posted on May 25, 2002 08:09:23 PM new
Irene, while I appreciate the grammar lessons in the Chandra Levy thread, I'd still like a response to my query.
posted on May 25, 2002 10:08:47 PM new
You mean your query as to what it was that you accused me of that is untrue, Cyn? Well, what about these comments of yours within the last week:
A few weeks later you posted that the Cheese had convinced you that I was the person that generated that plethora of junk mail. {NOT TRUE}
Someone is a victim of a psychopath, and you say the victim is not only a liar, but a perp. You know, like you did here to me. (And gawd knows where else.) {NOT TRUE - I NEVER CALLED YOU A LIAR OR A PERP, HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE. I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHY YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A VICTIM - BECAUSE I'VE NEVER READ ANY POSTS WHERE YOU'VE EXPLAINED WHY.}
I wish you would email me. Cheeseman and Irene know how. {I'VE NEVER E-MAILED YOU.}
(Stockticker should stay in lurk, but tell her her boyfriend the cheeseman might enjoy a nice time in Manhattan soon. He may see some real action for himself. Of course he'll die from it but it would give him something else to do than he's been up to. Irene should come along!) (MY ONLY INTERACTIONS WITH CHEESEMAN WERE IN THE AW THREADS - THE ONES WHERE YOU THANKED ME. YOU WANT ME TO DIE, CYN - IS THAT THE MEANING OF YOUR LAST SENTENCE?)
Why didn't I defend myself? Because the allegation is absurd. In fact it is more than absurd, considering what Sleaze has done to me, which one AW member knows in some great detail, and which I don't want to get into here so as to not get into another go-around with a liar, never mind, er, somebody I'd (or you for that matter) want ANY kind of exchange with. {CYN, I ONLY KNEW YOU BY YOUR POSTS HERE ON THE RT IN MARCH AND ON THE LAST TWO THREADS ON THE EO IN FEBRUARY. I DION'T KNOW WHAT HAS BEEN "DONE" TO YOU (STILL DON'T), SO NO, BASED ON YOUR SOMETIMES NUTTY POSTS, THE POSSIBILITY OF YOUR SENDING THOSE PRANK E-MAILS WAS NOT ABSURD.}
posted on May 26, 2002 08:18:29 AM new
Pre-two liters of coffee response:
Your allegations in here were uneccesary and boil down to name-calling and anger me.
Then you come into Levy holier-than-tho.
Now you are doing a semantics side-step. My "nutty" banter is not the equivalent of I'm Convinced You Are The Person Who Sent The Voodoo Mail. (Incidentally, the voodoo mail was one piece of a sudden onslaught of volumes of spam that many AWers got starting those few days, including moi.)
I did respond to you, in metaphor, when I talked about that 60 Minutes program.
Besides, if there was only you and me in here, I wouldn't hold the corner on "nutty" posts.
I got a nice cup of coffee over there and I'm sitting here talking to myself. Of course I'm nuts.
posted on May 26, 2002 09:42:28 AM new
>>>After having watched your behavior here on the Round Table, I've decided you're the prime "suspect" - the person who probably sent me and others that juvenile voodoo curse in e-mail in February. I had originally thought it was Cheesemanike, but he convinced me otherwise.<<<
I don't know. Maybe it is me again. I'm not paying obsessive enough attention to the details, I guess.
posted on May 26, 2002 09:45:34 AM new
Nycyn, I know how you feel about this. Not too long ago, I was falsely accused of being an alcoholic. This news was spread all over the internet to every board that I know about. When someone asked this poster why she was so mean, her answer was......
""I dunno. What DID make me so supposedly mean? Is it the truth, then? My hitting her below the belt with saying she has a drinking problem? It was mostly a guess, but if the shoe fits her, then all I can say is she needs to check out AA."
Now, the truth is that I do not drink only because alcohol makes me sick.
posted on May 27, 2002 03:09:52 PM new
Guess who wrote that little lie about my alleged drinking problem. Will anybody here fess up?
I should point out that it's not, of course, stockticker or Nycyn but it's someone that I had the generosity to welcome back. I can't believe I did that.
