On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:33:44 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:41:11 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:


You can always can the stark and see how that works out for you.
I stopped replying to you altogether. Didn't
impact your behavior one bit.

That's not a straw man, but it is a lie. A bald-faced lie. You snarked
about me in a reply to The Queen of Snark herself,

You had already made generalized and very
backhanded comments insulting those you had
been dealing with. Yeah, that counts.

I did no such thing. Until you snarked about me in a reply to Melinda,
I had done no such thing. You can look it up.

But the hand to chest "Who me?" act is really
cute.

I'm glad you like it! More to come!

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:30:08 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:41:26 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:41:11 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:


Yes, it does. And it will. Especially if you can find it in yourself
to put a can on the snark.

You also
had a chance to make a deal, but you passed.
I waited actually. I didn;t jump in and pay
lip service to the agreement (as you did),
but instead I said nothing at all to you or
*about* you until you started in with your
insults again.
That's one explanation. I like mine better.
Of course you do.
Thank you!

You passed because your
inner snark needs an outlet,
I didn't "pass" though. Since its Misuse of
the word Strawman day, I guess I get to
accuse you of:

Strawman!
You effectively passed when you took out your garden hose of snark and
sprayed me with it.
And yet you "passed" first. Keep flinging
that there mud, cowboy. Suits you.

No, I didn't. From the moment I made the offer, I directed no snark in
your direction until you aimed it at me in one of your replies to your
tag-team leader - about me. You can look it up.

(oh, I'm just giddy now. I understand the
rush you must have gotten from tossing it
around so inappropriately. How fun!)
I think giddy is a very good choice of words for you.

and I was available.
Possibly. BUt then what's your reason for
agreeing and then immediately turning around
and bashing?
Because I have a tendency, like most human beings do, to get fed up
with all the snark.
But you never stopped. Pretending doesn't
make it so.

But I did stop. When I made the offer. Yet you couldn't bring
yourself to do the same. Now it's up to you.

Do you get off on a more active hypocrisy?
You should look that word up, too. In fact, you should go out an buy a
really good dictionary and read it cover-to-cover. Twice.

And yeah, shaded insults are still potshots.
Of course. The more shaded the better.
Its very clear you hide behond that. Too bad
it doesn't actually mean you aren't being an
active asshole, so responsibility can't be
deflected. I know how hard you must try, though.
I am a product of my environment!

But I guess as long as you agree out loud,
but break the deal almost immediately, it
still counts a noble? Is that how you're
playing it today?
I didn't break the deal. First, you didn't accept it when you had a
chance. Second, by dousing me in snark soon after I offered the deal,
you showed that you had made your decision.

The pious crap is a little overplayed, don't
you think?
That's another straw man! You really do need to look that word up
again, and fast!

You can always can the stark and see how that works out for you.
I stopped replying to you altogether. Didn't
impact your behavior one bit.
That's not a straw man, but it is a lie. A bald-faced lie. You snarked
about me in a reply to The Queen of Snark herself, which is rather
strange, because you've mentioned your distaste of Melinda many times.
Wow. A+ for making **** up.

You did not stop replying to me, or snarking at me. You did it in a
reply to your Queen. You can look it up.

The lie (if you were able at this point to
comprehend what you are reading) was that I
mentioned my "distate for Melinda many
times". How you missed my very next sentence
that *specified* that is....well, amazing.

The lie is that you snarked, when you claim you didn't. It has
nothing to do with Melinda, other than you did it in a post to her,
not to me.

You must be getting upset. That was a rookie
mistake.

I never get upset. The fact that you keeping claiming that I'm upset,
or "losing it," when all the evidence is to the contrary, suggests
projection on your part, or maybe just a low level of intelligence.

I disagree vehemently with her on many
topics. I also have argued with her MANY
times for dynamics for certain posters.

I have never once mentioned a "distaste" for
her. But feel free to provide a cite or be
called an outright liar. I'll start by
calling you a liar, and you can dispel that
or not at your leisure.

