not logged in
| re: Website Article Here on jimsteinman.com | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 09:27 pm UTC 05/02/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Website Article Here on jimsteinman.com - Markus 09:03 pm UTC 05/02/07 |
> Whatever Jacqueline does I accept it, I respect it and she > knows it. Whatever nonsense youīll ever say and spread > around. > You really do know your rhetoric well, Markus and for that I commend you. But rhetoric is only rhetoric. The words are strong and the phrases sharp, but there is no substance behind it. You don't accept what Jacqueline does because you just got done saying that you'll step away as long as she does not control me. Then you say that you respect her, and you are lying. One of your statements is true, either you respect Jacqueline and not drag her into your rhetorical opinion fest like it is some kind of Oktoberfest to you, or you don't respect her and you do drag her into it. It is unfair to involve her, it is unfair to just refuse to read what I write (you can refuse, but you claim to read it when you refuse to read it, or you write your declaration of having refused like it is a political statement your life and bearing may hinge upon) and criticize with rhetoric its content. You should know the difference, and it is you who are insulting to someone's intelligence when they would be tempted to accept rhetoric over some meaningful discussion. But rhetoric is often unchecked. Now, I call it what it is: rhetoric. What office are you running for, what is your wager, what is your gain, what is your loss, that you must employ it? You do campaign. In 2005 you initiated and ran the campaign for all of the members of the board, one by one in posts for everyone to see, not to reply to me. When someone did, you replied to them, to join your group of non-repliers. You don't have to say anything of subsrance when you campaign to ignore someone, and you won your campaign to a point. Those posts actually made by me went ignored. The fake posts got replies by the dozens of criticisms to them. How did that go, actually, that people knew the difference between who was me and who was not me, that they picked the worst of the fiction to reply to, and kept me and my own logical posts, ignored? Very powerful, you were, Markus, and very in tune with what was real of me and what was not. Now, there is login, and so far for the good or the bad of it, my posts have thus far been my posts and you ramble to appeal in the only manner possible, an ultimatum to the very gracious Jacqueline, who makes her position clear towards fairness and affection for you all. Your weapon has changed because your capability has changed, and you are the disgrace with it. Say the rhetoric, what, I'm sick, I can't see my problems, you can't help me, what have you. You have every reason to know better than that, not just by life experience, but by the fact that there is no greater contact between us than on this board. Jacqueline deserves the best of treatment, not the rhetorical spineless ultimatum that you serve to her, followed by statements of respect. One excludes the other. If you respected her you would not have given the ultimatum. Ultimatums are not respectful. And, if you really have a problem, you can avoid the little clicky thing you do with the mouse when you see my name on a post. Simple. Your life is preserved. And if you are afraid of the replies, then for heavens sake, become flexible. > And I wonīt stay away from RR just because of a sick > individual like you are. You donīt see it, you donīt feel > it and you donīt want to recognize your problem. > > Can someone give me a good advice how NOT to respond to > her BS again? Thanks! > > Markus. > > > Your opinions > > have the simulation of muscle, you say you will hurt > > Jacqueline by stepping away from the board if she does not > > do as you want her to do, but you are not really looking > > at all the factors. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Website Article Here on jimsteinman.com - Markus 09:03 pm UTC 05/02/07 |
| Next: | re: Website Article Here on jimsteinman.com - daveake 09:33 pm UTC 05/02/07 |
| Thread: |
|