Text 17830, 109 rader
Skriven 2014-09-01 19:50:23 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 17828 av Joe Delahaye (44245.fidonews)
Ärende: Dealing With Bullies
============================
Hello Joe,

 LL>> Do try to be more specific.

 LL>> You asked me a question, I gave you an answer.  It may not
 LL>> have been the answer you wanted, or expected, but I did give
 LL>> you an answer.

 JD> I asked you a specific question.

And I gave you a specific answer.

 JD> You chose to answer it with an answer relating to something else.

And what answer did you want me to give you?  If you want to get
the answer you so desire, answer your own question in your own words.
Any which way you want to.  But do not expect me (or anybody else)
to give you the answer(s) you want or desire.

 LL>> My dear child, read/write means both read and write - not one
 LL>> or the other.  Do keep up.

 JD> I'll give you that, but, you should have no read, or write access.

It is a (semi) public forum, available for public viewing.  If
you want private, try email or netmail.

 JD> Crossposting items from a private echo,

It is not a private echo.

 JD> is also not something that is considered acceptable.

It is a public forum, the only limitation being who is allowed
to post messages.  What is considered unacceptable is talking about
people behind their back without giving them a chance to contest
or defend themselves in that same forum.

Posting excerpts of what certain individuals have written about
in that echo over here in this echo is quite appropriate, showing
all of fidonet exactly why Ross Cassell and Janis Kracht are loathed
and detested by so many sysops inside and outside of zone 1.

By refusing to condemn their actions, you have shown the entire
world exactly who and what you are (a gentleman you are not).

 JD>>> I asked outright if that statement Ross made was true.

 LL>> You may have insinuated, but did not ask directly or outright.
 LL>> However, your question was answered in full towards the end of
 LL>> my message.  Please review it and read again.  Now ask yourself
 LL>> this question -

 JD> I did not insinuate.

Yes, you did.  Otherwise you would not be objecting to the
way I answered your question.

 JD> You chose to dance around it.

You did not like the answer I gave you, as it was not the answer
you wanted, expected, or desired.

 JD> A long winded message with that statement at the end tends to get ignored.

Sometimes it is necessary to philosophize with a hammer.
With a sledge hammer in your case.

 LL>> What part of "I neither did nor do I now" did you not understand?

 JD>>> I have no way of verifying such stuff.

 LL>> "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

 LL>> I have no way of verifying such stuff.  But since somebody made
 LL>> the accusation that you beat your wife it must be true.  Even if
 LL>> no evidence has been shown to support or substantiate that claim.

 JD> Nowhere did I accuse you, or did I say I believed it to be true.

Then why are you refusing to condemn Ross' and Janis' actions?

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen
the side of the oppressor.  If an elephant has its foot on the tail
of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not
appreciate your neutrality." - Desmond Tutu

 JD> While I apparently can pay to get a criminal record pertaining to somebody
 JD> in the US, I have no desire to pay for something that may not even be for
 JD> the right person.  Guilty or not.

What are you basing your accusation on?  Is the basis of your
accusation what Ross has said or written?  If so, what is it that
Ross is basing his accusation on?  Is the basis of your accusation
what Janis has said or written?  If so, what is it that Janis is
basing her accusation on?

You see how that works, Joe?

Having nothing to support or substantiate claims (or being unable
to do so), is a sure sign that those who make such claims are full
of shit.

And everybody knows it.  :)

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)