On Sep 29, 1:36 am, Sylvia <syl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Mr. boots wrote:
> > "Stan (the Man)" wrote:
>
> > >Ed <edrho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> > ><...>
>
> > >> It was just a snarky comment inspired by an impression upon going
> > >> through these threads.
> .
> > >I find you to be a wishy-washy, ignorant dickhead, Ed. (hey! that
sorta
> > >rhymes! dickhead, Ed -- geddit?). And, I just know you'll find that
just a
> > >little bit of ok, as it's just a snarky comment inspired by an
impression
> > >from reading your ignorant, wishy-washy posts.
> .
> > That's a pretty wishy-washy response, Stan.
>
> I believe that was Mr. Stan's point. Ed Rhodes kept repeating that my
> posts were "psycho", "scary", and "stalking", and a "psycho hose beast"
> "over-reaction. When asked by different people to show how my posts
> reflected that, to show even *one* example, after much weaseling and
> waffling, his above comment was all Ed Rhodes could offer as an
> explanation.
No weaseling, no waffling. It was _my_ "personal" opinion. What to
others (certainly your followers) would seem perfectly reasonable and
direct comes off to me as "creepy," "obsessive" and "scary."
I can't pull a quote out of a post and say; "See! That was scary!"
It's the general tone and nature of the posts that make them off the
wall.
|
