Re: Glass breaks again...

["Frank Olson" <feolson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L. Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:TrWdnZILfv-nku7fRVn-jg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> You can be "vulgar" without swearing.
>
> I avoid vulgarity, with or without swearing.

So you don't remember writing this?

"Oh, so you don't like having someone hypothesize about what you may have
been doing with Ashbury's grand-daughter?  I never said you actually did it.
It would be very hard to prove such a statement anyway since Ashbury would
have to turn state's evidence against you.  Don't worry, Frank.  Any secrets
you might have are safe with good old Jake.  :^)

Note to the humor-impaired:  I don't really believe those stories about
Olson and preschool girls.  I'm sure he's OK.  Well...., pretty sure anyway.
|:<("



Or this:



"What have military tribunals to do with Olson abusing (or not abusing)
Ashbury's grand-daughter?  No one suggested that he be tried by the army.
If he's convicted, let it be a Provincial court.  They know how to handle
guys like him."



> It's the tool of those who cannot argue using logic.  That's why you see
> people like Cracker, MM and Mugford constantly resorting to schoolyard
> profanity.



Heh.  When you talk to some people (real conversation) I've noticed many
swear every second word whether they're angry or not.  I seem to recall you
do as well (when we spoke on the phone).  Heck, I'm in the trade and
swearing is common (just not in front of the customer).



> Mugford picked the fight, continued to post vulgar epithets and outright
> lies without provocation and finally reached the point where I felt it was
> appropriate to slam him back.



It's your *choice* whether-or-not to "slam someone back".  I made the choice
I wasn't going to flame you any more several months ago regardless of what
you posted in the group.  I have to be honest in that there were several
occasions where I had to edit my responses before pressing send because you
continued to flame and post lies about me.  There are ways to respond that
don't involve "slamming" the individual back.  You'll also feel better for
it and that's a fact.



> I don't give a rat's bunda what seat he has on the ECLB.  I don't have to
> sit back and allow him to slander me in a public newsgroup without
> responding.



"Respond" by all means.  You don't have to get "down in the mud" with them
though.  Constant references to "MM", "Cracker", "Jiminex" only serve to
"feed the flames".  Compare your responses to "Group Moderator" in CHA.