Re: Glass breaks again...

[Crash Gordon® <NONE@xxxxxxxx>]

you guys should just stop --- you've got Paulie upset and he's crying.


"Frank Olson" <feolson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message =
news:aINce.1174282$Xk.456473@xxxxxxxxxxx
>=20
> "Robert L. Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message=20
> news:TrWdnZILfv-nku7fRVn-jg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> You can be "vulgar" without swearing.
> >
> > I avoid vulgarity, with or without swearing.
>=20
> So you don't remember writing this?
>=20
> "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.  :^)
>=20
> 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.
> |:<("
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Or this:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> "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."
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > It's the tool of those who cannot argue using logic.  That's why you =
see=20
> > people like Cracker, MM and Mugford constantly resorting to =
schoolyard=20
> > profanity.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Heh.  When you talk to some people (real conversation) I've noticed =
many=20
> swear every second word whether they're angry or not.  I seem to =
recall you=20
> do as well (when we spoke on the phone).  Heck, I'm in the trade and=20
> swearing is common (just not in front of the customer).
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > Mugford picked the fight, continued to post vulgar epithets and =
outright=20
> > lies without provocation and finally reached the point where I felt =
it was=20
> > appropriate to slam him back.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> It's your *choice* whether-or-not to "slam someone back".  I made the =
choice=20
> I wasn't going to flame you any more several months ago regardless of =
what=20
> you posted in the group.  I have to be honest in that there were =
several=20
> occasions where I had to edit my responses before pressing send =
because you=20
> continued to flame and post lies about me.  There are ways to respond =
that=20
> don't involve "slamming" the individual back.  You'll also feel better =
for=20
> it and that's a fact.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > I don't give a rat's bunda what seat he has on the ECLB.  I don't =
have to=20
> > sit back and allow him to slander me in a public newsgroup without=20
> > responding.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> "Respond" by all means.  You don't have to get "down in the mud" with =
them=20
> though.  Constant references to "MM", "Cracker", "Jiminex" only serve =
to=20
> "feed the flames".  Compare your responses to "Group Moderator" in =
CHA.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>