good, albeit sometimes tedious.

I also think it is necessary to name names. I cannot usually decipher posts that attempt to deal with these issues but will not name someone's name specifically.

People may have issues with me on some of this stuff. I don't think a discussion with disagreements has to be a food fight.

and another:

The thing is that flaming stuff is the best PR that M'ragey has. THAT's why I perservere. Otherwise I would just split. I do have a life (and have been out a long time) and can easily do without Gerry (or whoever) giving me a hard time.

But other people get hurt. I'm relatively thickskinned (not that I enjoy it) and certainly don't object to anything you're saying.

There really is a tremendous need. There are tens of thousands of people, by my estimation, who would like some kind of support or networking with ex-premies. Certainly thousands.

and another:

The problem IMO is that when there are verbally violent posts which are not just fuckyou's but worse (we've seen threats online and more), I see very few people, if any, object. You know the stories of rapes and muggings which are witnessed by large numbers of people? That's what it reminds me of. As real an issue as censorsip.

About premies posting. I think for the 'main forum' (if that is still for real) it's better to edit, delete or block them. Ultimately, if we are going to talk to them, it shouldn't be a big fight scene. If it's our forum, we can make rules, but we just have to keep a few for ourselves. Basically, no exes spend time on CD's forum. They are coming to us.

The reason is to discourage fighting not to censor them. If we had more energy, we could start a forum or chatroom just for interacting, but we don't right now. That's why my opinion seemed to changed. It's really one opinion, that we should deal with them when we are up to it, but deal with our own biz first. That's in keeping with my mentality that it's healthy to talk about the forum and issues related to it. Does that start to make sense?

The prob with fighting incessantly with premies is that if they are continuous lurkers (and quite a few are) then they are expressing a need to split M'rage by being present. Deleting or blocking posts would be better than fighting for THEIR self-respect. But as long as we have the same problem amongst ourselves it wouldn't work.

and another:

I am not making a value judgement about the premies, but the dialog seems to have degenerated a lot. It's so Springer most of the time. Maybe this is changing, but exes posting on AG seem to have an evolutionary imperative to reestablish dignity (it's ironic but true) to people who get trashed so routinely.

That ultra-heavy anti-premie thing is straight out of the cult itself. It's 'heavy satsang' pure and simple. It makes us look like shit and it's always the result of a very small number of people inflicting their view on the rest of us. I wouldn't be surprised if we've scared the press off if they make it to the forums.

and another:

Heller did post under aliases quite a bit after he was blocked from F3.

The original guidelines on ex-premie.org (which I gather do not exist anymore) asked that people post under a single name to avoid confusion, but did not require that the name be one's legal name.

and another:

When Shp first came online, he always tried to give satsang and would pepper any non-satsang with 'go with the flow' type BS that was obnoxiously straight out of satsang hell. I use to fight with him all the time but still could not understand Jim's obsession to tell him (and others) to 'fuck off' and all that. Seems really childish to me but at the time I was making more efforts to coexist with this strongarm mentality.

Things as they are started to develop around this time. They're were numerous premie spammers. 'Quasi-premie' (from Malibu) spewed garbage for 8 or more hours at a time, completely making communication impossible. It's arguable that current squabbles do trace back to premies, and they certainly were a part of the scenario as it developed.

Personally I think someone like Shp has a lot of dissatisfaction with Mirage and is seen about the same by Elan Vital as he is by exes. I also think that some kind of strict no-satsang guideline (or something like that) would work if the posting against premies wasn't so vicious. These things are arguable and I'm not even sure where the best place is to discuss it. I've considered discussing this stuff on Dave's premies only forum, but I'm a little burnt on all the stuff that has been going on to do it right now.

I guess we really need a flame-free forum for everyone, but all we have the energy for right now is recent exes. And if we did expand, the first step would probably be to do it for all exes.

But I have to basically agree with you.

and another:

People who have posted on the forums for a long time also no me as a strong, anti-Miragey ex who fought. I fought with Shp for weeks when he posted satsang repeatedly. Jim's characterization of the people who are tangling with him as being somehow a coffee group is a slur, aimed at 'housewife' kinds of stereotypes that simply aren't true.

Jim's claim to fame (and it is a claim not fact) is that he was the 'first' person to ever post about Miragey on the Internet. Sorta like saying Christopher Columbus discovered America.

and another:

Personally I think if you are talking about someone (i.e., Jim or Mary) you should just say their name in this forum. If someone can get me up to speed on existing guidelines for this group, I would appreciate it.

The only stuff that Jim posted was pretty vague. When people share email, it's hard to completely separate posting and email for confidentiality. Katie has posted some stuff about me simply because she forgot it was a confidence- and it wasn't that important otherwise she would have remembered. Likewise if someone said to Jim that I was bummed about being flamed when he posted that I was writing that on this forum, it's really nothing to get excited about.

Unfortunately, it's a way of dominating the conversation and I consider it bullying

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 03:55:49 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Jim
Subject: And my opinion?
Message:
I'd say I'm right. The guy has gotten this position so that he can basically slag me. He's a liar and a creep. Even when he doesn't mention me by name, he's pontificating about how far beyond what he calls 'flames' he is. But, really, isn't he exactly like any other shifty premie?

A little 'passive / aggressive' perhaps?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 04:19:06 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: And my opinion
Message:
You are an untrust worthy asshole! Those posts were taken, sneakely from 700 posts. He isn't bad mouthing you the way you do to anyone who doesn't think the way you do!
You say no one should trust Run well NO ONE SHOULD TRUST YOU WITH ANYTHING THEY DON'T WANT BROACASTED! You are such an asshole I wouldn't even like you if you GAVE me your car and all your money!
You are a hateful, pitiful little man. I have even talked about you in email Jim and others have written back, maybe you'd better hack into my email account and keep track and then post the emails when they do occur.
You may enjoy some of the other emails I write and receive also, might just give you a whole new impression of me. :) Asshole.
Still in love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 04:51:06 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Robyn
Subject: And my opinion
Message:
Robyn,
If an issue has three layers, you're capable, at best, of seeing one. I'm sorry to say that but it's true. The fact is that however many posts there on on RE, there aren't a whole lot more by Run. These are, indeed, a fair sampling. And if you think there's any 'privacy interest' in any of them, when he's slagging me as he clearly is, I think you're being foolish. Look, maybe you guys can get a more secure forum next time and go to town, gossiping away all you want. I posted these posts because I was being called a liar and I don't like that. whatever you think of me, Robyn, I'm not a liar. Run, on the other hand, is, isn't he?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 06:03:40 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: And my opinion
Message:
I feel like I need to defend my intelligence, I did graduate from college with honors, .01 points from Magna Cum laude, as impossible as that may be for you to grasp! My intrests are just in different areas than yours thank god! Just because I am a decent human being doesn't mean I am stupid and just because you gave a guy a couple dollars 30 years ago, or you came back here being nice until you got your footing doesn't make you a good person. You are not just a head spitting balls here, my head connects to my body, does't yours? I don't think much of you Jim, not much and not often. IMHO you deserve no respect, any good you could contribute in content or humor is negated by your asshole tendencies.
I couldn't say it as well, certainly no better then John B.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 06:09:59 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Robyn
Subject: And my opinion
Message:
Robyn,

It's too bad that you have to defend your intelligence. Sorry it comes to that. Let's just leave that, okay?

Bye

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 05:46:09 (GMT)
From: John B
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: 'YOU ASKED FOR IT'
Message:
I have jumped onto this forum and am appalled.

Why Jim Heller

If you list those posts from Run and expect maybe 30 people to actually side with you, I have serious concerns for you own self image.
Hear my words 'You are bieng a damn fool'

You are wrong. Run is criticisising you thats for sure, but he is trying to keep a perspective that is in no way related to your style of bitter vindiciveness.
This bitter vindictivness is evident in the condenscending way you talk to Robyn.
You are so paranoid you cant even be accoutable for your own stupid habits.
What you dont get is that these people are on your side, but you need to make some changes man.
Quit trying to imagine what it is like for the collective forum to be percieving you. You are too wrapped up in your own self image.
Get it together. It is embarrassing to behold you in such a dreadfull painfull noisy state.
It is like a nine year old that kicks shins, Its pouty.
The forum loves you. Its ok not to be perfect - but quit exploiting it and quit trying to make yourself look good by belittling belittling and crying foul.
It dont make you look good.
Look up on the internet about the inner turmoil of bulllies.
It is childish.

It is the male equivalant of using feminine wiles to get your way.
Persciption: Get some reruns of Dallas and watch Alexis and convert it to misplaced male bravado and you got it.
Or watch some soaps and get yourself educated. This type of social behavior went out in the 80s.
Where the hell you been.
TEENAGERS wouldnt even try this on as cunning. Very transparent

John B

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 06:04:19 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: John B
Subject: 'YOU ASKED FOR IT'
Message:
You are wrong. Run is criticisising you thats for sure, but he is trying to keep a perspective that is in no way related to your style of bitter vindiciveness.

What a silly thing to say! His every point is completely related to my style of whatever. What's wrong with you? Can't you read?

Anyway, you are the one who asked for it, really. You assumed that Run wasn't campaigning against me and I posted the proof that he is. Or don't you remember that?

Paranoid? I guess that'd be an apt accusation if I was imagining this bullshit, but I'm not. So you're going to have to find a different word cause that one doesn't cut it.

As for Robyn, whatever again. You try to talk with her. Help yourself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:43:41 (GMT)
From: John B
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: HarHarHar
Message:
You call that a campaign?
And I dont know anything about this Robin. It was YOUR attitude I was talking about.
How do you stand anybody at all with that victim shit chip on your shoulder?
If you dont like the word paranoid, try socially paranoid.
You are imagining why this Run is doing what he is.
Paranoid doesnt only mean imagined. It also means to take what IS and infusing it with imagination until it becomes something else in your head.
You are definitely paranoid by this definition, which I admit I only learned while smoking dope in the program days. No promises on how it holds up against a dictionary.
Did you ever think hes RIGHT??????????
Who elected you to evaluate anybody around here anyway??
Your cult losses are nothing special old man.
How do you RANK is what I dont get.
There aint no sign on the forum door that gives notice of a seniority set up.

Why dont you stick to what you are good at and leave the exs in peace so you can get something real done instead of this Melrose Place shit

John B

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 13:03:29 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: John B
Subject: HarHarHar
Message:
You call that a campaign?

Yep. Sure do. An ongoing, pompous, divisive and cowardly campaign. Run's not content to argue his views, whatever they may be, openly, but instead uses his special pulpit on the secret, private Recent Exe's forum to grind away. Of course he should have no more credibility than the average premie poster, who lies and ducks and dives around any question or issue he can't face. But, srue, he's got his own obsessive campaign happening. You'd have to be stupid to not see it.

And I dont know anything about this Robin. It was YOUR attitude I was talking about.

It's 'Robyn', please and I thought you brought her up??? Am I going mad now? Let me open another window and see. Hold on. .....

yeah, here it is:

This bitter vindictivness is evident in the condenscending way you talk to Robyn.

You asked me about her, dummy. What the fuck??????

How do you stand anybody at all with that victim shit chip on your shoulder?
If you dont like the word paranoid, try socially paranoid.

Oh please. I'm not imagining anything. Anyone with half a brain can see that Run's on a constant tear about me.

You are imagining why this Run is doing what he is.
Paranoid doesnt only mean imagined. It also means to take what IS and infusing it with imagination until it becomes something else in your head.
You are definitely paranoid by this definition, which I admit I only learned while smoking dope in the program days. No promises on how it holds up against a dictionary.
Did you ever think hes RIGHT??????????

No, I think you're stupid. How'd you like that? I think that you can't connect some pretty obvious dots here. That's what I think.

Who elected you to evaluate anybody around here anyway??

You did, John, in the last general election. Don't you remember? I'm on the evaluation committee.

Your cult losses are nothing special old man.

??

How do you RANK is what I dont get.

Seventh in the Nationals. How about you?

There aint no sign on the forum door that gives notice of a seniority set up.

Well that's exactly the point, isn't it? We need to put some signs up, for god's sake!

Why dont you stick to what you are good at and leave the exs in peace so you can get something real done instead of this Melrose Place shit

Boy, it's good to see that the only people who can even think of defending Run here are the weary and the weak. Sorry.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 13:11:52 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Jim
Subject: Oops -- same post, proper HTML
Message:
You call that a campaign?

Yep. Sure do. An ongoing, pompous, divisive and cowardly campaign. Run's not content to argue his views, whatever they may be, openly, but instead uses his special pulpit on the secret, private Recent Exe's forum to grind away. Of course he should have no more credibility than the average premie poster, who lies and ducks and dives around any question or issue he can't face. But, srue, he's got his own obsessive campaign happening. You'd have to be stupid to not see it.

And I dont know anything about this Robin. It was YOUR attitude I was talking about.

It's 'Robyn', please and I thought you brought her up??? Am I going mad now? Let me open another window and see. Hold on. .....

yeah, here it is:

This bitter vindictivness is evident in the condenscending way you talk to Robyn.

You asked me about her, dummy. What the fuck??????

How do you stand anybody at all with that victim shit chip on your shoulder?
If you dont like the word paranoid, try socially paranoid.

Oh please. I'm not imagining anything. Anyone with half a brain can see that Run's on a constant tear about me.

You are imagining why this Run is doing what he is.
Paranoid doesnt only mean imagined. It also means to take what IS and infusing it with imagination until it becomes something else in your head.
You are definitely paranoid by this definition, which I admit I only learned while smoking dope in the program days. No promises on how it holds up against a dictionary.
Did you ever think hes RIGHT??????????

No, I think you're stupid. How'd you like that? I think that you can't connect some pretty obvious dots here. That's what I think.

Who elected you to evaluate anybody around here anyway??

You did, John, in the last general election. Don't you remember? I'm on the evaluation committee.

Your cult losses are nothing special old man.

??

How do you RANK is what I dont get.

Seventh in the Nationals. How about you?

There aint no sign on the forum door that gives notice of a seniority set up.

Well that's exactly the point, isn't it? We need to put some signs up, for god's sake!

