Boring dead drama is boring and dead

[_MsJack]

Well, as the record shows, you certainly didn't.

This is false. Could you please point me to the "record" where you learned this?

In any case, you've dodged my question again, so one more time: did you object to Scratch's posting of Dan's private correspondence without his permission, or didn't you?

You keep nagging me about that.

And you keep dodging, because you know that your behavior was horribly embarrassing. A little hypocritical to lecture me on behaving in private and then do what you did, don't you think?

If I remind you that you were a key figure in the Will Schryver poison pen campaign, will you then retort that he deserved it, and proceed to support it by producing some of his mined quotes?

Being mad at me for pointing out William's misogyny is like getting mad at a doctor for pointing out a patient's cancer. Doctors don't give you cancer, and Ms. Jack doesn't give certain Mormon apologists misogyny.

I no longer desire to have the quotes removed from public, now that hundreds of people have seen them and quoted them elsewhere. I don't care whether you put them back in or not. All I desire is an exact copy of the message I sent you so that the public record can be complete. If you can't provide that, and you have no intention of apologizing for what you did, then we have nothing further to discuss.

Peacemaking is generally thought, especially among Christians, to be a good thing. Perhaps you've heard of it.

The fact that you think your nasty PMs to me constituted "Peacemaking" shows just how badly out of touch you are with what Christianity truly is.

[_Pahoran]

Well, as the record shows, you certainly didn't.

This is false. Could you please point me to the "record" where you learned this?

Certainly: there is no post from you on the thread to which you linked. Just as you drew conclusions from my not having protested Dan publishing something you sent him (I don't remember seeing it) I am entitled to draw the same conclusion about something you did know about. After all, you proceeded with this thread under the theory of Qui tacet consentire, even when the silent consent is being inferred from the fact that the other party doesn't even know any request or offer is before him.

In any case, you've dodged my question again, so one more time: did you object to Scratch's posting of Dan's private correspondence without his permission, or didn't you?

I have no recollection of objecting to it. Naturally I did not approve; the worthless Scratch was posting correspondence that was not sent to him, and that therefore he had no rights to. It was purloined material.

You keep nagging me about that.

And you keep dodging, because you know that your behavior was horribly embarrassing.

Your mind-reading is defective. I am "dodging" nothing.

You are the person who made a great performance about the "sanctity" of PM's. When I hear the word "sanctity," I'm reminded of a Catholic priest, who regards the confessional as having real sanctity, such that he will not divulge a confession even if the confessor subsequently says something unkind or untrue about the event.

So I am leaving the ball firmly in your court. You are absolutely free to act according to your conscience and/or principles regarding the "sanctity" of PM's. I have not been accustomed to regarding them as having "sanctity," and your PM to me on the other board hardly seemed like an expression of "trust;" nor did it divulge any "private" information about you. Your attempt to make me responsible for the publication or non-publication of the PM's from yesterday will not work; the responsibility for that decision must remain yours alone.

As you know, I had already exchanged PM's with you before you suggested that they should be published. I had entered into that exchange taking you at your word as expressed in your blog, and thus believing that you regarded PM's as sacrosanct. If, having initiated the exchange on the basis of that understanding, you subsequently decide that it is convenient for you to abandon that principle, then you must do so on your own. I won't be providing you with an easy out.

That is my final word, and I must ask you not to importune me further on the subject.

I no longer desire to have the quotes removed from public, now that hundreds of people have seen them and quoted them elsewhere.

Yes, now you want to air your grievances loud and long. But that is not what I understood from the first PM I read, or from your blog, for that matter.

Granted that I was not as cloyingly sycophantic towards you as you seem to suppose you deserve, the fact remains that I removed what I thought was the actual source of your grievance. The only person keeping it alive is you, and that is the way it is going to stay.

I don't care whether you put them back in or not. All I desire is an exact copy of the message I sent you so that the public record can be complete. If you can't provide that, and you have no intention of apologizing for what you did, then we have nothing further to discuss.

You have said something to that effect already, but the thread goes on.

After all, since I am the subject (or target) of your current vendetta, you can hardly expect me not to respond, can you?

