On Sep 28, 2008, at 4:44 PM, sparaig wrote: > > Its not like you ever qualify for inclusion in the second group, > right Unc? > > > Looking pointedly at how you have divided the group into 2 types > of people and implicitly criticizing the second group by listing the > qualities that you feel make them qualify for inclusion while > implying > that you are not a member of the second group merely by raising such > a topic in the first place. > > Everyone (including me) who responds to this thread is > merely feeding into your own need to qualify for the second > group while pretending that you are not part of that group you are > implicitly denouncing. > > Are you aware of your own hypocrisy here, I wonder? If you are, then > you are > even more nasty than you appear to be on the surface. You're playing > games > with the people in the second group by playing an "us vs them" card > (while > smirkingly knowing that you yourself are in that second group) and > with the > people you listed in the first group (the "good guys") AND with > people you left > out of either group. > > Manipulation by division. How sweet of you. > > Lawson
WTF? I thought you were banned for three weeks per list rules? That's not very fair.