Okay. You have a point. I should have said that you have at times
found her behavior or treatment of certain individuals to be
distastful, more or less. Perhaps you didn't expressly use the word
distasteful, but others words meaning virtually the the same thing.

Uh, not even that.

But then I'm talking here to the person that
clearly has issues with the difference
between who a person is and that person's
behavior. So I guess it makes sense that you
would mistake a disagreement with her
behavior with a distaste for *her*.

I don't think there's much difference between who a person is, and her
behavior. But in Melinda's case, I have a strong distaste for her
behavior, and can only assume that that is who she is. It would shock
the hell out of me if she were actually a Mother Teresa in real life.

When all you have is a hammer....

I usually come to a project with every tool I can get my hands on. You
never know when you might need a chain-saw, for example. But I try to
use the tool that does the least amount of damage, yet still gets the
job done.

I can easily disagree profoundly with someone
and still consider them a friend.
Your googling leaves a lot to be desired.

No googling here. I hate google. I'm a Ping Person.

Wow. Whatever.

Also Wolfram|Alpha. Very new, and very, very good, in its own unique
way.

And I pray for the day that you will stop replying to me, but my
prayers are going unanswered.
You're actions are your own responsibility.
Pray away. But the only one in charge of you
is....you.

Of course, but I rarely give a person two chances to start over again
(one seems like more than enough, and you've had it already, and
rejected it), so we're apparently bound together for life.

Wow. You really victimize yourself. No one is
responsible for your behavior (I guess I'll
just keep typing that until you either read
it, or I get bored)

I never victimize myself. And I blame no one for my behavior but
myself.

We're not even bound together right now.
Either one of us could just....stop.

But you do love to paint dramatic pictures, eh?

You thought that was dramatic? Okay, I suppose that makes sense, since
you also think I'm "losing it," etc. Now that was dramatic.

Or until
you stop dousing me with snark.

Yeah, you're my victim. Right.

I'm no one's victim, but I am the one who was snarked upon first.

I am in control of ALLLLL your behaviors.

You are in control of none of my behaviors.

You're caught in a dance, and the *only*
person that can stop you is the other person?

At this point, yes, after failing once to get you to stop, I no longer
have an interest in doing that again.

Pathetic, really.

Yes, this entire thread is pretty pathetic.

You could always killfile me and see how that
works out for you. Might even lend some
credibility to your claims of superiority.
Another straw man! We now have a rainforest of straw men, and they
appear to be multiplying like rabbits! I yearn for the day when straw
men, and their puppet masters, are forced to flee the country.
You'd be in the first wave forced out
though....so how would that save you from the
presence of those you're bellyaching about?

You're wrong, of course, but until you read a good dictionary, you
won't even know it.

I'm wrong that you present strawmen yourself?

I'm no stranger to the straw man, but I don't use them like so many
Pez candies, like you do.

No. You've done your fair share, so you'd be
in the first wave being evicted.
Nota bene: My kill file is already bulging with trolls and various
miscreants. And Scotty, my chief engineer, informs me: "One more and
she blows, Cap'n!"
Cop out. Whine away, or killfile. Choice is
yours.

Isn't the proper term: snark away?

Depends on what's being conveyed.

Snark is being conveyed, but correct me if I'm wrong. I'll try to up
the snark, just for you.

Since I was conveying to you to either whine
away (you *are* whining when you claim your
own nasty behavior is solely at the mercy of
everyone else's) or killfile, the proper
term is exactly as I stated it.

Straw man! Never made that claim. See? You can't go long without
using a straw man.

Anyway, I have to go pick up the kids right now, so see if you can put
your snark shifter into "idle" for a while.

Boy, you really don't understand that each
person is autonomous.

Are you drinking, or something?

Why would you think your little activites as
a stay at home Mom would have any bearing on
me or my posts?

