(OT) Does this make any sense?

Someone on this newsgroup keeps e-mailing me privately concerning some
issues he has with me -- especially if I even hint at referencing him on
here.

So this morning's offering ends with this:

"Respond/don't respond. It's your choice. I do have you filtered,
though, so--at least--I won't see your e-mails. I'm just taking the
high ground (IMO) here..."

So how can I reply to this person if they have my e-mails blocked, and yet
if I dare to comment on /anything/ they write publicly I get blasted for
"holding on" to stuff that's ancient history?

Neil, if you want me to answer your points I will. Unblock me. Otherwise,
for God's sake please stop e-mailing me with your dime-store psychoanalyses.
(I'll block you, too, if necessary, but doesn't solve this latest salvo,
does it?)

Sorry to take up the group's time with this, but enough is enough. (And
fair is fair.)

Bill "not angry, just perplexed" S.

Sorni wrote:
..
(I'll block you, too, if necessary, but doesn't solve this latest salvo,
does it?)

YES, IT DOES!! BLOCK ME. PLEASE.

For Chrissakes, Sornson ... you're a sick, obsessed ****. Can't you
just leave me out of your life? Stop making your little thinly veiled
references to me, your jabs at me for my medical disability, and every
other stupid, puerile little pot-shot at me that your addictive,
impulsive personality can't seem to let go.

WALK AWAY! MOVE ON!! GET A LIFE!! I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU, YOU
SICK ****. ATTACK SOMEBODY ELSE!! WHEN THE LAPTOP IS FIXED, I'LL BE
ABLE TO PROGRAMATICALLY FILTER YOU AGAIN. MEANWHILE, GO SEEK SOME
****ING THERAPY! I'VE NEVER MET ANYBODY IN MORE DIRE NEED.

There. Happy? You just can't resist bringing your issues with me
online.

Here. In its entirety:

I say this with absolutely no trace of malice or aggression.

You ought to get some help ... either from your sponsor or your
meetings or a doctor or .... ?

To see that you're *still* referencing me this morning/last night ...
and to /guess/ that you never did stop throwing pot shots at me from
the sidelines ... wow.

Then, to have you--in your cutesy little way, yet again--make the
thinly-veiled reference to my inability to--what was it? "WORK--"
knowing full well that I've been declared medically disabled, managing
chronic eye pain, and am trying desperately to find another feasible
career for myself.

Then, after launching THAT pot-shot, to feign righteous indignation
that I mentioned 'booze,' while *again,* you went ugly first .....

You're right. It meets all of the criteria for dry drunk ... or worse.

You blew a gasket because I wasn't "man enough" to end our friendship
face-to-face. You and I have wildly differing views of what it means
to be a man. Your seeming inability to stop attacking, insulting,
and/or being passive aggressive to me, when I don't recall having done
a single thing to hurt you, only confirms the reasons I decided that
you weren't somebody that I wanted to be close to. You may want to
rethink your troglodyte definition of the concept.

My laptop DID crash. I don't have any filtering abilities right now
(other than choice!), so--yes--I have seen how you're still on the
offensive ... and it's offensive.

You ought to get some help with it.

Respond/don't respond. It's your choice. I do have you filtered,
though, so--at least--I won't see your e-mails. I'm just taking the
high ground (IMO) here and suggesting that you need to figure out why
you seem totally incapable of dropping this and leaving *me* alone.

Neil

wrote:
Here. In its entirety:

I say this with absolutely no trace of malice or aggression.

You ought to get some help ... either from your sponsor or your
meetings or a doctor or .... ?

To see that you're *still* referencing me this morning/last night ...
and to /guess/ that you never did stop throwing pot shots at me from
the sidelines ... wow.

Then, to have you--in your cutesy little way, yet again--make the
thinly-veiled reference to my inability to--what was it? "WORK--"
knowing full well that I've been declared medically disabled, managing
chronic eye pain, and am trying desperately to find another feasible
career for myself.

Then, after launching THAT pot-shot, to feign righteous indignation
that I mentioned 'booze,' while *again,* you went ugly first .....

You're right. It meets all of the criteria for dry drunk ... or
worse.

You blew a gasket because I wasn't "man enough" to end our friendship
face-to-face. You and I have wildly differing views of what it means
to be a man. Your seeming inability to stop attacking, insulting,
and/or being passive aggressive to me, when I don't recall having done
a single thing to hurt you, only confirms the reasons I decided that
you weren't somebody that I wanted to be close to. You may want to
rethink your troglodyte definition of the concept.

My laptop DID crash. I don't have any filtering abilities right now
(other than choice!), so--yes--I have seen how you're still on the
offensive ... and it's offensive.

You ought to get some help with it.

Respond/don't respond. It's your choice. I do have you filtered,
though, so--at least--I won't see your e-mails. I'm just taking the
high ground (IMO) here and suggesting that you need to figure out why
you seem totally incapable of dropping this and leaving *me* alone.

I will gladly reply to these things -- PRIVATELY (the way you sent it to
me).

Who's frigign' obsessed here Neil?!?

Sorni wrote:
wrote:
Here. In its entirety:

I say this with absolutely no trace of malice or aggression.

You ought to get some help ... either from your sponsor or your
meetings or a doctor or .... ?

To see that you're *still* referencing me this morning/last night ...
and to /guess/ that you never did stop throwing pot shots at me from
the sidelines ... wow.

Then, to have you--in your cutesy little way, yet again--make the
thinly-veiled reference to my inability to--what was it? "WORK--"
knowing full well that I've been declared medically disabled, managing
chronic eye pain, and am trying desperately to find another feasible
career for myself.

Then, after launching THAT pot-shot, to feign righteous indignation
that I mentioned 'booze,' while *again,* you went ugly first .....

You're right. It meets all of the criteria for dry drunk ... or
worse.

You blew a gasket because I wasn't "man enough" to end our friendship
face-to-face. You and I have wildly differing views of what it means
to be a man. Your seeming inability to stop attacking, insulting,
and/or being passive aggressive to me, when I don't recall having done
a single thing to hurt you, only confirms the reasons I decided that
you weren't somebody that I wanted to be close to. You may want to
rethink your troglodyte definition of the concept.

My laptop DID crash. I don't have any filtering abilities right now
(other than choice!), so--yes--I have seen how you're still on the
offensive ... and it's offensive.

You ought to get some help with it.

Respond/don't respond. It's your choice. I do have you filtered,
though, so--at least--I won't see your e-mails. I'm just taking the
high ground (IMO) here and suggesting that you need to figure out why
you seem totally incapable of dropping this and leaving *me* alone.

I will gladly reply to these things -- PRIVATELY (the way you sent it to
me).

Who's frigign' obsessed here Neil?!?

YOU. I DON'T WANT YOUR REPLY!

GET HELP/DON'T GET HELP. I REALLY DON'T CARE. JUST MOVE ON.

wrote:
Sorni wrote:
.
(I'll block you, too, if necessary, but doesn't solve this latest
salvo, does it?)

YES, IT DOES!! BLOCK ME. PLEASE.

Why don't you just stop e-mailing me?

For Chrissakes, Sornson ... you're a sick, obsessed ****. Can't you
just leave me out of your life? Stop making your little thinly veiled
references to me, your jabs at me for my medical disability, and every
other stupid, puerile little pot-shot at me that your addictive,
impulsive personality can't seem to let go.

WALK AWAY! MOVE ON!! GET A LIFE!! I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU,
YOU SICK ****. ATTACK SOMEBODY ELSE!! WHEN THE LAPTOP IS FIXED,
I'LL BE ABLE TO PROGRAMATICALLY FILTER YOU AGAIN. MEANWHILE, GO SEEK
SOME ****ING THERAPY! I'VE NEVER MET ANYBODY IN MORE DIRE NEED.

There. Happy? You just can't resist bringing your issues with me
online.

You're a big, loud, goofy creep. So self-absorbed it makes ME look
outgoing. You're also dishonest, profane, and hypocritical.

You don't play fair.

See ya.

wrote:
Sorni wrote:
wrote:
Here. In its entirety:

I say this with absolutely no trace of malice or aggression.

You ought to get some help ... either from your sponsor or your
meetings or a doctor or .... ?

To see that you're *still* referencing me this morning/last night
... and to /guess/ that you never did stop throwing pot shots at me
from the sidelines ... wow.

Then, to have you--in your cutesy little way, yet again--make the
thinly-veiled reference to my inability to--what was it? "WORK--"
knowing full well that I've been declared medically disabled,
managing chronic eye pain, and am trying desperately to find
another feasible career for myself.

Then, after launching THAT pot-shot, to feign righteous indignation
that I mentioned 'booze,' while *again,* you went ugly first .....

You're right. It meets all of the criteria for dry drunk ... or
worse.

You blew a gasket because I wasn't "man enough" to end our
friendship face-to-face. You and I have wildly differing views of
what it means to be a man. Your seeming inability to stop
attacking, insulting, and/or being passive aggressive to me, when I
don't recall having done a single thing to hurt you, only confirms
the reasons I decided that you weren't somebody that I wanted to be
close to. You may want to rethink your troglodyte definition of
the concept.

My laptop DID crash. I don't have any filtering abilities right now
(other than choice!), so--yes--I have seen how you're still on the
offensive ... and it's offensive.

You ought to get some help with it.