Why dont you stick to what you are good at and leave the exs in peace so you can get something real done instead of this Melrose Place shit

Boy, it's good to see that the only people who can even think of defending Run here are the weary and the weak. Sorry.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 12:18:56 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: John B
Subject: HarHarHar
Message:
John,

You're an idiot.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 06:48:06 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: 'YOU ASKED FOR IT'
Message:
Calking up more asshole points Jimmy.
We all know you read and the meanings are twisted into your weird logic or science mind whatever it is that filters diversity out of your existance. Run HAS tried to keep perspective. Look how mad I got at you in this thread and you and your buddies have been going for Run's throat for so long, I do not understand how he can continue to take it.
You are paranoid because your 'victory' is not secure. Asshole! You win ok baby, you win. Feel better. YOU WIN!!! Now go somewhere and collect your prize.
Lots of people like to talk to me stupid and if John B, not JHB, me thinks, would consider it then I'd be honnored as it seems he has his head on his shoulders unlike yourself, I guess just being a head can make anyone cranky.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:52:21 (GMT)
From: John B
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: 'YOU ASKED FOR IT'
Message:
Whats he won besides a long thread?
This guy is on a power trip. He wouldnt last an hour with that cry baby shit in the real world.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:16:41 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: John B
Subject: John B, winning
Message:
Dear John,
Sorry, I didn't read that clearly. He didn't win anything I was just trying to quite the spoiled child. It was a sarcastic comment.
I was in rare form last night and I don't get much enjoyement from getting angry and feeling so negatively about something that I have no control or influence over. Back to skipping his posts and blisfull ignorance.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 13:33:10 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: John B
Subject: 'YOU ASKED FOR IT'
Message:
Dear John,
Well Jim said why doesn't Run voice his opinion here instead of on the secret forum, well this thread has taken over at least 1/2 the content on here now, if Run did the same that wouldn't leave any room for any content would it. The way Run has been persued it is no wonder he needs to speak about it some place he can speak without a relentless barage of attacks. The recentexes forum is like any other forum, in that it isn't restricted to posting on one topic or another. What a joy to be able to post there without the aprehension of exactly this type of nonsense!
You will also see that he doesn't 'address/answer' your thought about his vindictiveness toward me (not that he had to in the first place) but instead says that yes you are talking to him about me! Too see if you can stand to talk to me! This is one of his major tactics. When all else fails he drops it and actually it is usually such a relief his attention has moved on that I for one wouldn't call him on it but I have ever pointed it out to him with no answer either.
You know it really is a usless waste of time to reason with this man. You NEVER get ANYWERE EVER, EVER! Still every once and awhile I can not take it anymore and try, fewer and farther between, some small progress for me anyway, I've had bad insomnia this week, I would have spent the time better cleaning the tolite.
I am sure he can't even see that he has been doing this same shit, that I know of, since shortly after I came here.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 07:36:08 (GMT)
From: David Koresh
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: They're on the money, Heller(nt)
Message:
nt.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 07:40:36 (GMT)
From: Janet
Email: None
To: David
Subject: we will be doing a surprise inspection (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 07:55:35 (GMT)
From: Test
Email: Are they Tanks?
To: test
Subject: Empty message. (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:57:04 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim - what bothers me.....
Message:
....is when you start a new thread attacking Run about something that has happened in another thread. This is definitely not the first time you've done this. I think the balance of probablility is that you have some valid complaints about Run, but no one has to answer your questions if they don't want to. And if they don't you can think what you want about them.

It's no big deal but you're beginning to annoy me by throwing fuel on the fire like this.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 07:14:37 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: I don't know who
Subject: The fan club - what bothers me
Message:
This thread is so snared I could not find a place
to post this and shouldn't I suppose for my own
safety but I don't give a shit.

And this insures my doom. so what else is new?

What bothers me: The cheerleaders.

Some of whom have NO past issues with Runamok
whatsoever.
That sucks so much. Just Jim wannabees
That is so fucking ugly.

And even those of you who do have past issues.
It's still ugly. Can't do anything better with
your life? Still?

ps you know who -
I guess my answer about trust was answered.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 15:51:49 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Any Enemy of Jim's...
Message:
Look, if Jim don't like the guy he's outta here. I've read 'Fuck You, Runamok' too many times for it not to be true.

Everyone has a role model; what's wrong with Jim. A kid could do worse. Should I have Runamok as my role model? How about Shp or Dog? Still yet, how about Gerry?

At least Jim cheats fair and square.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 17:08:31 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: yes role models
Message:
I'm sure Jim will benefit from your qualities
of loyalty and friendship.

Since you like him you may (or may not whatever)
want to know we have worked it out.

Ever write something late at night that when
reviewed the next day seemed over the top? I mean,
it had the essence of what you meant, don't get me
wrong but was more dramatic than wanted?

Probably not. Oh well can't win em all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 14:24:44 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Selene
Subject: That's bullshit, Selene
Message:
Selene,

Obviously you think you've got your own 'loyalty' issues to wrestle with on this one. Whatever.

But it's pretty stupid and insulting to accuse anyone who might support me in this argument (as if there was any other rational way to go) of being a 'Jim Wannabe'. That's absurd and you know it.

The fact is that Run did what he did and I amde a big fat point of confronting him on it and some people, probably after sighing and muttering 'fuck' under their breath, bothered to check out the argument and come down on my side of it. The 'Wannabe' bullshit is just that.

And what's this now? You feel like your post 'insures your doom'? Well how about this. You've just insulted everyone in this thread who bothered to check in with an opinion. What do you expect? Respect? Where's yours?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 08:49:25 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Selene
Subject: what bothers me is this...
Message:
Selene, you know that I was the one who was the target of Runamok's little innuendo that started with your complaint regarding Proxomitron. Ok?

Thank god that it is not a requirement nor a prerequisite to have been a victim of the person in question for some complete stranger who witnesses some bad behavior to have the courage and the right to say something or to speak up, if you will.

If some behavior is not acceptable to the general populace than it is the right and maybe even the duty of the general populace speak out. And I know about that from personal experience as I have not always been a good and righteous person myself. I was condemned and corrected. And I took all the criticism under advisement and I apologized and publicly retracted as appropriate.

I will attempt to use our overused Hitler analogy, which I am not comparing Runamok to. Nor am I comparing Jim Heller to Winston Churchill, maybe another flamboyant and outspoken British PM of an earlier era, say, sometime during Queen Victoria's reign. Anyway in the 1930's the foreign policy of the United States was isolationist in nature vis-à-vis Charles Lindberg and William Randolph Hearst. And the U.S. certainly must have had full knowledge of the atrocities being perpetuated by the Nazis and the Brown Shirts. This ostrich behavior happens all the time - look at Pol Pot in Cambodia, Rawanda, etc. However, it is interesting and perhaps a good sign, depending on your view, to see recent U.S. and NATO involvement in places like Kosovo which was undergoing ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Serbs.

Rather than elaborate on this myself, I've found some interesting history on the Chamberlin quest for peace and will end with posting the following:

Holding up an agreement that wasn't worth the paper it was written on, Neville Chamberlin declared, with a supercilious smile on his face, 'Peace in our time' on his return from negotiations with Adolf Hitler in Berschgarten where he had sold Czechoslovakia down the river and that ultimately led to world war.

Volume 2 of William Manchester's outstanding biography of Winston Spencer Churchill, 'The Last Lion,' is entitled 'Alone 1932-1940. Today, Churchill is a known as the giant of our century, in 1938 his was a lonely voice. 'I believe it's peace in our time,' Neville Chamberlin declared in 1938, while the British people rejoiced over the deal he had made at Munich. Churchill's opposition to the Munich Accords brought him contempt Ken Starr will never hear. Lord Maugham call Churchill an 'agitator who should be shot or hanged.' Of course, when the folly of Chamberlain's deal was clear, in 1939, Churchill's courage was rewarded with eternal glory.

Selene, using your thinking one would wonder whether it is ever appropriate to say or do something until the insult or the injury finally comes home. To take it to an extreme it would be like walking down the street and seeing a rather nasty violent crime against another person and just walk away because it was somebody else and not yourself. That type of thing does unfortunately happen, but I think that we all believe and feel that we might behave differently. Whether it's tragedies on the scale of ethnic cleansing, street crime, or bullshit on these pages, there will always be people who will, thank god, speak out.

And when this place becomes such a social club that all we can do is exchange phony smiles with each other and never permit ourselves to get involved in a heated discussion on whatever topic it may be, well, then I'm the heck out of here. I can join a church or some other club for that. I, myself, prefer honest and forthright discussion where participants are held accountable for what they say. And, yes, I've tried to be accountable to the best of my ability. And, of course, I've come up short at times. I'm just a goddamn fucking asshole of a human being. Sorry, but that's the way it is sometimes. And I know that I am the only one.

Sorry, I absolutely will not be able to respond. I'm shutting down my home system for some overdue maintenance.

Fear not, the House of Maharaji Drek will still be available.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 16:00:41 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Jim and Roger
Subject: late night posts, etc
Message:
Jim:
Yes the 'Sealing the Doom thing was over-dramatic'

yes I do have conflicting loyalties. It's what
happens sometimes when people are put into no-win situations
and have to take a stand.
It's hard and the fact that I do have conflicts to
me is not a flaw.

I know you are too close to it to see it but, well, you
just are too close to it , but...
there IS something a bit Shirley Jackson-ish a la
'The Lottery' about someone who is not involved cheering
your speeches. But that is just my opinion. nothing else.
My view on human nature.

Roger:
Your response time is never expected to be immediate
:) Hope the home maintenace was successful
You made some good points about social issues in
general. NO I do NOT want to see forum be a NICE
little social club. Yuck.
But we are not talking general here. One individual.
Just one. And I don't see a win-win. Do you?
And I don't understand the goal. Do you guys want
to see him stop posting? is that the goal?
Just don't get it, trying to understand.
(selene, awake again. Yikes, reading posts in the
light of day is fun no?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 16:34:47 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Selene
Subject: late night posts, etc
Message:
Selene,

I think your sense of loyalty can only take you so far. Sometimes you hve to criticize your friends, right? Well, as you can see in my post below, Time to get 'jimmed', Run, Run never did answer my question. Instead, look at the ugly smoke screen he threw up! Talk about flaming! I'm 'Lord of denial', an 'asshole ... [whose] gutteral shrieks and shouts stun and amaze the spectators' [whose] decimating 145 decibel message, complete with unintelligible vocals nevertheless will fascinate the psychologist/anthropologist in anyone a grown man insist[ing] on a plethora of schoolyard games?, 'Captain Q[uigley] ... no longer capable of intellectual discussion .. a sellout', 'Mahatma Jim ... Paragon of Virtue', 'Matt Drudge', 'Warner Erhart .. jabbing a pencil in his eye', someone whose 'game [is a] ruse'.

All this from Mr. Guidelines. And all because he didn't want to answer the question about whether or not he was accusing Roger of spamming you.

No, I think that sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. In this case, I think whether or not one liked Run has to take a back burner to whether or not he's right.

You ask what do I want? I just want Run to:

1) admit the truth and apologize for all this idiocy.

2) quit pontificating about how disinterested he is in 'flaming' whether here or on RE.

3) quit calling me a cult leader and anyone who happens to agree with me a 'follower'. That's so nuts and offensive, I can't tell you.

4) quit nipping at my heels. Quit nipping at Roger's or Gerry's heels. Just plain quit doing that shit.

Well, you asked.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 17:23:39 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: ok that's better
Message:
Yes I did ask and do appreciate the clarification.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 01:02:19 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: JHB
Subject: I disagree, John
Message:
John,

If I said a certain Latvian ex was probably playing pranks of so-and-so by spamming her with anonymous email AND I'd made a point over time of saying I never picked fights, it just was'nt my style, you're damn right I should be accountable for that innuendo. That's my opinion anyway.

Sometimes, one does have an obligation to answer, given what's been said before.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 01:35:08 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I disagree, John
Message:
OK, Jim,

I think it's only fair to give you a more detailed response. First of all, I have been trying to invite a fight here and no one will fight with me or even insult me, so please get someone to accuse me of something!:-)

This thread you started refered I believe to a thread below which began life as an off-topic question about computer software. I don't read off-topic threads generally, I am against them being even started here, and I have no intention of reading that one now.

As I've said before I love this forum because of the excellent discussions and arguments about Maharaji and knowledge. You seem to want this forum to be about campaigning for a rational approach from everyone about every topic (witness the many evolution debates here). As you have experienced not everyone wants to be rational. This is true here as in non-cyber life. What I want to ask you is do you behave in real life towards irrational people as you behave here?

Let's say someone in court made a statement that you thought was untrue, and then was evasive about it when you challenged them. Would you then bring that up subsequently in every situation where you encountered that person? Say at a party, or in a bar? Would you stand up on a chair and yell to everyone in the bar, 'Look, this guy said this in court, I challenged him, and now he won't give me an honest response!'. How many people in that bar would be interested?

Or if someone was stalking you (which appears to be closer to your accusation against Run), would you again shout to everyone in the bar that the guy drinking the Cider and Blackcurrant at the end of the bar was a stalker?

For what it's worth I have no interest in general in Run's posts. There is no way he could divide this forum as far as I am concerned. I do however have a lot of interest in your posts. They are frequently interesting, incisive, usually rational, and certainly helped me a lot when I first found this forum.

I hope this is rational, addresses the point I want to make, and doesn't bother anyone else as being too off-topic.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 01:50:21 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: JHB
Subject: Yes, it's a real dilemna
Message:
John,

If you notice, at one point early on I todl Run I wasn't going to get drawn into it this time. Of course I've got the self-control of a gnat.

To answer your first question, court work spoils me in a way. If a witness gets really evasive and you've got a sharp judge you can really have fun forcing them to respond. Hey, the judge will make them if you ask him or her nicely enough. And even if they don't you get to jump up and down like crazy when you make your closing argument, So-and-so didn't answer my question! So-and-so didn't answer my question!. Thus there is at least one moment when you get a certain payoff for dealing with weasly evasiveness.

And yes, sometimes in regular life I've been known to press a point a bit, if I don't say so myself. Normally it never comes to that. Trust me.

But here, well we're like these disembodied heads all lined up in a row in some futuristic factory or something. Squaking away at each other. It's great when we play fair but, well it's like we're playing mouth hockey with ping pong balls, you know. I spit it to you, you spit it to so-and-so. And then when someone hides the ball in their little box, the one with all the hydroponic head-growing nutrients, well we get incensed, don't we? Can't exactly go to the other room or out for a bike ride. Oh yeah, we can but when we come back, time's more or less stood still and here we are again. Staring at that one head over there who's hidden the ball.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 04:58:57 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Roger ***==Best of==***
Message:
Jim nailed it on the head.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 05:49:20 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Powerman
Subject: Roger ***==Best of==***
Message:
Ok, ok, ok! I really don't have time for all this fighting and bickering because I'm insanely busy against a looming deadline, but...

Jim's post is most definitely a very ***Best*** TRIPLE DELUXE!

I have had the fortunate experience of witnessing Jim in action in court. And I've seen Jim do the Futuristic Factory Disembodied Heads Where is the Ping Pong Ball closing argument in front of a packed courtroom. Word gets out in town and everyone who is anyone is there. It gets 'em everytime! Not Guilty verdicts after only 15 minutes of deliberations.

This isn't about me, is it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 03:55:47 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: My favorite Jim paragraph of all time...and kudos
Message:
to Brian for the subject box lengthening...

But here, well we're like these disembodied heads all lined up in a row in some futuristic factory or something. Squaking away at each other. It's great when we play fair but, well it's like we're playing mouth hockey with ping pong balls, you know. I spit it to you, you spit it to so-and-so. And then when someone hides the ball in their little box, the one with all the hydroponic head-growing nutrients, well we get incensed, don't we? Can't exactly go to the other room or out for a bike ride. Oh yeah, we can but when we come back, time's more or less stood still and here we are again. Staring at that one head over there who's hidden the ball.