Peacemaking is generally thought, especially among Christians, to be a good thing. Perhaps you've heard of it.

The fact that you think your nasty PMs to me constituted "Peacemaking" shows just how badly out of touch you are with what Christianity truly is.

As you know, I wasn't referring to my "nasty" PM's, nor to yours either. I was referring to the fact that I removed the source of what I thought your concern was as soon as it was brought to my attention that you objected.

Evidently airing your grievance is now more important to you than bringing the dispute to an end. And that is a shame, really.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scratch was posting correspondence that was not sent to him, and that therefore he had no rights to.

Actually, it was sent to me. That's how I got it, and hence how I was able to post it.

As you know, I had already exchanged PM's with you before you suggested that they should be published. I had entered into that exchange taking you at your word as expressed in your blog, and thus believing that you regarded PM's as sacrosanct. If, having initiated the exchange on the basis of that understanding, you subsequently decide that it is convenient for you to abandon that principle, then you must do so on your own. I won't be providing you with an easy out.

This seems to imply that you felt confident to "cut loose," Pah--like you were calculating, and/or like you felt comfortable enough to really lay it on thick. Now I'm really curious about what you said. All manner of hatred, invective, profanity, and misogyny? Barring clarification, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to assume that my worst suspicions are correct.

[_Pahoran]

Scratch was posting correspondence that was not sent to him, and that therefore he had no rights to.

Actually, it was sent to me. That's how I got it, and hence how I was able to post it.

But not as someone who was entitled to receive it. You got it as a receiver of stolen property.

Of course, you think that's just dandy.

As you know, I had already exchanged PM's with you before you suggested that they should be published. I had entered into that exchange taking you at your word as expressed in your blog, and thus believing that you regarded PM's as sacrosanct. If, having initiated the exchange on the basis of that understanding, you subsequently decide that it is convenient for you to abandon that principle, then you must do so on your own. I won't be providing you with an easy out.

This seems to imply that you felt confident to "cut loose," Pah--like you were calculating, and/or like you felt comfortable enough to really lay it on thick. Now I'm really curious about what you said. All manner of hatred, invective, profanity, and misogyny? Barring clarification, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to assume that my worst suspicions are correct.

Scratch, I've already told you that I take your outpourings of personal vileness as a ringing endorsement. Since you hate everything that is good, being on your target list is a compliment.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Doctor Scratch]

Actually, it was sent to me. That's how I got it, and hence how I was able to post it.

But not as someone who was entitled to receive it. You got it as a receiver of stolen property.

Oh, it was "stolen"? I had no idea. Who stole it from whom? You seem to know, and to feel quite certain about what happened. Why not enlighten us?

This seems to imply that you felt confident to "cut loose," Pah--like you were calculating, and/or like you felt comfortable enough to really lay it on thick. Now I'm really curious about what you said. All manner of hatred, invective, profanity, and misogyny? Barring clarification, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to assume that my worst suspicions are correct.

Scratch, I've already told you that I take your outpourings of personal vileness as a ringing endorsement. Since you hate everything that is good, being on your target list is a compliment.

Regards,
Pahoran

I have a King Solomon-esque solution to the dilemma at hand--a "Choice (D)," as it were. MsJack can send all of the PM correspondence to me. That way, Pah, you don't have to go on fearing that she'll post it, and she will no longer have to put up with your "Option (C)," where you try to place all of the "responsibility" on her. If/when I post your stuff, you'll be able to jump over the moon with glee at what a scoundrel and evil person I am--it'll be celebratory for you! It's a win-win for everyone.

Or, you could always just man up and post the items yourself.

[_Pahoran]

Oh, it was "stolen"? I had no idea. Who stole it from whom? You seem to know, and to feel quite certain about what happened. Why not enlighten us?

I wasn't aware that any white Chinese guys were on the mailing list.

I have a King Solomon-esque solution to the dilemma at hand--a "Choice (D)," as it were. MsJack can send all of the PM correspondence to me.

That would fall under the heading of "publishing." That's not D, it's A. Whatever my differences with Ms Jack, I doubt she would fall for it. Only someone as utterly amoral as you could fail to see it for what it is.

