First, thank you xeno for giving a me a smile and a chuckle in what has been an otherwise difficult day.
Second, I certainly can't argue with you. On the other hand, (and maybe I'm not able to give you comments sufficient thought), the world operates better when we give one another a little space. In the current example, yes, Jim did interact with Barry. In a court of law, sometimes the lawyer will demand a simple "yes", or "no". But, without an explanation, you can't really get to the nuances of a case, which may make quite a difference. I find it rather comical that you would seem to hold Jim to this strict standard, or definition of "interaction" when, really, that's not how the real world works, except in legal contracts. And even then, there can be different interpretations. So, I find it perfectly acceptable that Jim would see fit to correct a misconception. Whether his "buttons were pushed", I have no idea. I really wouldn't think so. It seemed that all he wanted to say was, "it wasn't me, Barry", and "have a good day" If you want to convict him on this basis, have at it. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : As I pointed out in another post awhile back, being accused of something one did not do has a tendency to push peoples buttons. It does not matter if the misconception was deliberate or not. The main thing is if you say one thing and do another, it's hypocritical. A rule has an exception if, 1) it's not a rule. Humans are too weak to create authentic rules. What we conceive as being laws of nature (not the TMO kind) might be ironclad enough to be called a rule, like how gravity operates. What is the rule that you follow in writing posts with short sentences spaced apart. What are you typing on? There are such things as paragraphs. When you are in a nice mood, you follow the spirit of the law, and when not, you just hang the bastard, innocent or guilty. How can you correct a misconception one has without interacting with them? INTERACT = act in such a way as to have an effect on another. You cannot have that effect if you do not make contact, you are trying to redefine a word just like Judy did. I really miss Judy. She made this place a hell worthy of interaction. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : xeno, fyi, to the rest of the world, what Jim did was just correct a misconception. for you and Barry, and perhaps a few others to interpret this as "interacting" with Barry makes for a rather weak case. maybe you are trying to run the routine you did with Judy, on which she bit so hard. that was rather comical. but, then again, perhaps you don't understand that exceptions are made for any rule, self imposed, or not. so, just to repeat, correcting an misconception, is not the same as interacting with someone. get a consensus, if you have a question about this. or take a step back and realize there is the "letter" of intent, and the "spirit" of intent. this distinction is a cornerstone of our legal system, btw. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : I couldn't match the IP addresses in the ak_ak post header with anything Jim has sent, but I am about to have lunch, so I didn't try very hard. It is kind of interesting that Jim, directly addressing Barry using the reverse_archery handle says he meant never to interact with Barry again, but in order to send the message directly addressed to Barry in the post, he did interact. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote : What IP addresses? People who show up with the no_re...@yahoogroups.com email address are anonymous, with email and IP addresses both undisclosed. From the header info, there is no way for me, Rick, or anyone else to determine anything about ak_ak's true identity. Keep in mind, Sal, that this also applies to your own FFL identity as well. Hmmm, I've done it before successfully. Even found my own local server. Maybe I'm wrong about this one. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : LOL, those IP addresses sure give the game away! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : xeno, fyi, to the rest of the world, what Jim did was just correct a misconception. for you and Barry, and perhaps a few others to interpret this as "interacting" with Barry makes for a rather weak case. maybe you are trying to run the routine you did with Judy, on which she bit so hard. that was rather comical. but, then again, perhaps you don't understand that exceptions are made for any rule, self imposed, or not. so, just to repeat, correcting an misconception, is not the same as interacting with someone. get a consensus, if you have a question about this. or take a step back and realize there is the "letter" of intent, and the "spirit" of intent. this distinction is a cornerstone of our legal system, btw. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : I couldn't match the IP addresses in the ak_ak post header with anything Jim has sent, but I am about to have lunch, so I didn't try very hard. It is kind of interesting that Jim, directly addressing Barry using the reverse_archery handle says he meant never to interact with Barry again, but in order to send the message directly addressed to Barry in the post, he did interact. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote : What IP addresses? People who show up with the no_re...@yahoogroups.com email address are anonymous, with email and IP addresses both undisclosed. From the header info, there is no way for me, Rick, or anyone else to determine anything about ak_ak's true identity. Keep in mind, Sal, that this also applies to your own FFL identity as well. Hmmm, I've done it before successfully. Even found my own local server. Maybe I'm wrong about this one. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : LOL, those IP addresses sure give the game away!