I know I get really pissed at Run for his evasiveness and, shall we say, ' florid imagination.' But this was pants wetting funny--well done !!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 02:03:26 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Let me clarify my point.....
Message:
.... I don't think you've understood my point. You certainly haven't answered it. You say you do behave like you behave here in real life sometimes. I suspect not that often. Anyway, my point is that insisting on responsiveness, honesty, and reason here is fine by me if the subject matter is on-topic. When you do, you are a great act. But applying those same standards to off-topic subjects is for me usually uninteresting. And starting a new thread where you invite all the rest of us to comment on the off-topic arguments, as I said before, annoys me. I suspect it annoys many others.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 02:35:54 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: JHB
Subject: Let me clarify my point.....
Message:
I don't see a big difference between on-topic and off-topic subjects in this regard. I started the thread because I had the idea that if I could only nip this Run thing in the bud, well I wouldn't have to deal with it anymore. Call me selfish but I think that was my motivation.

I'm sorry a bit for spoiling the show but I'm not all that sorry, John. But what you find uninteresting, others may find completely uninteresting. Have you ever thought of that?

No, seriously, I just got irritated at Run's passive / aggressive shtick (a concept he's given me new faith in, by the way) and plain, ol' clamoured for support. But then why am I answering to you anyway? I'm a cult leader, aren't I?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:22:30 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Let me clarify my point.....
Message:
I don't see a big difference between on-topic and off-topic subjects in this regard.

There is a huge difference. Imagine the number of topics that we could discuss here and the scope for seious disagreements. Evolution, gun control, abortion, politics, legalisation of cannabis, N. Ireland, the British Monarchy, Chechnya, the Language law in Latvia, Pakistan's military government, Microsoft, racism, nuclear weapons, sexual discrimination, on top of petty off-topic disputes between exes here. Do you think we should all expound our opinions on these and other topics here, and then be expected to back up every statement in a honest, rational way?

Would you now accept that there is a difference between on-topic threads and off-topic threads?

I started the thread because I had the idea that if I could only nip this Run thing in the bud, well I wouldn't have to deal with it anymore.

I cannot believe that you started this thread to nip the topic in the bud. The original thread had gone into inactive and no one else was talking about it. Raising the subject again only inflamed the entrenched divisions between you and Run and between Roger and Run, and couldn't possible settle those divisions. Sure people joined because they like a good fight, but that doesn't mean what you did was right.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 14:06:41 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: JHB
Subject: Whatever
Message:
John,

Tell you what. Next time you get in a fight with someone, you deal with it to the extent you want, okay? You can argue for three minutes, you can argue for ten. However long you want. You can make 'x' effort to force the person to admit they're lying, if that's what you think, or you can make '2x' effort. It's all up to you.

And me? I'll do the same thing.

Thanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 17:14:08 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: A 2x Fight
Message:
Jim,

I notice you didn't respond to either of my points in my last post. Don't you think you should? I mean it's only fair isn't it. You claimed that off-topic discussions were the same here as on-topic ones, and I disagree. You haven't responded to my reasons for disagreeing. You also claimed that you restarted this argument with Run to nip it in the bud. I disagreed and gave my reasons why your action could not have had your claimed desirted effect.

Come on, play by your rules and respond properly.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 17:25:02 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: JHB
Subject: A 2x Fight
Message:
John,

I thougth I did respond but I'll respond more.

I guess there are some topics so off-topic one wonders how they'd even become a topic at all. But yes, I still say that if one's gotten into a full-on discussion about something and the other person starts cheating, it's no different for me that it's on a topic that's far from the central focus of the forum. Okay? That's my opinion; cheating's cheating.

BTW, this argument with Run wasn't too far OT as far as I'm concerned. For a long time now this guy's been calling me a 'cult leader' and moaning about 'guidelines' -- guidelines, I guess, that would protect him from the fury of anyone who calls him on cheating! So that's my opinon on that, whether or not you agree.

And as for my wanting to nip the Run problem, as I see, it in the bud, yes that's exactly what I wanted to do. And you know something, John? I think I've succeeded. I can't imagine Run ever again accusing me of being all the things I cited in my post to Selen (late night psots, etc.) just because he's afraid to deal with his own shit. Had I let it all just die with the thread going inactive I don't think I'd have accomplished that. Again, my opinion.

NOW have I answered you questions?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 17:49:36 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: A 2x Fight
Message:
John,
I thougth I did respond but I'll respond more.

I guess there are some topics so off-topic one wonders how they'd even become a topic at all.

Somebody starts them, that's how - my view is that they shouldn't because if everyone did, then this forum would be a waste of space. Some off-topic discussion is tolerated, but only because it hasn't yet taken over the forum. If we defend the right of people to start off-topic threads then everyone would have the right to, and premies for instance could come here and destroy the forum. It seems pretty clear to me that the only way to stop this is to discourage, or in the extreme case, get the FAs to delete, all off-topic posts. Do you agree or disagree?

But yes, I still say that if one's gotten into a full-on discussion about something and the other person starts cheating, it's no different for me that it's on a topic that's far from the central focus of the forum. Okay? That's my opinion; cheating's cheating.

You're right, cheating's cheating but people do it. If Run or someone else insists on cheating, or not responding what the hell can you do about it? Fill this forum with heavier and heavier complaints about it? There comes a time when you have to walk away.

BTW, this argument with Run wasn't too far OT as far as I'm concerned. For a long time now this guy's been calling me a 'cult leader' and moaning about 'guidelines' -- guidelines, I guess, that would protect him from the fury of anyone who calls him on cheating! So that's my opinon on that, whether or not you agree.

This argument seemed to me about Run implicitly accusing Roger of recommending software that could have helped people spam Selene. 100% off-topic. You brought in all your historical arguments with Run some of which do relate to this forum. Yes, Run is guilty of pretty much all you say, but other people have a bad opinion of you as well. You have dealt with him long enough to know that he will not change, so why do you continue?

And as for my wanting to nip the Run problem, as I see, it in the bud, yes that's exactly what I wanted to do. And you know something, John? I think I've succeeded. I can't imagine Run ever again accusing me of being all the things I cited in my post to Selen (late night psots, etc.) just because he's afraid to deal with his own shit. Had I let it all just die with the thread going inactive I don't think I'd have accomplished that. Again, my opinion.

Jim, my opinion is that you haven't succeeded. Next time Run writes something to someone else that seems unfair you will jump on him and the whole thing will restart. I will save this post to remind you when it happens. If it doesn't happen, I will be very grateful.

NOW have I answered your questions?

You certainly have made a fair attempt:-)

BTW Jim, when I want to achieve something and do not have the power to do so, then I identify who does have that power, and might be willing to help, and ask them. In this case that's you. You have the power to stop this stuff from proliferating. Run will not change in my opinion.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 18:12:25 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: JHB
Subject: A 2x Fight
Message:
Somebody starts them, that's how - my view is that they shouldn't because if everyone did, then this forum would be a waste of space. Some off-topic discussion is tolerated, but only because it hasn't yet taken over the forum. If we defend the right of people to start off-topic threads then everyone would have the right to, and premies for instance could come here and destroy the forum. It seems pretty clear to me that the only way to stop this is to discourage, or in the extreme case, get the FAs to delete, all off-topic posts. Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree. I don't see a real problem. Premies haven't yet 'destroyed the forum' by sucking us into OT discussions. Nor have exes. No, I don't see it as a big problem.

You're right, cheating's cheating but people do it. If Run or someone else insists on cheating, or not responding what the hell can you do about it? Fill this forum with heavier and heavier complaints about it? There comes a time when you have to walk away.

Again, suit yourself. You've complained a few times that no one picks on you. Yeah, I know you're joking -- at least I think you're joking. But believe me, John, as a pickee it gets old fast. Run's been on my case for a long, long time. Andon Roger's. Sure I confronted him this time but only after he'd clearly insinuated that Roger was anonymously spamming Selene. Let me ask you something: do you think my original question to him -- 'Run, are you talking about Roger? -- was out of line? If you do, I disagree wholeheartedly.

And if it wasn't out of line, where do you think I should have dropped the question? After his inital reply wherein he called me Jim Heller, Lord of Denial? Later? When?

This argument seemed to me about Run implicitly accusing Roger of recommending software that could have helped people spam Selene. 100% off-topic. You brought in all your historical arguments with Run some of which do relate to this forum. Yes, Run is guilty of pretty much all you say, but other people have a bad opinion of you as well. You have dealt with him long enough to know that he will not change, so why do you continue?

Well I disagree that a comment like that is 100 % OT but whatever. I certainly deny that I brought in all my 'historical arguments with Run'. When did I do that? Bullshit, John. All I did was avoid his vain attempts to sidetrack the discussion and kept insisting on an answer. And as for some people having a 'bad opinion' of me, whatever. Some people are fruitcakes.

Jim, my opinion is that you haven't succeeded. Next time Run writes something to someone else that seems unfair you will jump on him and the whole thing will restart. I will save this post to remind you when it happens. If it doesn't happen, I will be very grateful.

You know, John, it's not like you had to talk this over with me or that you even had to read my initial post. If this is the worst inconvenience you have to deal with, I don't feel sorry for you.

But, yes, I do think I've fixed something here. I can't imagine Run pontificating about 'guidelines' and what a martyr he is in the name of common decency anymore. That bugged me, largely because it was always at my expense. Same with his stupid allegations that I'm a cult leader. No, the guy's busted. Who, even among his friends, could ever take him seriously if he starts spouting that shit again? So, I think it was worthwhile.

And yes, I'm not promising that I'll never confront him on anything again. Depends what he says. What I DO think, however, is that he won't even try to pull this same shit. He's busted and he knows it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 18:38:56 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: A 2x Fight
Message:
Run's been on my case for a long, long time. And on Roger's.

I agree entirely - this is the evidence that he will not change. It only gets out of hand when he succeeds in sucking you and Roger in.

Sure I confronted him this time but only after he'd clearly insinuated that Roger was anonymously spamming Selene. Let me ask you something: do you think my original question to him -- 'Run, are you talking about Roger? -- was out of line? If you do, I disagree wholeheartedly.

Strangely, I didn't interpret Run's post that way, but your question, in view of your history with Run, was never going to lead anywhere else but to this kind of argument. If I can see that why couldn't you?

And if it wasn't out of line, where do you think I should have dropped the question? After his inital reply wherein he called me Jim Heller, Lord of Denial? Later? When?

After you had clearly established that he wasn't going to respond to your question, but certainly within the same thread. About two or three posts should have done that.

My original complaint to you is that it was you that resurrected this argument, having already said what you had to say in the original thread, and invited all of us to agree or disagree with your view on what Run said. The fact that I largely agree is besides the point. I just thought, 'Oh, no, not again'.

BTW - I wasn't totally joking about being picked on. Often when I respond to stupid things premies say the silence pisses me off. A little reaction would be welcome:-)

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 22:29:49 (GMT)
From: Wt
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: A 2x Fight
Message:
John,

I know you been saying you want to 'get it on' you know, the talking head argument thing and I want to oblige you, it would be very easy for me to so, because I can imagine being a PWK, about to say devoted but...., a pwk that has a clue. I can't check off a list of instruction from Maharaji and say its combination of 'my understanding' and the list. No, my longest time of being in the company of truth, or Ruth, nevermind, was a feeling of being not worthy.

You want to talk about Maharaji but first I need to use one the listed 'defenses' that was put togther and put on Barney's web site, though I have never looked it up. Those ***Best*** things are irritating to me. I did peek a time ago and I peeked recently....O My God!

Writing a journal I suppose is very personal , and I think a good way to declare ones self and put it, whatever 'it' is behind him, her.

I am curious about the stampeding dancers at the programs were you one? Is talking about yourself and M embarrassing or to personal? Do you see your role as an anti- Maharaji-advocate?

Sorry couldn't think of something good to say
just blathering

Wt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 00:51:37 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Wt
Subject: A 2x Fight
Message:
Sorry, Wt, but I read your post twice, and didn't understand it. Let me know if you want to say something with a bit more clarity.

All the best,

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 04:27:12 (GMT)
From: Wt
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: A 2x Fight
Message:

How emabaressking, Uhmm, well I uhh, nevermind, I'll get back with you when I have something more concrete.

btw its going to hard for you to make enemies by wishing everyone 'all the best'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:11:28 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Wt
Subject: A 2x Fight
Message:
You're right. I must read some more of Jim's stuff and learn how to say fuck off in the subject so people don't even get to read the 'All the best' stuff.

John the failed enemy maker.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:47:08 (GMT)
From: Peter H
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ok, I admit, this REALLY bothers me: RUN!
Message:
Dear Jim,

I follow your other comments and can easily agree. It is especially a piss off when the same person takes a sacred duty to give you a hard time. I experience it from catweasel who posts under many amusing and nasty names.

I also noticed your almost last paragraph and empathise quite strongly with it. e.g. you said We've all had our moments losing it with the likes of the various premies who post here but who can't afford to answer questions honestly and directly. Anyone who hasn't felt that way just hasn't been engaged. And we've all had evasive premies accuse us of 'bullying' them as a result. Right? Am I missing something? I don't think so. I think this is a fairly noncontroversial point. More than empathise - I felt this comment is of great benefit to me. I feel less isolated in some of the reposnes that I get after hearing this from you.

It seems to me, and I am definitely interpreting your words and could be off track, that you are suggesting that real engagement will create powerful responses and emotions and this is OK as long as the engagement continues. But dis-engagement which also creates powerful responses, gives you, me and many other the shits. It is impossible to engage with someone who withdraws, sidesteps, evades, obfuscates - which are all words for disengaging. I remember a film some years ago called 'What if they had a war and nobody came?'.

Mind you real engagement takes a hell of a lot of effort and also I think a real committment to engage with life in all its forms.

Cheers for now

Peter Howie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 03:55:53 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Peter H
Subject: This bothers ME, Mr Howie
Message:
Your point is direct enough to respond to.

Heller constantly throws questions at me. I've responded to some in the past. I don't have a lot of respect for the guy and so, as a rule, I don't consider it an obligation to answer.

When these guys start throwing allegations around at me, I normally will answer, once. A zillion fuckyou's, but I answered it once. You, the reader, will probably never see it because there are a zillion posts surrounding with the question repeated several times and more posts that flame or antagonize. The answer is posted once, maybe twice in 20-30 posts.

If I answer Heller and it's not what he thinks it should be, he will say I'm lying, badger me, or flame me.

So why answer?

I did not mean or imply that Barney/Roger was emailing Selene anonymously, for example. But Jim's numerous attempts to imply that I did will outweigh my single response if you are 'following' him. Many people will never see this post because of all the posts Jim's posted accusing me.

I'm not evasive as a rule, but I don't see the point in getting 'jimmed' and I'm surprised that this isn't more obvious to you. Every person I have ever talked to about Jim has said something to the effect of 'I don't want to argue with him', friend or foe.

One of the things Jim was asking in the last thread was if I was picking a fight with Roger. I answered no, albeit in an understated way (which I explained to him in a subsequent post) but he insisted that I hadn't answered him and kept badgering me over it.

'Sidestepping', as you say, can be an indicator of not wanting to fight. And that's exactly how it should be taken? Do I want to fight about it? No.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 14:45:18 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Runamok
Subject: Time to get 'jimmed', Runanduck
Message:
Well, Run, I thought I'd do you a favour. You say you posted a reply to my question about whether or not you were accusing Roger of spamming Selene 'once, maybe twice'. Here are ALL your posts in that thread. Would you please show me exactly where you anwser the question? Don't worry, once will suffice:

way, way off-topic
She couldn't possibly be experiencing grade-school style pranks from forum members emailing her anonymously with the aid of Proxomitron. I couldn't imagine such a scenario. Disrespect for forum members-perish the thought!
And those system problems- with all those posts on computing, it's odd we were'nt warned about kernel32 problems (which my VAR's advise me to avoid like the plague).