Who said I did? I just warned you that I would not be able to return
snark to you for a little while. I know how much you live and breathe
snark, so I wanted you to know that you would have to be content with
your own snark while I was away. But now I'm back, and the snarkfest
can continue!

Unlike you, I am responsible for my
choices....good or bad. Try it on for size.

Well then, you made a very bad choice when you didn't accept my offer
to put an end to this crap. Shortly, your tag-team captain should be
along, too, and then the amount of snark will increase geometrically.
And while that's unfortunate, that's life in the dog groups.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:51:25 -0700, "Cheri"
wrote:

"Tara Green" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:19:29 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:32:14 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

wrote:
On 18 Jun 2009 22:27:14 -0400, (Melinda Shore) wrote:

In article ,
Tara Green wrote:
Not a record at all....though I did far better than you did. Wonder
what that says.
It tells the same old story: the "I'm incredibly evolved"
posture just isn't very durable. Best to be honest from the
get-go. This guy's inner shithead has been under increasing
pressure throughout all that faux-feasonable crap - small
wonder that it exploded as it did.
This guy's? Man, you Aquarians are everywhere! And you all appear to
enjoy making things up, like the word feasonable.
Aquar·i·an 1. a person who makes stuff up. 2. a person born between
February 20 and February 18 who enjoys attacking straw men.
"who enjoys making things up..."

So you're an Aquarian then? You've been right there doing it all
yourself.

Pointing fingers as though you aren't initiating the exact same
behavior is rather silly.
I have never initiated anything with you. I've never snarked any of
your posts that were made to others, for example. And I didn't start
the snarkfest between the two of us. For some strange reason, you and
the Queen of Snark keep insisting that I've claimed to be "incredibly
evolved,"
You do understand the difference between a "claim" and a "behavior" yes?

Maybe you could explain it for me?

You can eschew the claim that you are more evolved and yet still cling
to the persona through your actions.

None of my actions would ever lead any rational person to confuse me
with an "incredibly evolved" person.


Strawman. No one ever said that you actually *were* evolved. Just that you
were clinging to the persona.

You're not paying attention, are
you?

Nor you. Especially not to your own actions.

and are somehow above it all. Those are straw men.
See above. Not quite.

Not just quite, but full-fledged straw men.

I've
never made such claims. Yes, I strongely prefer civil debate and
discussion, like most people do.
No matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, I suppose.

The evidence to the contrary can't and won't exist (between the two of
us, anyway) until you can the snark.

I could care less.

But then I'm not the one claiming preference for one thing while diving
headfist into another. That's your thing.

But I'm also a product of my
environment.
Uh, not really.

Yes, really. A glance at just about any thread should convince even
the most skeptical among us that the dog groups should be renamed
"Snarkville, USA."

You haven't posted here long enough to be a "product" of anything except
what you carried in with you.

I've lurked for a long, long time. And it didn't take long for the
Snark Patrol to zero in on me.

Its actually pretty clear that you haven't. A week or so isn't a "long
long time". And since you have no information that precedes a week or two,
your telling little fibs again.

Though you're certainly free to blame words on a screen for your own
behavior anytime you wish.

I blame no one but myself.

And when being constantly snarked upon,
It was hardly "constant".

It's been almost relentless. The best conversations I've had here, the
most snark-free conversations, were with, Chardonnay9, until,
unfortunately, it went south.

Killfiling everyone else should do you a great deal of good then. Of
course, you were 50% of the southward bound direction....not that you've
admitted to that.

My first post to you wasn't snarky by a long shot. You may not have
liked it, but that has nothing to do with whether or not I was actually
snarking at you. I wasn't.

Then perhaps that is part of the problem. You don't know what straw
men arguments are, and you don't know what snark is.

Oh, I'd say I'm pretty clear on both. I didn't say it wasn't snarky....I
said I wasn't snarking *at you*.

Your reading comprehension is faltering

In fact, up until that point, I had found your posts interesting, and
was merely commenting on the futility of the exercise.

By pontificating to me? By criticizing me for responding to Melinda's
(the instigator, as usual) hypocritical reply to me?

