Off, I dig what you've been doing to show that Lurk is a flamer.
You nailed it -- the tender feeling level is all about "what would a person say to another person's face," and I agree that Lurk said some things that I'm pretty much certain he'd re-word if he was in a bar, a church, a pot luck, etc. That said, hey, I'm sorry, but Lurk likes me, so far, and well, I can't stomp him -- I need all the support I can get here. I think you're "new rules" would be a boon for all of us if they could be followed, but I'm not that hopeful. I have a hair trigger and can still be "had," and I might just be a flamer here myself -- I have some identifications that are sacred cows I must White Knight for. The Trikke for instance is a weak spot, and when Shemp spouts off his stuff, well, my tongue is sore from the biting of it. But here's the bottom line: if I say exactly the same words that would piss you off as "a quoted example," then you don't have a triggering. See? If I quote Lurk's words about you, and then proceed to tear Lurk a new one, you're "okay" with my quoting Lurk's jibe -- the quoting doesn't trigger you, is seen by you as a necessary evil to put up with in order to present the evidence "in court" that Lurk offended the "flame laws." See? See? If you can "put up with" a "flame being quoted," then, HEY, YOU'VE GOT THE POWER TO NOT BE TRIGGERED WHEN LURK DOES THE NEXT FLAME. Just put it in quotes!!!!!! You've got the power. If you get angry, you're not using your "magical quote marks" power of self-balancing. Think about it. I am. I'm hearing these words too and each time I mull them I get closer to "being immune to Shemp." Glad you said you'd try it. There's hope for me, if you can actually mean those words -- that'll be a modeling of significance to me -- you've gotten pretty angry here, so if you can hold it back, man, I'll be really really impressed and might be inspired to double my own efforts thereby. Good luck! Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Off, > > > > Go here for that article: http://tinyurl.com/29ushb > > > > As for being insulted etc., well, as you can see by my own travail > > here that there's no profit in it. It just ends up as a shouting > > match that serves no one, and in my case, lowers my integrity even > > when I spew my very best epithets with Shakespearean verve -- no > > matter how creative my writing, I end up being the only one > besmirched > > thereby. > > > > Give it up, Off. It's a burden only you think is worth carrying. > > That's what I did, and I'm a lot better for it -- no angst to have > to > > defend; >>> > > You don't seem to get it. I am not the one flaming. Re-read my post > to understand that flaming comes in much more subtle and sinister > forms, and they should be addressed and dealt with. It has to do with > arrogant people saying things they would not dare to say to my face, > and then expecting me to be all nicey nicey to them. No way. It is > also damaging to them for others to not deal with it. If one wants to > spend a lot of time analyzing why someone would troll the internet > for the sole purpose of making people angry, it would be rather time > consuming. > > <<piss-ants require nothing more than simple indifference to > > their jibes, and, hey, you get to actually interact with folks here > > without, you know, pain. > > > > Try it. I'm just saying.>> > > Ok, I'll try it. > > OffWorld > > > > > > I pretty much stopped telling Rick about flamers smacking me, but > > others are notifying him "for me." And, then, if need be, I report > > flamers of them. Neat!!! One is thus no longer a whiny baby, but > > instead is a White Knight defending the honor of others. I love the > > illusion's packaging of sublimations. > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Off, > > > > > > > > You know I have not had much positivity for your actions here, > but > > > > yesterday, and you KNOW I hate to admit this, you were cogent, > right > > > > on, clear, and "good reading" in several posts and parts of > posts. > > > So > > > > much so, that I almost replied with a big thumbs up, but then > just > > > as > > > > I was about to do so, another of your posts came wherein > you "lost > > > it" > > > > and began the kicking and screaming lashing out toddler stuff.>> > > > > > > > > > Actually its kicking and screaming and lashing out like a grown > up > > > man, but hey, that's just the real world. > > > > > > Someone says the cowardly stuff they say to me here, but face to > face > > > in the real world, it would be an interesting interaction of > form, > > > rhythm, movement, angle, momentum, collision, and vector fractals > > > that would result. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With so many here trying to bite their tongues, sticking to the > good > > > > stuff>> > > > > > > But they are not. They are incredibly rude and hateful. It never > > > ends. If someone says to me, as qntpkt, who started this whole > thing > > > said, that I am wrong because I am wrong and don't what I am > talking > > > about, it is absolutely no difference from saying : "You are [EMAIL > > > PROTECTED] > #&ing > > > moronic turd OffWorld" . And then that same person says that he > > > deliberatley trolls the internet trying to get people angry by > > > engaging them in combative irrational and useless arguments for > the > > > sole puropose of getting them angery, then I think the person > should > > > be banned. I do not believe in backing down to such a low-life > > > attitude. It only encourages them to become more of that. > > > > > > > > > > > And the other day, the astronomers found this "very brief > flash" of > > > > radio waves in their data. A new thingy for them. Don't know > quite > > > > yet what it was -- maybe a black hole exploding or two neutron > stars > > > > colliding, but it was over in "a flash." Sooooooooo, when I > first > > > > starting posting here, I ripped you a new one for being so > stupid as > > > > to think you'd seen a supernova, I was not taking into > consideration > > > > that, hard as it is to imagine, you may have seen a very rare > > > event -- never recorded by science before. Not a supernova, but > > > something else....something way fast.>> > > > > > > And I remember at the time that I predicted that within one year > you > > > people here would hear scientists talking about such an event. (I > > > could look back in the posts to find that prediction , but it > would > > > take too long right now.) > > > > > > Thanks for bringing this up though, much appreciated. Where did > you > > > read it? > > > > > > Note: to anyone I have not answered a post yet, it is just I have > > > been too busy, but will do so soon.) > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > >
