--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> > > > wrote: > > <snip> > > > > I'm baaaaack! > > > > > > And you are welcome baaaaack, partly because > > > even though you almost certainly went over the > > > posting limit last week by accident, you took > > > your timeout quietly, without fuss, and with > > > class. > > > > > > Compare and contrast to some who, in the class > > > department, have shown...uh...not so much. > > > > ROTFL! > > > > I've never made a fuss about a timeout. I was > > never *given* a timeout to make a fuss about. > > > > Barry has also claimed that I "refused" to take > > a timeout, even though (a) I've never been > > given one, and (b) there's no "refusal" option > > for timeouts. > > > > Barry lives a life of solipsistic fantasy > > because reality doesn't work quite the way he > > thinks it should. > > > > And, oh, if you want to see "class," check out > > a few of Barry's posts ranting about my posting > > habits, based on the obsessive count he keeps > > of the number of my posts. > > > > Sick, and getting sicker by the day. > > Gee, Judy...I was talking about Shemp and Nabby > and sparaig, all of whom have thrown tantrums > over being tossed off for a week or more.
No, you were talking about me. Remember, you claimed (as I pointed out) that I "refused" to be tossed off. Either you've been lying, or you're delusional. BTW, how about documenting the "tantrums" you claim these others threw? No? Gee, what a surprise. > Did you somehow think I was talking about you? > Must be a guilty conscience. > > And the lack of class thing, of course... :-) > > But now that you bring it up (I didn't) You *have* > gone over the posting limit more than anyone here. > That is documented, both before the enforced timeouts, > and afterwards. And you have even *admitted* that you > went over, Would have been pretty silly for me to deny it, don't you think? Not to mention that it would show a lack of class. and yet never once did you *voluntarily* > take your well-deserved timeout. It would have been even sillier of me to do so, given that I never went over intentionally. > I'd say that speaks to a certain lack of class, > wouldn't you? No, I'd say lying about my having "refused" to take a timeout, when I was never given one to refuse, and when there's no such thing as refusing a timeout anyway, speaks to a very substantial lack of class. (Not to mention all the other lies that post was crammed with.) You really are the very *last* person on this forum to accuse anybody else of lacking class. If you had any class at all, you'd stop lying and apologize for all your hundreds of past lies. Your problem here is that you think *you're* the one who gets to determine who "deserves" a timeout. How's that workin' out for ya, Barry? A little frustrating that nobody else seems to agree with you?