Jim Heller, Lord of Denial
Way, way, way off topic but, this ain't RE.
Why don't you publish all of the names that Drek has posted under as a public service, Jim?

The we could discuss what would be appropriate caveats for posting software (software associated with hacking).

Don't lie, Roger, Barney, etc.
You're talking about the info that Gerry was posting (funny how you don't bother to mention that fact). I was concerned enough to write to you about it (the same info you had posted YOURSELF several times).
Leave it, hotstuff. Go trace Cerby and post about it.

I guess if anyone but your personal guru of rationalism suggests you are being irrational you won't listen anyway. You'd proably try to say that calling someone 'irrational' is a deeply personal insult equivalent to flaming.

When you take a break from posting ad infinitum about anagrams that may or may not be Rob, and about the various ins and outs of hacker software that can mess with the computer's kernel, post a list of all the names you have used this month for us.

It might be nice for people to know when entire threads you start are actually people you make up. Cerebus, indeed!

Oh and I guess you missed my posts about Miragey. Sorry, if 'not having posted for a number of days' as you falsely describe me, means not having posted to myself under different pseudonyms, then you might consider rewording your statement.

Isn't Rob the guy that Jim was all in favor of?

Roger and the Fuck-offs
I guess if middle-aged men could be readmitted to elementary school... you'd be one-up with all those curse words.

C'mon Rog
List all your screennames on your website. We deserve to know all the threads where you were talking to yourself.
It gets by a lot of people when you do that, you know.

By the way, I much enjoyed this line of yours about me:
'I really have a difficult time reading anything you say.'

Really makes you think.

The assholes LIVE athe Forum
Their gutteral shrieks and shouts stun and amaze the spectators, but bring your earplugs. The decimating 145 decibel message, complete with unintelligible vocals nevertheless will fascinate the psychologist/anthropologist in anyone. Why would these grown men insist on a plethora of schoolyard games?
Tune in for late-breaking news on the hour.

Jim, wake me when you leave
I get more kicks from scholarly discussion, which at one point I thought you were capable of. I respond to false accusations in order to set the record straight, but it's a bore.
I noticed you referring to Dawkins as pop, Jim. When I originally described him as 'primarily a pedagogue' you went ballistic. What happened? Experts get to you? Or did you sellout?

Try reading the reply, Cap'n Q
Becausee I absolutely did answer your question. I get more kicks from a scholarly conversation. Sorry you can't opt to request to treat me as a hostile witness to get my answer into the perfect yessir/nossir form due to a person of your social rank. Nonetheless, it is an honest endeavor by a competent intelligence
to deal with the question. Surely kicks corresponds to frisson, no?
But wait! What about my previously stated question:
'I noticed you referring to Dawkins as pop, Jim. When I originally described him as 'primarily a pedagogue' you went ballistic. What happened? Experts get to you? Or did you sellout?'

And don't you think your 'miss you at the wedding' comment is kinda cryptic'? There is life beyond this forum for all of us hopefully.

Your M.O. - My M.O.
I guess if I were you I would be enchanted by my own reflection too. But I'm not. You've got to stop mixing us up like this!

Mahatma Jim
OK, Jim. Explain this to me. Gerry posts that I'm FA of Recent Exes. Where did he get the info from? He was sure. Did he break into that forum uninvited?
Let me know, Oh Paragon of Virtue..

And as far as ancient history, it's convenient to skip Ger, as webmaster deleting my responses to his personal attacks on me (an exemplary use of a webmaster's authority).

Herr Ger
Ahh.. but you deleted my post and only then deleted the thread as an afterthought. Too bad I couldn't delete your email from AG.
This is the same email that you (chronologically):
1) acknowledged as yours
-then-
2) claimed I had edited
-then-
3) claimed I had fabricated
-then-
4) acknowledged a weakness in 'long term memory'
(i.e., that you had lied about it)

The Drudge Report Rears its ugly head
Lemme see if I can get this straight. You're breaking in to RE but Gerry would never do such a thing.
Talk to yourselves, gotta run.

Wow, you're like a regular Wernerd Erhart
Get what? Your pencil point in my eye?
People are literally afraid to disagree with you. Is that your idea of promoting critical thinking?

Thanks, it's been a lot of fun as usual
Don't go reading everything you want to imagine I've said into what I'm saying because I won't bite.
Later, Mahatma Ji...

Your Ruse Blues
nt

Isn't that the game you like to play with me?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 15:06:01 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Jim
Subject: Okay, I think I've got an opinion on this now
Message:
Run,

After careful review of all your posts in that thread I
have reached an opinion.

My opinion is that you are wrong. You did NOT answer my question at all.

Now I've considered your suggestion that I might not have seen your 'one or two' replies because it or they were embedded in a sea of my own posts alleging that you didn't answer. I really gave that idea full consideration, you have to trust me on that. That's why I did what I did -- isolated all your posts so I could carefully examine them, as can you now, of course. But Run, I DID examine them and, I'm extremely sorry but I just didn't find an answer.

Sure, it's not over 'til the fat lady sings, right? (No, I'm not trying to flame you. It's just an expression. Relax.) And it's always possible that someone, anyone, might go through those same posts fo yours and find maybe even three ... or who knows? ..four such answers. I'm jsut saying that I found nothing.

And thus I'm left with the impression that you're a liar, I guess. What do you say to that?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 07:49:03 (GMT)
From: Earnest
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: No message (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 08:36:24 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Mr I AM Truly Earnest
Subject: Would smoking help?
Message:
Or would calling Peter Howie and asshole help?

C'mon don't make fun of me when I am answering the damn question that Heller swears is all he wants me to do (well two questions but whose counting).

Anyway, you're not as funny as Dr. Reich.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 13:10:59 (GMT)
From: David Koresh
Email: Up in Smoke?
To: Runamok
Subject: Would smoking help? (nt)
Message:
(nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 04:20:49 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: Oh Bullshit Bungamok...
Message:

You never answered Jim's simple and direct question. Everyone, see how this guy lies and squirms like Roger says, slinks around in a gollum-like manner.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 04:13:03 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Runamok
Subject: Excuse me?
Message:
I did not mean or imply that Barney/Roger was emailing Selene anonymously, for example.

1) This is the VERY first time you answered. Hey, that's what I tihnk anyway. If you answered this directly previously and I'm mistaken let me know and I'll stand corrected. But I was the one talking with you and I sure don't remember anything even approaching this kind of simple, direct answer.

2) I don't believe you. That is, I don't believe that you weren't targetting Roger. Here's what you said:

She couldn't possibly be experiencing grade-school style pranks from forum members emailing her anonymously with the aid of Proxomitron. I couldn't imagine such a scenario. Disrespect for forum members-perish the thought!
And those system problems- with all those posts on computing, it's odd we were'nt warned about kernel32 problems (which my VAR's advise me to avoid like the plague).

Your post was to Roger. Roger's the one who turned us on to Proxomitron. Who else were you musing about possibly warning us about 'kernel 32 problems' if not him? Who else were you referring to as possibly pulling 'grade-school style pranks' if not him? Look, we all know he's completely immature. My money's against you, Run.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:53:50 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Peter H
Subject: Thanks Pete
Message:
Pete,

The Catweasel analogy's a good one. I've watched him do his stupid number on you several times and have always appreciated the fact that it was, of course, bizarre to the extreme. Here's this guy claiming to be an old friend of yours who's too chickenshit to take his mask off! And accusing you of what? Nothing I could ever understand except for being a person with a particular history, jsut like him.

What's been so irksome about Run is that he's done all this under the same tent, if you will. Worse, he runs his own 'No Flame' pop stand for recent exes and others too gentle for F5. The hypocrisy floors me. That's why.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:52:47 (GMT)
From: Modest Mouse
Email: None
To: Peter H
Subject: Good summary of the issue
Message:
Exactly! We see the evasive techniques used by premies all the time and we become indignantly enraged and rightly so.

Are we to allow and permit a double standard where because we wish not to rock the boat or offend our 'friends' and collegues here that we will let the same techniques of evasion go unanswered? I hope not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 22:51:36 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ok, I admit, this REALLY bothers me: RUN!
Message:
And also Jim
In my compaint regarding Promomitron, I mentioned Cerberus found it and posted the URL's to AG. Not to steal Roger's fire but in this case rather it is not. It is taking away the blame!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 22:53:24 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Jim and all the boys
Subject: oh yeah, so that's why
Message:
I don't want to be involved
I'm being used. Leave me outta this one.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:38:36 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Selene
Subject: Used? By whom?
Message:
Selene,

You had no problem starting this did you? And Run had no problem picking up the ball and running with it, did he? Yeah, you're being 'used', Selene. Terribly. Boo hoo.

Listen, I can't believe that your other reply is even close to what you think is an honest answer. Run wrote:

She couldn't possibly be experiencing grade-school style pranks from forum members emailing her anonymously with the aid of Proxomitron. I couldn't imagine such a scenario. Disrespect for forum members-perish the thought!
And those system problems- with all those posts on computing, it's odd we were'nt warned about kernel32 problems (which my VAR's advise me to avoid like the plague).

And when asked if that wasn't clearly an attempt to accuse Roger, you wrote:

But to repeat when I posted that I didn't see an accusation from runamok, I didn't because that was not the perspective I was coming from. I was not looking at your fight with him.

Listen, I'm not asking you what you 'saw' at the time. I'm asking you to honestly say whether or not you think Run was trying to instigate something with Roger here. Simple question. Answer it if you're not afraid to.

You know, I asked Run the same stupid question and you saw his response. Spits at me like I'm some sort of fascist and he's a freedom fighter. If that's the standard here, fine. But let's remember that next time some stupid premie accuses someone of something and won't come clean on it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:45:25 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: It's OK
Message:
Jim
I posted a complaint, thanks a lot whoever you are for the hacker software Proxomitron.
Roger come on with the RTFM post.
I responded. Runomanok responded. I responded to Roger saying I meant my post for Cerberus.
That is what I meant this time to you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:52:22 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Selene
Subject: Now YOU sound like a premie!
Message:
We KNOW who posted when, Selene. The question is more what did they say? What's wrong? Afraid to go there?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:54:05 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I think I'm dumb
Message:
Go where? I really do not know what you are talking about Jim.
Just don't get it. I am not playing dumb. Just am.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:59:39 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Selene
Subject: Selene, this is OH TOO SIMPLE
Message:
Here's the point -- well, I guess i'm long past the point where some might quit. Well sue me if I think I cna acutally make a point here.

Okay, try this:

I never for a moment said that you were blaming Roger for anything. That's not the issue. (Again, INAYS). The issue is: was Run trying to provoke Roger?

Now why is that important? It's important because, if he was, then all the bullshit he posts on RE about guidelines and avoiding nasty confrontation and all that shit is just that. Capiche?

Hey, maybe I'm wrong! Maybe Run WASN'T trying to provoke anyone. But, thing is, he wouldn't answer my question. So I was just asking your opinion. That's all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:03:09 (GMT)
From: selene
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Selene, this is OH TOO SIMPLE
Message:
yes I think he was
and If you don't answer my goddamned email after this that makes you a fucking wimp in my book
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:20:10 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: selene
Subject: THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Message:
Okay, Selene, thank you for stepping up to the plate and offering an acutal opinion. See that, boys and girls? An opinion!

Okay, now Run, if you're reading this, what do you say to that? At least one person besides me thinks that you were intentionally trying to provoke Roger? Are you now ready to answer the question yourself? Were you?

And if you were, Run my friend, what does that make of all your 'anti-inflammatory' bromides over on RE? Think about it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:34:15 (GMT)
From: reluctantly welcome
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Message:
But JIM

That doesn't mean I'm taking sides like in grade school
geeezzzuuuusss

will this never end?
ever?????????????????????????????

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:50:03 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: It's OK
Message:
Oh I see
do you mean why did run jump into the thread?
I guess because you guys have been fighting forever.
I didn't anticipate that or want it.
I didn't 'start' that! I didn't. How can you accuse me of that mess? How could I have known that would happen?
I asked you to email me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 18:53:20 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: So, don't let it
Message:
Jim: I'm going to shoot from the hip on this one. What you said, taken as a whole, has some very good points. One point 'I' brought up recently is the simple fact that members of the RE forum 'might' make some great observations that current-premies will miss due to the fact that they aren't privy to that particular forum. Of course, as was pointed out by the forum admin, those posts could be reposted on F5, given that all involved parties give their permission to have them 'released.' Fair enough! But I think there are some other reasons for the separate forum that 'may' have been overlooked by everyone (INCLUDING ME!).

Before I start, I think it appropriate to state that I think that I am just as 'guilty' of what I'm going to say as anyone else:

First, in regards to the rampant senseless flaming (with copious use of profanity): In this one, I don't think the cult-members could have done a better job than we've done on ourselves. They come on the forum, try (VERY SUCCESSFULLY) to disrupt the real purpose of this forum and then, very likely with a great deal of glee, disappear..... Premies can be as manipulative as the master that taught them. THEN..... we go ahead and do it to ourselves (I can see premies clapping their little hands together everytime we do). Why do we feel the need to 'dog' an 'ex' that decides to dodge a question for awhile? If they dodge it, they dodge it.... so what? If it's about 'cult affiliation,' then I think it's fair game, but anything else.... so what? Why do we incessantly chase other ex's, that we may not happen to like, all over the forum? I LIKE JW and I've done it to him and he's done it to me, too (on the gun issue). We purposefully tried to goad each other (and were pretty damned good at it, too). It's obvious to ANYONE that can read the threads. Actually, in many cases all they would have to do is read the 'subject' lines! Why do we make accusations and say things to each other that we would NEVER say in person? Can't we find one thing about each other that prevents this nonsense? YES.... WE CAN and here it is: We are all, in our own time and speed, attempting to become CLEAR and CRITICAL THINKERS, if nothing else. This is NOT an overnite process for most people. We WILL grate on each other's nerves. We WILL ask each other questions that may make us very uncomfortable. We WILL, at times, say things that hurt other's feelings; as unintentional as that might be. BUT.... if we remember that we are all really trying to do the same thing, then there are no real arguments, now are there? We are here for one real reason, as I see it, to EXPOSE THE FRAUD and to help those that were the vicitms of that DRIVE-BY FRAUDING!

Second, our zeal to 'convert' people to ATHEISM is more than abundantly clear and is just as obnoxious to them (those that are somewhat religious) as religious zealots are when trying to convert atheists. This particular issue probably starts more 'flame sessions' than anything else.... and what for???? Does it REALLY matter? This forum, in my humble opinion, isn't about converting anyone to anything other than the simple truth that M is a fraud.... If someone decides, after discovering that M is fraudulent, to CONSCIOUSLY join a mainstream religion or other group that doesn't have a cult-hold on its adherents (including ATHEISM), does it REALLY matter? In my opinion, no it doesn't. The real point being that cult affiliation has been broken and the person is now free to CONSCIOUSLY CHOOSE what they choose to believe (whether I think it is fact or fancy)! As long as they aren't continuing to be the victims of an unconcious cult-mugging, what difference does it make? The focus is the CULT (it's victims and what got us 'there' in the first place)! Blaming mainstream religion (and it's beliefs) for cult-affiliation is as ludicrous as blaming 'mother's milk' for alcoholism. I can make the point that if no one were ever fed, then there would be no hunger problem..... No religion, no cults.... But, does that really cure the 'problem?' NO.... cults have nothing to do with anyone's definition of real religion. Cults are about ABSOLUTE CONTROL without recourse; religion and 'spiritualism' are just the cover-story.

Now, this doesn't mean that we can't freely express our own views and 'takes' and 'doubts.' Certainly, what we say is tempered by what we think/know is true (e.g. atheism, evolutionary theory, etc). BUT..... I believe there is a fine line between 'stating a simple fact' and trying to CONVERT someone to that 'fact,' no matter how true we know it to be. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a point of diminishing returns which we surpass on a regular basis. When someone is ATTACKED for a belief, (not cult-affiliation, but belief itself) then I think we missed the point of the discussion. When those beliefs come from a 'cult,' then I think they are fair game because that's what did it in the first place, but simple 'beliefs' are just that. MAHAHA IS the point of the discussion, isn't he? As I said at the beginning of my post, I'm as guilty of this as anyone here (if not more so)! The RE forum DOES tend to be a place where those 'belief system' judgements ARE NOT made (cult affiliation IS fair game).

I think the stuff I said above is the 'main reason' for the existence of the RE forum. If I'm wrong, then let me know, but that's my take. No, it isn't perfect nor are the folks that visit there (speaking for myself only, of course!). I just think they 'want a break' that includea a 'gentle' sounding board, as well. Am I saying that we should have a kinder/gentler F5..... well, not really. Flaming and intransigence have their place, but I think we use them too much! If used too often they tend to divert attention rather than gain it. What I'm saying is that we seem to have a problem with our 'targeting' computer and it's focus might need some adjustment (the crosshairs should be on the cult, not an ex)!

Ok, I'm done. I hope I didn't bore anyone and I hope I didn't offend ANY ex, for it was NOT the purpose. Thanks for the post, Jim..... it got me to thinkin' again!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:25:53 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Mike
Subject: What IS flaming, anyway?
Message:
Mike,

Thanks for your comments.

First, in regards to the rampant senseless flaming (with copious use of profanity): In this one, I don't think the cult-members could have done a better job than we've done on ourselves. They come on the forum, try (VERY SUCCESSFULLY) to disrupt the real purpose of this forum and then, very likely with a great deal of glee, disappear..... Premies can be as manipulative as the master that taught them. THEN..... we go ahead and do it to ourselves (I can see premies clapping their little hands together everytime we do). Why do we feel the need to 'dog' an 'ex' that decides to dodge a question for awhile? If they dodge it, they dodge it.... so what? If it's about 'cult affiliation,' then I think it's fair game, but anything else.... so what? Why do we incessantly chase other ex's, that we may not happen to like, all over the forum?

I've made this point so often but I'll make it again. I think that a discussion imposes all sorts of expectations and obligations on the participants. One's expected to be fair, honest and responsive. That might not sound like much but, in the heat of the moment, it's often a lot. We discuss things here. That's all we do. Discuss, discuss, discuss. We don't hang out, play music, dance, kiss or build tree houses. We don't go for dinner and we don't have drinks. We don't even go for walks once in a while. We talk.

The reason we chase premies or anyone around for that matter is because we think there's a point to be made and we actually think whoever we're talking to might bend the rules a bit but, ultimately, has to abide by them. All this talk of 'flaming' .... how can one intelligently discuss 'flaming', if that's supposed to mean 'swearing' without talking about all the other ways people cheat and deceive in discussions? Indeed, I think that a better definition for flaming, in the context of this forum, would be doing anything that sabotages discussion.

As I've said before, I think evasion is a much worse crime than swearing. Why? Because when someone's swearing they're still communicating their point, however dramatically. When one evades they're abandoning all responsibility in the discussion. The worst combination, I think, is what premies or people like Run do. They purposely get your goat through evasion just so they can cry mommy when you start losing it on them. I think that's a very cowardly thing to do. It certainly invites a scathing response. Alas, that response, no matter how justified, becomes more fuel for the evasive 'flamer'. Remember, his goal all along has been to derail the discussion. This just enables him to do so ever more.

As I'm writing this, my first reply to all you guys, something bothers me:

Why hasn't ANYONE but Selene bothered to respond to what I was actually talking about?

Sure, we have JM's dismissal. JM, I'd like to see YOU deal with all the shit this pesky weasle Run throws at me. When was the last time YOU were called a 'cult leader' etc? It doesn't matter? Hey, if you ever get chased around the page by some weirdo, I'll remind you how 'cute' and 'childish' it is to respond. Thanks for nothing.

Anyway, Mike, back to what you were saying. I disagree that there's anything wrong arguing about God and all that here. I certianly disagree that religion itself has as little to do with cult involvement as 'mother's milk' has to do with alcoholism. I think you could do a little critical thinking of your own on that one and find a dozen reasons in a moment for why that's not true. Personally, I came to Maharaji because some short time before I started thinking that there really was a God and I started searching for him. For me, faith in God was inextricably linked with getting sucked into the cult. I'm with Zappa on that one.

I also don't see any principled distinction between arguing about what I believe, as cleanly as possible, and crosing some inaginary line where I'm 'forcing' my views on others. Mike, with all due respect, I think that complaint's bullshit. I also think it's exactly the kind of nonsense I'd expect from some new-ager like Ex. I wouldn't expect that from you.

But what about Run? Mike, you're into clear no-bullshit discussion. Well I'm asking you to please re-read my original post and to please reply on point to it this time. There's no need for me to repeat myself. It's all there. I'd just like some honest opinions on the matter.

Okay, I'll boil it down:

1) Do you think Run was provoking Roger in his original post?

2) Do you think Run answered my question when I asked him why he posted that?

3) Do you think Run is playing some sort of weird 'Look mommy, he hit me! game by not answering the question and calling me all sorts of names (Flaming me again?) for demanding an answer?

These are very straightforward questions. All I'm asking for is a little honesty around here. If you don't want to discuss it becuase Run's a 'fellow ex' or something, let me know. Personally, I'm not prejudiced. Ex, premie, it's all the same. You play those games, you deserve to be called on it.

But Mike, let me ask you again. You've been to the RE forum? Is it not the case that Run spends most of his time there pontificating about how absolutely disinterested he is in anything but sober, repsectful conversation?

IS HE NOT THE EPITOME OF A HYPOCRITE?

What a fucking jerk! As IF he's a victim. HE's the one who accused Roger of spamming Selene, isn't he?

Or is he?

Somewhere on his RE forum he's posted that he doesn't believe in writing obliquely about someone without outright naming them. Is that not exactly what he's doing here?

Well, I'm going on and on. At least you tried to respond to my post and I thank you for that, Mike.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 21:34:32 (GMT)
From: Flaming Commandments
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What IS flaming, anyway?
Message:
The FLAMERS BIBLE



Origin: Unknown


Flaming has evolved into a highly-stylized art form, complete with unwritten rules and guidelines.


Here, I have attempted to document the Art of Flaming, in such a way
as it will be interesting to old hands (flame masters) and novices
(virgins) alike. Without a further ado, then, I present:


The twelve commandments of flaming




  1. Make things up about your opponent: It's important to make your lies
    sound true. Preface your argument with the word 'clearly.'
    'Clearly, Fred Flooney is a liar, and a dirtball to boot.'
  2. Be an armchair psychologist: You're a smart person. You've
    heard of Freud. You took a psychology course in college.
    Clearly, you're qualified to psychoanalyze your opponent.
    'Polly Purebread, by using the word 'zucchini' in her posting,
    shows she has a bad case of penis envy.'
  3. Cross-post your flames: Everyone on the net is just waiting for
    the next literary masterpiece to leave your terminal. From
    rec.arts.wobegon to alt.gourmand, they're all holding their
    breaths until your next flame. Therefore, post everywhere.
  4. Conspiracies abound: If everyone's against you, the reason
    can't possibly be that you're a fuckhead. There's obviously
    a conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire
    net a favor by exposing it.
  5. Lawsuit threats: This is the reverse of Rule #4 (sort of like the
    Yin & Yang of flaming). Threatening a lawsuit is always
    considered to be in good form. 'By saying that I've posted
    to the wrong group, Bertha has libeled me, slandered me,
    and sodomized me. See you in court, Bertha.'
  6. Force them to document their claims: Even if Harry Hoinkus
    states outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you
    should demand documentation. If Newsweek hasn't written
    an article on Harry's pasta preferences, then Harry's obviously
    lying.
  7. Use foreign phrases: French is good, but Latin is the lingua franca
    of flaming. You should use the words 'ad hominem' at least
    three times per article. Other favorite Latin phrases are
    'ad nauseum,' 'vini, vidi, vici,' and 'fetuccini alfredo.'
  8. Tell 'em how smart you are: Why use intelligent arguments to
    convince them you're smart when all you have to do is tell
    them? State that you're a member of Mensa or Mega or Dorks
    of America. Tell them the scores you received on every exam
    since high school. 'I got an 800 on my SATs, LSATs, GREs,
    MCATs, and I can also spell the word 'premeiotic' .'
  9. Accuse your opponent of censorship. It is your right as an American
    citizen to post whatever the hell you want to the net (as
    guaranteed by the 37th Amendment, I think). Anyone who tries
    to limit your cross-posting or move a flame war to email is
    either a communist, a fascist, or both.
  10. Doubt their existence: You've never actually seen your opponent,
    have you? And since you're the center of the universe, you
    should have seen them by now, shouldn't you? Therefore, THEY
    DON'T EXIST! This is the beauty of flamers' logic.
  11. Lie, cheat, steal, leave the toilet seat up.
  12. When in doubt, insult: If you forget the other 11 rules, remember
    this one. At some point during your wonderful career as a flamer
    you will undoubtedly end up in a flame war with someone who is
    better than you. This person will expose your lies, tear
    apart your arguments, make you look generally like a bozo. At
    this point, there's only one thing to do: insult the dirtbag!!!
    'Oh yeah? Well, your mother does strange things with vegetables.'


The Golden Rule of Flaming



My flames will be witty, insulting, interesting, funny, caustic, or
sarcastic, but never, ever, will they be boring.


Here endeth the scriptures.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 06:55:49 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Flaming Commandments
Subject: What IS flaming, anyway?
Message:
Here I fell into the trap, should have read this post first! :| When Jim insulted my intelligence I did tell him I graduated from college with honors! Shit! I should have just copied Plato's Allegory and said I just whipped it up off the top of my head! Damn!
Thanks, I will print these and hang them on my refrigerator! :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 16:32:46 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Here's my def....and more!
Message:
Jim: I'll try to answer your questions/comments one by one, but not necessarily in order (I'm kinda tired this morning). I'll start with your 'subject line:'

'What is flaming anyway?': An emotional response designed to evoke an emotional response from the recipient. By its very nature, most use of profanity falls into this category. It is meant to be demeaning. Flaming NEVER receives a logical response. Since a logical response is usually what we want, flaming is, by its nature, counterproductive..... MOST of the time, in my opinion. It's pretty effective as an attention-getter, when used judiciously and with purpose. The problem is, I've found that when a flaming session ensues (all too often, I'm afraid) the real point of the posts is lost in the insult-laden language. I agree that alot of premies/disrupters deserve it, but does it really do anything other than satisfy the emotional needs of the 'sender' and elicit an equally emotional response? Dishonesty/evasive behavior in posts is MORE than evident to any who read them, no? Why dilute your logical point of view with an attached 'flame?' Your logic and knowledge of the subject matter burns like a white-hot flame, all by itself (IMHO)!

Might I add one more thing, Jim. Without being patronizing; what I say here is the truth from my perspective. Your well-thought-out, logical, crystal clear posts are among the best of the best. Unfortunately, when profanity/flaming is overused, people tend to skip over those posts (several folks have commented on that, in particular). If all I think a post contains is a 'trading' of flames, I generally don't read them myself. The subject line usually indicates this, so they are easy to skip. I DON'T WANT to skip posts that are written by folks whose opinions and thoughts I value! I usually DO want to skip posts that are flamers because the very act of flaming is usually nothing more than an emotional quagmire. 'Where's the beef?' comes to mind regularly. I find flaming between ex's to be particularly offensive. Some of your absolute best posts, IMHO, were responses to premie flamers where you kept the emotional stuff in check and responded in diamond-clarity fashion. Again, I think flaming has its place, but it gets overused here on an all to regular basis (IMHO). By the way, I'm not picking on you..... I'm as guilty as the next ex when it comes to flaming! Ok, enough stuff about flaming!

You said, '...They purposely get your goat through evasion just so they can cry mommy when you start losing it on them....' On this issue I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY!!!! SO why do we continue to let 'them' get 'our' goat??? That's one of the points of my original post. We let them do it to us and we fall.... NO, WE LEAP into their trap, knowing full well that it IS a trap! See what I mean? We haven't yet broken the habit of jumping into something we KNOW is a trap! Are we lying to ourselves, AGAIN??? Pretending that we don't see the trap??? Is this logical? Believe me, I've lept as many times as anyone, so this advice is as much for me as for anyone. What I'm saying, as if it weren't clear enough already, EVERYBODY knows that the way to elicit an emotional response from 'Jim' is to 'evade' his questions and to evade his point or to evade the discussion altogether. See what I mean? Certainly I've given away the keys to MY emotional kingdom, have I not? YOU KNOW how to get MY goat, right? I know that you do..... :-) I think 'evasion' is best dealt with by purposefully ignoring the opinions of the evader, or to 'leave it' with one of your typically logical and diamond-clear responses! I think the latter is the absolute best way to go, personally. I can't tell you how many times I've seen you, Nigel and many others punctuate an evasive discussion that way..... It almost always elicits a smile on my part and an involuntary up-and-down head movement. Isn't that what we would want any 'lurkers on the edge' to see? We've got brains and it's a bunch of fun to use them. Isn't this what we are trying to say to premies and to those that might be looking at joining the League-of-the-Brain-Dead? I KNOW those evasive guys (no matter who they are) are exasperating....... believe me, I understand! Even though it's not one of my 'big switches,' it irritates the heck out of me, too. Premie circular-illogic (I won't grace it with the term 'logic') irritates me, too! The word-games that gurus/adherents use to sound profound is a BIGGIE! But, if what we are trying to demonstrate is the illogic of their position, then even their evasive ways demonstrate that better than we ever could. They are their own worst enemies, right?

