Re: To Robert L Bass

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>Rule #1:  never, ever, admit any personal weaknesses to Bass, publicly or privately.  He will write down  your indiscretions and use them against you someday.
>
>
> Fact # 1:  He never told me he was abusing drugs and that he was a
> mental patient.
>
> He got drunk and called me several times.  During those conversations
> we never discussed his drug abuse -- only his problems with several
> others from the newsgroup.  Another regular poster told me which
> medications he takes.  Most of the information I've learned about
> Cracker came from another regular poster.

That doesn't excuse your using his personal problems (particularly when
the information you received is second hand) in such a malicious manner.
  ISTR you also tried to get him fired by reporting his supposed use of
"company resources" to obtain a credit report on you.  You *knew* where
he got your SIN from. yet you deliberately filed a false report with his
employer.


>
> As to flame wars, you and several others here have proved repeatedly
> that there are no rules.

You're right.  In a "flame war" there are no rules.  As a former "lay
minister" though, I'd expect something better of you.


> Cracker has gone RL with me more than once.

Has he??  Publically??  When??  After he started objecting to your
behaviour in the group and you started attacking him??  Even after
several months absence your first or second postings into the group
always refer to him as "Cracker".  You continuously "stoke the flames",
Robert.


> I told him that I really didn't want to fight with him but I also
> warned that if provoked I would hit him much harder.

Bully!!


> Anything he gets now he has earned.

Anything you get now, you've earned.


>
> BTW, where was all your righteous indignation when your pal, Sabodish
> was attacking my family -- even going so far as to harass my elderly
> parents?  I don't recall you taking offense at that.

A lot of us took offense to that.  You don't read well.


> I also don't see
> any objections from you to the repeated personal attacks by Cracker and
> Olson.

Heh...  What "personal attacks"??