That way, Pah, you don't have to go on fearing that she'll post it,

I don't "fear" anything. I'm simply refusing to let her dictate the terms of the discussion.

and she will no longer have to put up with your "Option (C)," where you try to place all of the "responsibility" on her.

Hey, she's the one who wants to have her cake and eat it too. If she didn't keep trying to insist on that, she wouldn't have to "put up with" anything at all.

If/when I post your stuff, you'll be able to jump over the moon with glee at what a scoundrel and evil person I am--it'll be celebratory for you! It's a win-win for everyone.

Scratch, your unique talent and unquenchable penchant for sheer scumbaggery is well-known. It has been exhaustively demonstrated and requires no more examples.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

If I was an obsessive, relentless hater who pursued personal vendettas to the last gasp, I probably would.

I think your train arrived at that particular station some time ago.

Examples, please?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Doctor Scratch]

See: the thing is, Racer, Pahoran's "Choice C" is, by default, MsJack's "Choice B." "Choice C" is his way of still achieving "Choice B" without (in his mind) having to look like a coward. Of course, in doing this, he's making himself look like a misogynist who can't stand the notion of a woman having power over him (hence his earlier "teenage girl" comment).

The best options are (and always have been) to simply allow the comments to be posted, or to say, "Hey, look, I screwed up, and I apologize." But, you see, Pahoran has been dealt too many indignities in his life. He's bitter and he agonizes over the "unfairness" of it all, and so he clings stubbornly to stupid little things like this that he thinks he can control.

[_Pahoran]

See: the thing is, Racer, Pahoran's "Choice C" is, by default, MsJack's "Choice B."

That's false, of course; why would you say it if it wasn't? My [C] simply leaves the ball in Ms Jack's court. She has to choose between publishing the PM's (which she clearly wants to) and maintaining her alleged "principles."

You see, she wants to publish the PM's while still maintaining her simon-pure posture about "privacy," thus having her cake and eating it too. That's why she's nagging me incessantly to give her the go-ahead. I'm not going to take the responsibility for that decision no matter how many times she demands that I do, and you won't help her cause no matter how many times you try the Chino Blanco tactic.

You could try D-double-daring me instead; yeah, that might work.

"Choice C" is his way of still achieving "Choice B" without (in his mind) having to look like a coward. Of course, in doing this, he's making himself look like a misogynist who can't stand the notion of a woman having power over him (hence his earlier "teenage girl" comment).

Don't give up your day job, Scratchy. You'd starve trying to be a mind-reader.

The best options are (and always have been) to simply allow the comments to be posted, or to say, "Hey, look, I screwed up, and I apologize." But, you see, Pahoran has been dealt too many indignities in his life. He's bitter and he agonizes over the "unfairness" of it all, and so he clings stubbornly to stupid little things like this that he thinks he can control.

You've got it exactly backwards, as only you can do. I'm the one who doesn't want the "control;" I don't want to be responsible for what can only be Ms Jack's decision.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Racer]

See: the thing is, Racer, Pahoran's "Choice C" is, by default, MsJack's "Choice B." "Choice C" is his way of still achieving "Choice B" without (in his mind) having to look like a coward. Of course, in doing this, he's making himself look like a misogynist who can't stand the notion of a woman having power over him (hence his earlier "teenage girl" comment).

The best options are (and always have been) to simply allow the comments to be posted, or to say, "Hey, look, I screwed up, and I apologize." But, you see, Pahoran has been dealt too many indignities in his life. He's bitter and he agonizes over the "unfairness" of it all, and so he clings stubbornly to stupid little things like this that he thinks he can control.

I see where you are coming from Scratch. I can see Pahoran's struggle. He has dug this pit, but he is use to being able to call in the cavalry and lock the thread or get the opposition banned before it get's to this point. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way over here. No cavalry, so he chooses the coward's way out. I am sure it won't be long until he scurries back to his "controlled environment" where he is the hero of the day and has the ability to ensure anyone who questions or disagrees is silenced or banned before they can even make a retort to his nonsense.

It makes sense why Kim Jung Il rarely left the confines of N. Korea for similar reasons.