Concerning the religion thing: You said, 'Personally, I came to Maharaji because some short time before I started thinking that there really was a God and I started searching for him.' AND the reason that you joined a cult was because you THOUGHT that he/she/it was manifest in physical form on the planet, right now! I know..... me, too! Jim, saying religions-cause-cults is the very same thing as saying that marijuana-causes-herion-addicts. It's NOT rational and you know it's not true. Yet, I would like you to find a herion addict that didn't smoke pot first.... Religion (particularly mainstream) try to warn against cults. Maybe it's self-serving, but they 'warn' nonetheless. Some of the first people to ring the cult-alarm, in this country anyway, were pastors and reverends, etc. Many of these guys are trained psychologists, as well, so they knew the dangers and have tried to help with solutions. Again, I say cults are about ABSOLUTE control and ABSOLUTE power; they use religion as a cover! If it weren't religion, it would be something else...... There's ALWAYS another way to get ABSOLUTE power! Another way to appeal to the disenfranchised! Jim, I'm not saying that religion is totally clean, but I don't think the 'beliefs' themselves are the problem.... It's those that twist, turn, fold, spindle and mutilate those beliefs to serve their own personal megalomaniacal purposes that ARE the problem.

Concerning the foisting of beliefs: You said, 'I also don't see any principled distinction between arguing about what I believe, as cleanly as possible, and crosing some inaginary line where I'm 'forcing' my views on others. Mike, with all due respect, I think that complaint's bullshit. I also think it's exactly the kind of nonsense I'd expect from some new-ager like Ex. I wouldn't expect that from you.' Beside the fact that there was some person derision in this one..... he he he.... It isn't a 'complaint,' it's an observation, Jim. That 'line' IS imaginary; it's in the mind of the beholder! It can't be measured or quantified in any way, whatsoever. Tell me, Jim, WHO determines when sexual harrassment occurs..... the 'doer' or the 'receiver?' Other than outright illegal stuff like rape or 'grabbing,' which is WAY OVER the legal line, WHO determines? You know the answer..... and I think we should be sensitive to that. Calling someone stupid, for example, because they don't happen to believe that this is all a big cosmic accident or they don't have the education to see it that way is counterproductive in this environment. In their own minds, they are being 'mugged' by an obnoxious atheist who is trying to force their non-beliefs on them. (You and I both KNOW that we find evangelists at the door to be pretty obnoxious, especially when we are trying to get ready to go somewhere!). Certainly, during our discussions with other people, we can tell them 'where we are coming from and why,' but giving them a 'hint' that you think they are stupid because of their beliefs is counterproductive, IMHO. They may be wrong, but so what? As long as they aren't in the clutches of a cult, who cares? The CULT is the perpetrator of damage. We can certainly talk to them about misinterpretations of their books (like Michael does with biblical misquotes) and taking things out of context, etc etc. Even if you don't believe in what those books have to say, you can effectively use their contents to fight-the-cult, right? If the 'honest' cult member READS the quotes and is able to separate biblical-fact (don't hit me for that statement!) from the made-up, self-serving, out-of-context quotes used by M's minions (or any other cult leader for that matter), then we've been just as effective as we would have been by converting them to the atheist philosophy. Remember, even the most brain-dead-cult-member can remember the following, 'Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.' This is an area where I particularly appreciate JM's research and his site, for example. He presents material that flies in the face of evfery claim M makes about being the one true prefect master. He uses their own materials against them. How effective do you think it would be if he just had a link to a secular humanism site? The 'reader' would just think to themselves, 'oh, it's just another atheist thing... they are SO wrong!' You KNOW they would, Jim. They aren't READY for that leap, yet (if it EVER comes). But I ask again, does it MATTER in the current forum context? Does it? Why? Those are my questions..... :-)

To answer your questions, which I couldn't do in the first place because I skipped ALL of those posts (read the subject line), I will require a bit of time because I have to find all of the applicable posts and actually read them. So, please let me .... ahem.... 'evade' the questions for a moment and read.... he he he :-) I think we have a VERY good, VERY on-topic discussion going here!

Jim, once again, under absolutely NO circumstances is this to be taken as a personal blast towards you or any other ex. It's just an observation that has taken quite some time to see and develop. Sorry, it's such a long post, but you make many good arguments that deserve a response (definitely NOT patronizing!) ;-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 16:58:42 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Mike
Subject: Agree, disagree, a little this, a little that
Message:
Thanks for all that, Mike. Mike, I know that I brought this up a long time ago, and you took the suggestion in good spirits then and did accede to it a bit, but, well, could you please paragrah a bit more? No biggie, just makes it easier.

I get your point on taking the bait. It's always a choice we have and I always have the option of simply walking away. My point is that it's asking a bit much of someone to do that at times. Personally, there are many times I'd simply prefer to vent. No, I'm not trying to derail the discussion. Indeed, if your 'opponent' has any principles at all, a sharply worded admonition that he or she's cheating can often get them back on track. Not always and when it doesn't there's the extra wreckage of your own colourful language on the batlefield but, well, if the conversation was getting fucked up by one participant or another anyway, I say go for it. Nothnig to lose and you get to feel self-righteous which is always fun.

So, no, I can't agree with your definition of 'flaming'.

Do I succumb to a cheap thrill at times? Probably.

So now we've gone from the 'mother's milk - heroin' analogy to the 'pot-heroin' one. Well that's closer. Here, too, I disagree. Pot does INDEED lead to heroin in some people, at some times, in some circumstances. The question is whether the oterh contributing factors are so great that pot's contribution is minimal. I don't know. I'd say all junkies starting smoking pot but most didn't take the long, wild dream ride. There IS a tie though. Both pot users and heroin users are willing to break the law to enjoy illicit drugs. That's a big connection. Milk drinking is entirely insignificant, on the other hand, regardless of the fact that all heroin junkies once drank milk. There's a difference.

Religion, to me, is all cult-like. You know, we could argue about this forever, but that's how I see it. Although not every one who believes in God is susceptible to a hard-core cult like DLM / EV, that belief in God is almost a prerequisite for interest. I know it was for me.

If you want to go back over my original complaint against Run you can do so more easily now by checking out my Time to get 'jimmed', Run post. The point's obvious and beyond dispute.

So tell me, then, IF you agree that Run was evasive, then lied about that here (see his 'This bothers ME, Mr. Howie' post) and further evaded my page by inking the page like a stinky squid (see my 'Late night posts, etc.' post), do you think he has any business pontificating about 'flaming'a s he does here and on RE?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 20:43:39 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: AND.... my long awaited opinion!
Message:
Jim: None of those posts answers your question; plain and simple! By definition, that's evasive. In fact, I have a hard time finding any relationship between the answers and 'anything'...... but, maybe my brain isn't functioning today.

Knowing what I, a relative newby here, know about your response to 'evasive' behavior, I would have to say you were goaded into flaming. Run's been here alot longer than I, so I have to assume that he knows about your 'hot button,' too. I'm sure that I'm not the only human being that knows how to see the 'buttons.'

No, I don't think someone who begs to be flamed should say anything about being flamed, other than possibly with the retort, '...thank you, may I have another!'

Now, what I want to know it this...... What the heck is going on here? Why is anyone accusing anyone of spamming(much less Roger or any other ex)? Did a spam attack happen and I missed it? Are we so sure that it isn't one of our neophyte hackers, of the current-premie persuasion, trying to disrupt things here?

Don't forget, they have ADMITTED with their own posts (on AG) that they intend to disrupt and have distributed the tools to do it (again, ADMITTEDLY!). So why is anyone saying anything about anyone else? I think that Jim could back me on this, but if someone STATES that they are going to do a crime, and that crime actually occurs on the intended target, the person that said they were going to do the crime is the primary suspect and a SELF-ADMITTED conspirator. Am I wrong here? If not, then they have, by their own traceable written words, conspired to do a crime (hacking ANY COMPUTER SYSTEM is a felony, in this country!). So WHY..... IS ANYONE..... LOOKING..... ELSEWHERE for the culprit?

You know, I don't know who started this stupid accusation thing, but it has to stop somewhere...... RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW would be good, don't you think?

GAWD.... the current-premies couldn't have gotten us further off topic if they tried!!!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 21:12:48 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: AND.... my long awaited opinion!
Message:
Guilty. sue me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 21:20:54 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Nah, you don't have any money!
Message:
Selene: SMILE!!!!! :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 21:15:47 (GMT)
From: selene guilty as charged
Email: None
To: mike again
Subject: but... if only I had known!!!
Message:
I was sending a msg. or thought I was to an anonymous someone
and this was the only way I could. I had no idea it would be
used as an opportunity for this whole thing.
now why are YOU getting into it Mike. It's getting funny almost.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 21:32:32 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: selene
Subject: 'cuz I like youz guyz!
Message:
Selene: I think the whole thing has been blown WAY out of proportion and taken on a life of its own (which has made it even worse). I thought.... just maybe..... if a really neutral party asked everybody to cool their jets, it might work.

You see, I actually like each and every single ex on this forum and on RE. Bar none..... I like you all! I like each and every ex personality (especially with all of the INDIVIDUAL quirks!). What can I say? Every ex is an individual (or sure as heck trying to be) and every ex I've met here is human, most important.... human! We're gonna make mistakes, no doubt! I don't think we should let anyone or any single event prevent us from completing that task of becoming human again or enjoying our time on the forum in that pursuit!

NOT ONLY THAT....

You have ALL been good to me, why shouldn't I try (in my meager way) to return the favor? :-) Mike, the-butt-in-ski

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 22:18:56 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: 'cuz I like youz guyz!
Message:
oh it's that Aquarius in you. Me too, except I'm you evil twin -
I hate em all. Fair and equal that's me. yeah yeah kidding :)
No seriously Mike I'm fine with your posts. 'A life of it's own' is a great description. As I often say at least we have our own life, not the goorooo's.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 22:13:44 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Mike
Subject: HEY, HE'S CALLING YOUGUYS LIARS TOO!!!!!
Message:
Mike,

Your efforts to 'make peace' are pretty out-of-step right now, if you don't mind my saying so. Have you read Run's post above (30 - 6, Is this a win-lose situation?). In it he says:

1) I like to answer reasonable questions from reasonable people. I don't consider Jim rational or reasonable. IMO he is obsessed with winning arguments over having any kind of learning or growth experience. However...

Do you agree with that AT ALL? Just let me know, Mike.

2) One caveat before answering: When I answer Jim's questions (as I did later in this thread), if Jim (and club) doesn't like it, they will say I am lying (as they do later in this thread). Jim will also change the question and say I didn't answer it.

Now he's calling YOU, Selene and anyone else who opines that he never answered the question liars as well. See, according to Run, as he says, he did answer. Anyone who says otherwise is my cult follower. Like it? I thought you would.

3) I did answer Jim and said I was not accusing Roger (which I was not).

Well we already have your opinions on that. He's not telling the truth, is he? I posted every last word of his from that thread and, as we all know, there's nothing even close to an answer there. But maybe, you friends of Run might say, he's not lying so much as mistaken. Yeah, right! If he were acting in good faith he'd simply look through his posts and try to find the so-called 'answer' (or 'answers'). Is there any doubt that he's entirely afraid to go there because he knows he's busted? Honestly, is there any? Please answer THIS question.

4) The point is that Proxomitron , which is hacker software as I understand it, makes it easy to send anonymous and untraceable emails. Not necessarily something that I would like some of the people around here to have. The point was that whoever sent Selene spam may well have been using the Proxy software.

The other point (which is a separate question altho Jim mixes the two up down the thread) is that since Roger/Barney/Kerde et al is going to post ad infinitum about computer stuff (or had been at the time), it seems like mentioning the Kernel problem would have been a good post to include. My computer guys chew me out about programs that cause Kernel32 problems, saying shit like 'don't expect me to fix that for free', etc.

Here he virtually admits that his post was indeed directed at Roger. DUH!

5) This is my 6th post on this thread. Jim is at 30. Am I 'nipping at his heels'? This is typical of many discussions turned arguments with Jim.

When I first saw the thread there were about 12 response to Jim all of which felt good to me, altho there was a mixture of 'sides'. Then Jim plastered the thread with posts.

Are they informative? His repeated claims that I don't answer are not true but the chances are greater that you will see one of his posts saying that then read one of mine with the answers.

I do not mind dealing strictly with facts although this stuff is certainly tedious for new people or lurkers (and me). For Jim to accuse anyone of wanting to start fights has to be the pot calling the kettle black at best.

Once again, this .... fellow, is completely insulting everybody's intelligence. Can you see that or not? How do you feel about that? Hm?

6) I also think it would be more appropriate to have these arguments (if they have to be had), on other forums, like exes only or AG. I don't mind discussing all this stuff but the innuendo wears pretty thin.

And here we have the .....fellow putting on his little FA's Choo-choo Engineer's hat again.

Here's my big question to you, Mike. I want you to answer it fairly. It's also for Selene, Katie and anyone else involved in RE to answer, if they only would:

Is this the kind of guy you think should be hosting any kind of forum here?

See, as far as I'm concerned, Run is ..... ahem, not the man for the job. And yes, I fully admit that knowing that this ... fellow is running a private, secret, conversation pit where he can continue to spin his ... ideas about me -- either by name or reference -- irks me. Wouldn't it you?

Well, what do you think of all this?

P.S. Mike, with all due respect, there are times for 'lets-all-get-along' and times when that doesn't suffice. Personally, I'm not content to know that recent exes are being invited to a fourm that this guy's running. Can you understand that? I think that's a legit concern of mine. What do you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 01:07:16 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Jim
Subject: Mike?
Message:
Mike,

Run has essenitally called you guys stupid. If he were a premie and not an ex would you just let it go like that? I doubt it.

Again, Mike, how do you feel about him running anything around here? Do you trust him? How would you feel if you were in MY shoes?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 22:08:03 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Jim
Subject: THANKS FOR ANSWERING, MIKE (nt)
Message:
m
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 18:31:17 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT JIM!
Message:
Jim: YOu said, 'Again, Mike, how do you FEEL about him running anything around here? Do you trust him? How would you FEEL if you were in MY shoes?' (Emphasis on word 'FEEL' is mone!)

Jim, I'm trying to take the 'feel' out of it. I prefer to 'think' about it. I think you expected me to make a snap judgement based upon 'feelings.' I wasn't go to do that and will not do that (to the best of my ability)!

SO what I'm going to do is answer each question in turn, although they are interrelated in as non-emotional way that I can:

(1) If by 'running anything,' you mean ADMINISTERING the RE forum, I don't have a problem with RUN doint it. Why? Because he has never once prevented the free interchange of ideas about M. If he DID prevent, or attempt to prevent, that interchange, I would wnat him run-off in a heartbeat. HE HASN'T! Yes, he has posted a bit about flaming (not a bad occasional subject), but so have 'I.' Does that mean I should be run-off, too? Quite frankly, Jim, when any 'personality' is brought into the picture, I generally don't read the missive. Why? Because I don't want to wade through a pile of crap to get to a pearl. I REALLY don't care what people-who-dislike-each-other say about each other. I don't listen to it when two of my 'divorced' friends try to do it, why on earth should I do it here?

(2) On the issue of trust, YES, I 'trust' him to ADMINISTER the forum in a fair manner and to respect/enforce the forum rules. So far, I believe he has done so. Again, I don't like 'personality' posts much and you are quite right when you say that the same yardstick 'should apply to our dealings with premies.' I've been as guilty as anyone, in this regard. Calling SHP 'stupid' is counterproductive..... calling his IDEAS stupid, is right on the money..... and there IS a major difference between picking on the personality and picking on an IDEA! Does the simple FACT that we've ALL made that mistake make us 'unfit' for forum ADMINISTRATOR duties? NO, I don't think so.