Respond/don't respond. It's your choice. I do have you filtered,
though, so--at least--I won't see your e-mails. I'm just taking the
high ground (IMO) here and suggesting that you need to figure out
why you seem totally incapable of dropping this and leaving *me*
alone.

I will gladly reply to these things -- PRIVATELY (the way you sent
it to me).

Who's frigign' obsessed here Neil?!?

YOU. I DON'T WANT YOUR REPLY!

SO WHY THE **** DID YOU E-MAIL ME, ASSHOLE?

GET HELP/DON'T GET HELP. I REALLY DON'T CARE. JUST MOVE ON.

GLADLY. STOP E-MAILING ME.

(Hint: I participate in this newsgroup, and if I want to comment on or
allude to something you write that's my right. I WILL block your e-mail
address, however, so I won't have to be subjected to these frequent,
unwanted intrusions into my life. If you really can't handle ANY reference
to you by me -- it had been many months, you know, until you posted that
silly "pot improves driving skills" "study" -- then by all means find a way
to block me on here, too. You have a Giant Brain; I'm sure you can figure
it out.)

I have plenty more of your emotional. invective-laced e-mails, Mr. I've
MovedOn; shall I answer them ALL on here?!?

We all have challenges, Neil. Surely you can find something to get all
wound up about that's a LITTLE more important than a tri-monthly third-party
poke from me. (It IS entertaining, though.)

Bill

A lightbulb just went off. When wrote (originally in a
private e-mail):

Then, to have you--in your cutesy little way, yet again--make the
thinly-veiled reference to my inability to--what was it? "WORK--"

Neil, as usual you thought something was about YOU that wasn't. When I
wrote "I actually have WORK to do" I was poking fun at ME. You know me.
You know my "self under-employment" work hours are minimal, to say the
least. I meant that I actually had some work to do that morning! (Gee,
sort of what it says, isn't it?) NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU, NEIL.

To re-cap. Months had gone by with no "contact" between us. Hell, I
thought maybe you'd moved or something (a real heart-breaker, that would
be). Then you posted that rather obscure reference in the "pot thread" and
a few people engaged you on it. Not I (although I admit I Googled trying to
find the "study" you cited, but no go). One poster asked you for a
reference and you didn't reply for a few days, so I posted a little "blowing
tumbleweed" remark THINKING YOU STILL HAD ME PLONKED and wouldn't even see
it (first-hand, anyway). Almost instantly you replied (to the poster) with
some long-winded thing or another.

Then Bob wrote something about pot smokers being impaired, and I referenced
your post WITHOUT USING YOUR NAME OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFYING YOU, and next
thing you know I'm getting page-long whiny e-mails from you (saying that *I*
should move on! LOL).

I'll clue you in on something, Neil. No one else on here cares about this.
No one else on here even picks up on a subtle jab, yet you reply with
PERSONAL, CURSE-LADEN FLAMES and then have the temerity to accuse me of
being unbalanced.

You also wrote that I "have no friends" on here, and threatened to team up
with your fellow lefty ideologues to ridicule me mercilessly (like they
don't already . I haven't made THAT one public yet. I'll have you know
that I correspond regularly with a number of regulars on here -- an not just
"conservatives", either. You admitted to being a bully before ("I'm not
JUST an intellectual bully -- I have about two-score IQ points on you"), so
why would you need your pals from the peanut gallery to pile on? Typical
bully behavior.

You e-mailed a tirade to me, and then concluded with {quote}

Respond/don't respond. It's your choice. I do have you filtered,
though, so--at least--I won't see your e-mails. I'm just taking the
high ground (IMO) here and suggesting that you need to figure out why
you seem totally incapable of dropping this and leaving *me* alone.

{unquote}

If you can't see the hypocrisy and basic dishonesty in that tactic, then
you're in denial and perhaps YOU need help.

This has taken up WAY too much time last few days. I *did* block your
e-mail so I won't be subjected to any more of those unwelcomed and unfair
intrusions. I'll try to refrain from EVER daring to notice or comment on
ANYTHING you ever write or reference ever again, no matter how ridiculous or
hypocritical it might be. If I slip up and make a REALLY subtle poke at
you, then be sure to post a crude, invective-laced personal (but
unfounded -- esp. with the booze thing) attack on me. It's REAL balanced
and shows just how obsessed *I* really am.

Take care (preferably elsewhere),

Bill

Hey fella's... why don't you both go on-line and remove your
contributions to this thread. I cannot imagine you want to be reminded
of this later or have it show up in searches.

It's easy... click show options.

Will

Will wrote:
Hey fella's... why don't you both go on-line and remove your
contributions to this thread. I cannot imagine you want to be reminded
of this later or have it show up in searches.

It's easy... click show options.

Will

Good call.

Where there's a Will, ....