(3) I will answer your last question with some 'feeling' since this really IS an question of emotions and not thought. I think that I would, very likely, 'feel' pretty pissed. No argument with you here, Jim. It hurts when you find that someone just 'doesn't like you.' BUT, after a bit of time, I would hope that I would realize a simple FACT: People, and by this I mean fellow posters, would realize if that person 'had it in for you' and would just 'turn it off' to the point of not reading ANY of their posts, if it got bad enough. 'I' ask a simple question, 'who wants to wade through a pile of shit to get to the real pearl?' NOT ME, it usually isn't worth the effort!

NOW..... having said all the above, can I ask a question (in semi-jest)? Why have YOU been EVADING MY QUESTION? Ah, ah, ah.... YES, YES you have evaded my request. In a post that has since dropped to 'inactive' because of these off-topic threads, I asked you to quote me chapter and verse from PINKER, remember? Now how am 'I' supposed to 'feel' about you blowing-off my request? Should I feel slighted? Should I feel insulted? NO, maybe I should realize that you got so wrapped-around-the-axle on this 'RUN' thing that you just forgot to answer..... sometimes, 'evasion' isn't, Jim. Sometimes people are THINKING about an answer, 'something else' or they simply forget in the heat of the moment. In MY case, I was 'thinking' about my response to your questions. NO easy task since it's such an emotion-charged issue for the immediate participants.

So, did I answer your questions?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 18:12:01 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You used a word that I was looking for....
Message:
Jim: Thanks. Sorry about the para's..... I get so wound up sometimes in what I'm thinking that I forget.... he he he :-)

You DID use a word that I was searching my tired, old memory banks for: susceptible. With THIS word in mind, I can agree without reservation.

Religion does, in fact, make one 'susceptible' to religious cults! No doubt, absolutely! But does that mean that religion is THE necessary precursor to cult-think and will ALWAYS result in cult-think? That said, can't the same be said of ANY belief? Believing in the possibility that any theory is correct before it is proven absolutely beyond ANY doubt, beyond ANY question, is by its very nature an invitation to be bamboozled, no? Postulating, alone, makes one 'susceptible' to being made the fool; in a manner very similar to cult-think (and for some of the same reasons).

Witness the 'life in the mars rock' theory. Wouldn't you say that the 'belief' (and that's all it really is, because there is absolutely NO proof, whatsoever) that there is life elsewhere had a VERY large effect on those that were inspecting said artifact? I think so..... AND..... NASA looks pretty dumb, right now (IMHO). Despite all of the compelling evidence to the contrary, alot of those guys still 'believe' that what they are looking at is, in fact, fossilized life forms from mars. While not a 'cult,' as we know it to be, it certainly has a cult-like following, no? It certainly suffers from 'pre-loaded' belief systems, doesn't it? These well-respected guys were 'set-up,' by the life-in-the-universe types and their beliefs.

Since I really have no thoughts one way or the other concerning life in the rest of the universe (other than the probability statistics), when I saw pictures of the rock I said to my wife, 'interesting mineral deposits..... It came from Mars...' She said, 'doesn't it kinda look like bacteria?' 'Hmmmmm....,' I said. Therein lies a basic difference in our perceptions based upon pre-loading (e.g. beliefs), IMHO. She saw a 'life pattern' where all I saw were some interesting mineral deposits.

'Susceptibility' IS the right word, 'Inevitability' is not, IMHO. Ok, Ok, I'll go read the posts now..... thanks for pointing me in the direction, I'm really busy today.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 19:49:10 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: ...got me to thinkin' again (encore?)
Message:
These ain't mine, but I think this is as good a time as any to share 'em:




A clash of doctrine is not a disaster - it is an opportunity.




On the sixth day God created man
On the seventh day, man returned the favor.



Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that may never be questioned.



Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day;
Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish






And finally


Why does the Vatican have lightning rods?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 19:56:12 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: author, author!!!!
Message:
cqg: PERFECTO! Where do you get this stuff..... it's really funny! I must live a cloistered life.... BWAH HA HA HA HA HA!

This one really got me: 'Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish'

Vatican lightning rods was a really close second! BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! :-)

Thanks for the 'encore,' I needed it! :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 21:14:41 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: curtain call
Message:
curtain call (from the quotes with names attached, this time)






'If God dropped acid, would he see people?'
[Steven Wright]






'Not only is God dead, but just try to find a plumber on weekends.'
[Woody Allen]






'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians,
Your christians are so unlike your christ'
[Mahatma Gandhi]






Pray: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.
[Ambrose Bierce]






'If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him. They would ask him to dinner, and hear what he had to say, and make fun of it.'
[Thomas Carlyle]






'Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.'
[Napoleon Bonaparte]






'If the lord had meant us to have
faith, he'd have given us lobotomies.'
[Zlatko]






'The only difference between a cult and a religion
is the amount of real estate they own.'
[Frank Zappa]






'The price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is
that someday they might force their beliefs on us.'
[Mario Cuomo]






'He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all.'
[Samuel Taylor Coleridge]





'The Bible is the authoritative Word of God and contains all truth.'
[Pres. Bill Clinton, at a prayer breakfast]






'If life were to be found on a planet, then it would also have been contaminated by original sin and would require salvation.'
[Piero Coda, theology professor in Rome, in a statement to the Vatican, as reported by Ecumenical News International]






You Go Yahweh - and I'll go Mine
(Anon)





Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 19:06:51 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: I'm making a web pg to make this the best of! :)
Message:
Dear Mike,
It has been said before, that different people think differently, just common sense really. God we are out of a cult that tried to make us the same, why can't we appreciate the diversity here. It makes life interesting!
Thanks.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:41:55 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Robyn
Subject: Typically inane post, Robyn
Message:
You know, normally I don't bother with you. We're really worlds apart. But when you start suggesting that insisting on standards of honesty and responsiveness equates to cult thinking, I just have to say something. But what can I say? You're Robyn. Disregard this.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:49:34 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Typically inane post, Robyn
Message:
Jim Darling,
Like you say we are worlds apart so I won't waste my time but...

'JM, I'd like to see YOU deal with all the shit this pesky weasle Run throws at me.'

I usually don't even read your posts but thanks for this, it is hysterical! :) I do miss your humor by skipping your posts. I can not even believe that you don't realize how many people say THIS about YOU!!!! What a riot.
Love you right up Jimmy,
Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:55:08 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Robyn
Subject: Shut up, Robyn
Message:
You're such a birdbrain.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:08:48 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Shut up, Robyn
Message:
I'd really love to stay and play our love game, shmoopee but I have got to start a fire, maybe we can cuddle later.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:00:18 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Shut up, Robyn
Message:
there there now dearest, don't get yourself in a tizzy, looks like you have your hands full, just continue ignoring me. I love it when you do that.
Good thing there are different types of people sweetie, cause lots of people like me and the type of person I am.
Wish you loved me too babe but, oh well. That is just my cross to bear. :(
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 18:01:55 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sadist enjoying watching the fight
Message:
I can't help laughing reading this. Are you serious ? I don't believe it. Children playing and fighting.

Cute up to some point ....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 23:46:29 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Easy for you to say, JM
Message:
Next time some stupid ex starts calling you a cult leader, etc., lying about you (like Run does when he says, as he did on RE, that I posted under a bunch of fake names when I was blocked on F3), let's see how you like it. Or next time some other ex, a trusted FA of the Preemie Recent-Ex forum no less, accuses you of spamming another ex with fake email, let's see you ignore it.

Look, I know how no one wants this shit. But face it, there was no shit this time until that little weasle started it. What do I want? I want some one to tell the little motherfucker to fuck off. That's what I want.

Thanks anyway.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 03:01:30 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I've got this too on the French forum !!
Message:
finally we've had dinner together, 3 pints of good red wine, and we've called it a day.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 03:23:40 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Pints of wine? Sacre Bleu!
Message:
JM,

I know how that can work. Sometimes it can and sometimes not. There's only one ex cyber-world and, to the extent that we want to be part of it, we have to get along. You know how it goes. When I thought no one was 'getting it' I was furious and wanted to just bag it. Then when things turned and I got the impression that people really did understand my frustration (thank you Pman!) I relaxed. Now my heart is an open flower. I feel like I'm on Ecstasy. Want some money? To use my car? All you have to do is ask.

And if RUN wants to borrow my car, all he has to do is promise to not start fights and pretend he didn't and call me a cult leader while preaching about 'guidelines'. That's it. Peace in the valley. Shalom.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 03:39:20 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Pints of wine? Sacre Bleu!
Message:
OK, I'm with you !

By the way, what do you think of sexual harrassment being discussed in EV? Funny isn't it?

I wonder who is in charge of dealing with these cases in EV? Do they post their policy at the entrance of the childrens' meetings?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 04:08:33 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Sounds pretty touchy-feelie to me
Message:
When did this stuff start? I missed everything. What about all those back massages?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:31:16 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Runamock
Subject: Easy for you to say, JM
Message:
Did you really call Jim a cult leader? FUCK OFF, RUNAMOCK
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:43:26 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Powerman
Subject: Thanks, Pman
Message:
Of course Run's going to call this some sort of pile-up. Well it isn't. I'm not Werner Erhart, a mahatma, a Vietnam napalm bomber or even Matt Drudge just because I call him on his bullshit. That was REALLY bugging me. Thanks again.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 17:55:19 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ok, I admit, this REALLY bothers me: RUN!
Message:
Jim
I responded to you below, to your question 'Honestly Selene?'
and to reiterate if you want to discuss what I meant or where I was coming from with me in email I will.
But to repeat when I posted that I didn't see an accusation from
runamok, I didn't because that was not the perspective I was coming from. I was not looking at your fight with him.
Just my own strange experience at the time, which I thought I explained to the involved parties both here and in email. It's settled between 'Roger and Me' .
We spent 2 threads on it!

You once said I'm dying for attention. I'm not. Really.
This is not my idea of a good time. I didn't want to be defended and I don't want to be part of this war between you guys either, OK?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 17:42:31 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ok, I admit, this REALLY bothers me: RUN!
Message:
Jim,
Every now and then I see a thread with lots of posts that say 'Fuck You, Runamock!'. I've read some of them to see what the deal was but I get bored and quit and never find out. Even after reading this post of yours I'm still not sure.

It sounds like you're saying he's trying to sabotage your credibility and subvert the Forum by tarnishing Roger and creating a new Forum (the recent ex forum). I'm not surprised that some recent exes would go to that site or even old exes who want to bask in the reverie of residual spirituality and comfortable psychological cuddles.

What I don't understand is what consequence any of it has?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:26:36 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Powerman
Subject: Good question, Pman. Maybe it's just me
Message:
Significance? Well sometimes I tell myself that the little weasle is in fact making my life more difficult. Other times I have to admit I get a bit of a kick out of having an actual grown adult think I'm a cult leader. But then there are other moments when I actually think his divisiveness impacts on the forum somehow. I dunno. Obviously one could argue I make a bigger stain by trying to wipe out the first one. I'm aware of that. Sorry.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 17:00:37 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ok, I admit, this REALLY bothers me: RUN!
Message:
Jim,

stop teasing Run' and come and join me and Drek in the 'kissing breasts and feet' conversation below.

Lady Antonia Finikity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:38:11 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: AJW
Subject: Anth, I'm just not in the mood
Message:
Anth,

I'm not into breasts myself. I'm strictly an elbow man. Thanks anyway. :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 14:18:18 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, send me the jpegs (nt)
Message:
elbows.....mmmmmmmn.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:47:40 (GMT)
From: Sir Mix-A-Lot
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Baby's got back! NT
Message:
no text
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 19:01:35 (GMT)
From: ex
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ok, I admit, this REALLY bothers me: RUN!
Message:
Jim

As I lurk, it seems that you like to be loud, and need to be argumentative.IF you dont have fresh premie meat to grind, you get very restless.
You were gone for a long time and were changed for the good when you came back.

I have been pleased to see you drive home 'specific'points' with premeis, but I have thought you are blind to the fact that all ex are not of the same ex dogma. Ofhen I said to myself, 'who does he think he is' to dare to slam home thoughts about god or any belief.
I dont read Runamuck because I dont like the name, and it conjures up impressios of scatty hit and run.
By the titles between him and you, I thought he was a premie you were stalking/ambushing

Sorry but this fight thing seems to be a man thing- and you are using the forum as a virtual pub brawl. Hence the forum regresses into an inbred parish supper.

oh yes one more thing, you are often wrong. You jump on what people say and misconstrue their intent and then argue with thier words. This method is effective with only 50% of premeis. exs are more forgiving and give you alot of slack because of this tendency.

I can only surmise that you are used to arguing points of fact on paper in situations when it serves your purpose to let the intent of the speaker remein eclipsed by your scrutiny- and a major part of your effectiveness at this is audience perception and the eventual outcome. And winnig seems as important to you as anything else.

I sorry to say that you seem like a lawyer. And by definition a lawyers' success depends on his ability to manuver the arguement so that the intent of the opposition remains misunderstood.

Only troulble on the forum is that there is no judge to keep you in line, because the lawyers on the other side cannot object- and be sustained or whateverd.

No offense

Your credibility in the eyes of the forum seems important to you. Why?
If this Run is dissing you, pull back and go over the arguements and see if there is a grain of sense in what he says. If there isnt, we can all see. If he is luring you into exposing your weakness of regarding your status on the forum as important, your intent will be misconstrued for the sake of the points argued in print.
Then it is not the instance but the personalities that we lurkers see in the thread headings.

I suggest an astrolooger to give you some alternate tools so you can tune up your weak points and pump up your strengths, and some Bach flower remedies to improve/heal your maneuverablilty in self scrutiny which in the end will greatly improve you ability to argue effectively.

This is personal, so dont take offense
ex

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:48:19 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: ex
Subject: Okay, this is delicate, I'm sure
Message:
Ex,

Of course I'm often wrong. That's no surprise. But I don't think the problem is that I haven't had my chart read for over twenty-five years. Nor do I think Bach flower remedies can help. How about this instead? Next time you think I'm wrong about an issue, why not say something? You know, see how that goes. Or do you think I'll try to 'slam' my thoughts into you? Don't know what to say to that. Honestly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 11:12:07 (GMT)
From: ex
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Okay, this is delicate, I'm sure
Message:
Very delicatlly put, thank you

The reason I dont jump in and say something when you are wrong is well frankly you are pretty focused when you are arguing, and sometimes you actually GET it when you are veering off course.

Other times, I have watched and winced when someone interjects with an observation and you fling them off like Conan the Barbarian.

Yuu just goddam like to argue and any adjustments to your style will come from you and only you.

Besides, lately you seem nicer and less beligerant.

For instance, in your reply to me here. It is only one word that you are reckless with, but that one word slightly changes the slant of your reply, so that you are replying to something I did not say. You do this often enough that it could seem that you do it intentionally.
You can impagine that the same 'trick' in the heat of an emotional exchange - attempts to serve the purpose of confusing your opponent, therby putting them on the defensive. But the opponent is no fool and knows they are not on the defensive really, because it is only one of your ploys.

Anyway, the example above is that you say 'I dont think the problem is that I have not had my chart read...' this infers that I said 'the problem is that you have not had you chart read.' I didnt intend that at all.
I never thought about whether you ahve or have not had your chart read. I said it might HELP now. So you changed direction of the dialogue.by a degree by switching the intent of what I said and meant.
It is a common lawyer mechanism that I have watched my lawyers pull in court. Then if someone points it out to you- you attempt to create a somoke screen with sacrasm, calling upon public opinoin for support, or that pending anger or disgust routine- which are all meant to make double sure you dont have to focus on the original words. Some times you concede and just wait to pull it again.
But these are all too transparent, and people know what you are doing. It might work with a blind premie, but not with most of this crowd.
So my suggestion that you apply a little oil to your stiffening arguing joints by getting a chart done , (a PROGRESSED chart ) - still stands. A progress chart will indicate where you are getting a bit stiff in you arguing capacity and how to fix er.
Twenty five years is a long time not to have done an astrological reading oil change.

The flower remedy wouldnt work unless you were ready for it anyway.

As a lurker, I dont like to see anybody. including you, be on the recieving end of personl dislike.
Arguements are good. Coutroom style tricks are bad.

I wouldnt say anything unless you asked me at the time.. If you are in the middle of a discussion, you can ask for my imput and I will jump in for sure if I am online. No- I take that back. With you I would have to retrace through many threads to re-enact the onset of the discussion and that could take hours!

Good luck
Zelda (ex)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 22:30:20 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: ex
Subject: Tea and scones?
Message:
Hi Zelda, I think you're being too nice by suggesting Bach Flower remedies. In my professional opinion, 20 grams of pure herion, injected directly into the Cerebral Cortex (the furrowed outer layer of gray matter in the cerebrum of the brain, associated with the higher brain functions, as voluntary movement, coordination of sensory information, learning and memory, and the expression of individuality), may offer Jim some limited, temporary relief.
Harry

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 22:47:13 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Harry
Subject: Tea and scones?
Message:
Cute
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 22:52:18 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Tea and scones?
Message:
I try my best Jim:)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 00:53:14 (GMT)
From: ex
Email: None
To: Harry
Subject: Tea and scones?
Message:
Hello Harry,nice to make your aquaintance

You may be right, but I am not familiar with Heroine and its obvious benefits.
In the end the only thing that may save his crusty soul is praying to the peoples saint, St John Wayne.
I will have to go into the archives. Jim said he is a lawyer.
(Notice he doesnt think twice about putting down astrologers when for all he knows I may be one.)

However, my subliminal tape on 'Developing Your Intuition' must be working. I better get the second one.

Thank you for the light touch.
Zeldaex

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:58:56 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: ex
Subject: Tea and scones?
Message:
Pleased to make your acquaintance too, as I bends me knee and doffs me hat. Do you do Charts Zelda? More power to ya. A good friend of mine is a trained Psychologist and Astrologist. She uses both in her practice and says they compliment each other rather well. Gotta go.
Cheers
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 17:53:12 (GMT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Harry
Subject: with gloves
Message:
Curtsy to Harry

Pleased I am sure. The practice of exclusive astrology is diminishing I think. Like your friend, my experience shows astrology works best as a added tool along with other things.
Like a four dimensional operating field- where the person getting the reading is a surgeon too.

Harry..
Zelda

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 01:25:03 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: ex
Subject: Good points, all of them, Zelda
Message:
I think I'ver got a lot to learn from you. I'm a Scorpio. And you?

Actually, I have about four planets in Scorpio. Mars is one of them. The sun, of course. Hm, can't remember the rest. But can you work with that a bit? My moon, if I recall, is in Aquarius.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 04:06:40 (GMT)
From: Ex
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Good points, all of them, Zelda
Message:
Hi Jim
(I though we were still on 'what the f***)
Is this really you.
What changed your mind

As for your post-
Might be so. But not something to do on the forum.
I would suggest a totally anonymous chart (not necessarily a reading) or one by someone you trust more than you do yourself.
I tend towards a theory that most people with normal powers of scrutiny, when given the characteristics of the signs and a few indications about how aspects work, can pretty much figure out their own dynamic and what to play down or up.
But if you have all that Scorp- it seems like you get set off pretty easy- so there must be some other thing combusting with it. Scorpio normally takes nuclear fission to ignite unless there is a short circuit someplace or a grating spot.
Be nice to figure this out before June. (your supposed to ask me why;-)

would be interesting to say the least. But I would need to continue off forum.

I dont give out my chart details easily, it like private life in pig latin.

Cheers
Zelda ex

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 05:28:45 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Ex
Subject: Good points, all of them, Zelda
Message:
Zelda,

Why June?

You're probably right about the Scorpio factor. I never really looked at it in that light. Scorpio being set off by some other factor, I mean. That seems about right. But what factor? Any ideas? My rising sign's aquarius, I think. Did I already say that my moon is in Libra? See, I'm just going by memory. Can't really remember. But then maybe I'm blocking, for all I know.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 06:50:41 (GMT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Good points, all of them, Zelda
Message:
Jim

I am definitely not going to go into it on the forum. It is too personal.
Give me some time, I will email you. Then you can verify my lack of credentials before we go further.
Meanwhile, it would be good if you can dig up your date, time and place. Or if you have an old chart.

I dont knnow how you are with privacy, but anyone with knowledge of this stuff can use it. That can work positivly or negatively.

I will email you later.
Hope you understand.
Zelda

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:33:35 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Zelda
Subject: Good points, all of them, Zelda
Message:
Zelda,

I hope you know that Jim thinks astrology is a pile of shit. Be careful:-) But 4 scorpio planets and aquarius rising certainly fits in with his character as displayed here.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 14:18:31 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: ex
Subject: With all due respect, Zelda, what the fuck ......?
Message:
Anyway, the example above is that you say 'I dont think the problem is that I have not had my chart read...' this infers that I said 'the problem is that you have not had you chart read.' I didnt intend that at all.
I never thought about whether you ahve or have not had your chart read. I said it might HELP now. So you changed direction of the dialogue.by a degree by switching the intent of what I said and meant.
It is a common lawyer mechanism that I have watched my lawyers pull in court. Then if someone points it out to you- you attempt to create a somoke screen with sacrasm, calling upon public opinoin for support, or that pending anger or disgust routine- which are all meant to make double sure you dont have to focus on the original words. Some times you concede and just wait to pull it again.
But these are all too transparent, and people know what you are doing. It might work with a blind premie, but not with most of this crowd.
So my suggestion that you apply a little oil to your stiffening arguing joints by getting a chart done , (a PROGRESSED chart ) - still stands. A progress chart will indicate where you are getting a bit stiff in you arguing capacity and how to fix er.
Twenty five years is a long time not to have done an astrological reading oil change.

This is the second time you've slagged me for twisting your words, the second time you've dissed my ethics because I'm a lawyer. Are we agreed on that or am I once again pulling off a sleazy 'lawyer mechanism'. Sorry, you never said 'sleazy'. I must be imagining things.

Okay, do you agree that you've slagged me here? Yes? Because I think that you're entirely -- oh how can I say this without offending your deep new age personality? Beats me. I think I'll just say it -- I think you're extremely out to lunch, is, I guess, one way to put it.

AS IF you weren't saying my 'problem' might be that I needed to have my astrological chart done. That's exactly what you said. You didn't imply anything different (infer's the wrong word, look it up). Your complaint is worthless. Sorry. Best I can do.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 21:18:10 (GMT)
From: ex
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: IRMC NT
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 01:30:52 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: ex
Subject: IRMC NT
Message:
Dear Zelda,
Hi and welcome. :) Would you please tell me what IRMC is? Thanks. I will hold my tounge on any thoughts I have on this topic as Jim doesn't like to take someone nipping at his heels and being, what he views as attacked but has absolutely NO problem doing the same to me. I still love him to pieces though, I just adore him. I am too shy to tell him though. :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 04:20:49 (GMT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: IRMC NT
Message:
Hello Robyn

IRMC
I Rest My Case

I know what you mean. I admire him. But the same thing happening over and over made me jump in the line of fire.
It must be my save the world hangup. Jim is a one man war head but he is on our side. I am here in the interest of efficiency!

Zelda of the Special Forces
)))))

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 05:22:27 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Zelda
Subject: IRMC NT
Message:
Dear Zelda,
Thanks.
Loved your salutation! Zelda of the special forces! Too funny.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 20:01:05 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: ex
Subject: Thanks for the support
Message:
Ex, Runamok was actually my nickname from premies days and exes (and I suppose premies) from New York around 1980 will remember me. The nickname had to do with my irreverent sometimes anti-Maharaji comments and actions that I brought into the satsang hall with me. I finally left for good in 1981).

I have plenty to say without ever getting involved in these online 'ugly' contests. People have different attitudes toward being flamed. I try to stand up to it with a sense of humor (i.e., without actually returning bullets). If I reply politely, I get dissed for that. If I use a stronger sarcastic humor, I get accused of flaming back.

Some people think it's best not to respond. I personally think this is a mistake and might be why it gets as bad as it does (but it is only speculation on my part).

Lately (and this is directed at ex), Jim has been specifically trying to confuse me with premies by responding to their posts with my name in the header. You know it says 'Dear Run' when the post is to Mel. (I've seen this to Mel and one other premie- and I don't read most of Jim's posts).

It's deliberate distortion which won't confuse most of the regulars- but it SURELY will confuse newer exes and lurkers. It's a low blow in my opinion: lazers?

There were several situations where the general hostilities exploded in varying degrees, including a discussion where I called Dawkins a popularizer and pointed out the origins of selfish gene theory as being a hundred years old (i.e., not by Dawkins and not a new idea).

But things mostly escalated when Jim w/Roger (and eventually Gerry) acted as vigilantes in attempting to keep Mary and Joey offline by smearing them. I AM SORRY for the choice of words (esp. vigilante) because I am trying to do a factual recap, but I know no other description. These most recently included threats that Mary 'would regret it' if she rejoined.

There were other steps along the way but these two strike me as the biggest. I'm sure if you are all still awake out there, Jim would be glad to tell you his reasonings.

When I see these kinds of things, I am honestly ashamed to be a part of this. However, stating that as my honest feeling seems to elicit extremes in anger from some.

Mary posted numerous listings of business ownerships, a huge amount of information that traced to Prem Pal Rawatt or PAM's. I considered this to be an extremely auspicious occasion, overshadowing the blueprints of the mansion that at the time were the rage online. The importance of getting on with this kind of documentation was completely overshadowed by the personality disputes.

I appreciate the support that I see in the posts that have responded. I do not wish to continue what has become an ongoing dispute but I also will not agree with Jim in order to become a 'politically correct' ex-premie.

I hope that people who have only seem me in this context can understand that this is not my interest in being online. I have been out of the cult for 20 years, and online in these forums for over 2 years- and active in all of that online time.

The road away from M'ragey was tough and there was a lot lost in being in his cult. There were some gains, but we were taught to lie to ourselves about what was at stake. I don't owe it to myself to suffer more in an ex-support situation or ex-comraderie situation. At the same time, I refuse to sit by when I see something that is wrong.

Or should I say that I 'feel' is wrong? I don't want to get into any trouble here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 01:05:47 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Runamok
Subject: Don't mention it
Message:
I have plenty to say without ever getting involved in these online 'ugly' contests. People have different attitudes toward being flamed. I try to stand up to it with a sense of humor (i.e., without actually returning bullets). If I reply politely, I get dissed for that. If I use a stronger sarcastic humor, I get accused of flaming back.

Some people think it's best not to respond. I personally think this is a mistake and might be why it gets as bad as it does (but it is only speculation on my part).

Forget about this politeness issue, what about responsiveness?

Did you in fact mean to suggest that Roger had spammed Selene?

What's it going to take for you to answer this?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 20:15:26 (GMT)
From: ex
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: Not so much support of you as critisism of Jim!
Message:
Believe me I know what it is like to want to trace backover the sordid ground and make it understood. God dont I know.
I take your points.

It may have read wrong. Like I said, I hadnt read much of what you had written, but I could give those pearls to Jim anyway.

I think we should get together and you guys wresle. Costumes, announcer et all!

ez

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 21:11:45 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: ex
Subject: That was meant for everyone..
Message:
And so should I add thanks for the criticism of Jim? Nah, but I appreciate people responding. Sometimes I think this place is a secluded alley ripe for a mugging (and it's a really creepy feeling) but definitely not right now.

But I do hope you read some of my posts when it looks like actual commentary on-topic, Ex.

I wouldn't hold my breath on the wrestling.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 00:51:12 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: That was meant for everyone..
Message:
Run wrote:-

Sometimes I think this place is a secluded alley ripe for a mugging

Shit, no one mugs me here and I've been practising looking like a victim in all the alleys I've seen.

John the wannabe forum mugging victim

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 00:20:33 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Feel good?
Message:
Dear John, you're gettin' mugged all the time. You're just too fucking stupid to realise it. Was it good for you?
H
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 01:04:36 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Harry
Subject: Feel good?
Message:
Harry,

I must be stupid. Could you tell me in very simple words what the fuck you are talking about?

Thank you:-)

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 02:42:07 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Feel good?
Message:
>>>>I must be stupid. Could you tell me in very simple words what the fuck you are talking about<<<<,

I wasn't talkin' about anything. You said you wanted to get mugged, so I mugged ya. The point I was trying to make, is that it doesn't feel very good hey.
All the best
Harry

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 02:18:37 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Feel good?
Message:
Dear John,
If you want to get flamed your going to have to stop using smiley faces!
I think Harry was just trying to accommodate you.
Maybe you just can't get ugly enough for the big fights. Sorry you don't see that as a plus.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 02:41:57 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Feel good?
Message:
Robyn,

Just cos I can't get ugly enough doesn't mean others shouldn't get ugly with me. Anyway I did thank Harry for his post just to show my appreciation:-)

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 17:32:57 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: That was meant for everyone..
Message:
I did! but that was on AG and that's a free for
all so it doesn't count. and anyway I have never
tasted the beer so that doesn't count either.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 18:09:27 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: That was meant for everyone..
Message:
Selene,

I did read, and respond to, your mugging of me on on AG, but only the next day, as the post you responded to was written at 3 am just before I slept. You expected me to be still reading when you had a go at me and then posted that I hadn't responded! BTW, you never responded to my responses.

My post to Katie you complained about is similar to my argument with Jim above - both should have known better.

But thanks for the mugging anyway - I sort of enjoyed it!

John the masochist

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 18:21:47 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: That was meant for everyone..
Message:
you sicko!
can I still come to your club?

you are welcome any time to a mugging.
now let's not get too off topic here.
I'm tired.
going away from this thread now. If I can.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 19:31:57 (GMT)
From: Herr Gerr
Email: None
To: Run
Subject: Clarification for you
Message:
I can't find the post where we were discussing whether or not I had 'broken in' to the recent ex forum to discover you were the FA.

The fact is that a member of your group told me you were FA. Now this person did this with full and complete knowledge of the 'bad blood' between you and me. This person must have known that this would be an irresistable gem of information that I couldn't possibly pass up the opportunity to exploit.

So in a way, I was manipulated by this person. This person shares some responsibility for what happened afterwards and I can believe they are feeling mighty guilty for this.

That said, I am not now or in any previous post denying that I've 'crashed the gates' over at the Recent Ex/Trashing Jim Forum. Hope you're in one of your rational moods, dude and can read this with some comprehension.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index