Again, your reading comprehension isn't very strong here. This references
my first post to you, not the last few days.

A reply that
even made you criticize Melinda? But since that moment, you've been
on my tail like I'm about to give birth to a litter of puppies..

The thing is, Melinda and I can criticize each other without one "losing
it" in quite the spectacular way you seem to do.


And I think many of your posts are interesting, too, which is why our
snarkfest is such a waste of time and energy.

Then stop. I don't care. To me this is simply a diversion from my studies.
To you its a waste of time. Again, the only one responsible for you is
you. Walk away or killfile....whichever you prefer.

Me? I'm avoiding memorizing some crap I don't feel like memorizing right
now, so its all the same to me.

And which is why I was
willing to make you a deal.

Oh whatever. I've seen how you keep deals. Even if I gave lip service to
it, you'd just make backhanded potshots until someone responded.

Not interested in that sort of pretend agreement.

Let's get back to taking about dogs and
can the snark.

You get to stop anytime you like. I don't control your keyboard.

Especially after sighthounds and siberians asked us
to cut the crap. Since crap is closely related to snark, it was an
opportunity for everyone to get back to talking about dogs. But you
passed, Melinda passed, and then you insisted on dousing me in snark
again,

You forgot the part where YOU passed.

Disingenuous crap.


taking your lead from your tag-team leader Melinda, and not
from sighthounds and siberians.

I consider myself dear friend with both of those people. How I conduct
myself with either one really isn't your concern.

How you conduct yourself with either of them is all you have any reason to
put any energy into.

Your over the top reaction to my second post to you (in what?....a span
of a couple of weeks weeks at that point?) initiated some of your own
drama. I chose to react to the drama you made your own decision to jump
in to.
No one was a victim or a "product" of anyone else.
To pretend otherwise just shows a potential inability to take
responsibility for one's own behavior.

Think about this for a moment. Had to not decided to criticize my
behavior (and for the oddest of reason, defending my self against the
Queen of Snark) we wouldn't be snarking at each other right now.

At some point, you might actually take responsibility for your own
behavior. Given your "I'm just a product" and protestations that someone
else is always responsible for your posts wallowing in the mud, I doubt
it....but it *could* happen someday.

Melinda lives for the snark. Do you?

She certanly has enjoyed it from time to time....as have I....as have you.

Not sure there's a clearly defined difference between ANY of the players
here.

That's kind of the point.

You're as likely to be found in the mud throwing it around as anyone
else here that you have thrown **** at, with or without much
provocation.

It took Chardonnay9 a long time to test my tolerance of rudeness,

a week? Ha ha ha!

but
you were able to do it on your very first post! You get a gold star
for that!

You were primed to take some stuff out on someone you weren't applying
your agenda towards. Big deal.


It is not necessary for you to admit to it for the behavior to be
apparent. Your permission to see it isn't a prerequisite for it to be
seen. It is what it is.

Are you still giddy by any chance?

Never was, of course. I was imitating what you were projecting here.

I tend to get
snarky myself. I'm nothing special, just another human being with
faults and limitations.
I doubt for anyone here (and certainly not me) that this right here is a
problem.

I don't like snark.

And yet you put far more energy into that than into anything else. Weird.

Snark can become a way of life, as it has with
Melinda.

See? you have no information about that. No more than I have about you.

And yet I have never extrapolated your behavior here with what you do in
your real life. Yet you seem to get that personal witout all that much
provocation.

But by all means, keep pretending that snark isn't at the very least a
usenet way of life for you....all visible evidence to the contrary.

Snark can also quickly get out of hand. Snark can even kill.

Down with snark!

Live it or leave it.

At the very least, live it or stop whining about it.

I notice that nobody else is posting, probably because of all this nonsense
going on with you two.

There's no reason that subscribers can't keep posting, especially to
other threads. This thread has been dead for a long time now.

At least have the courtesy to take it to OT so other
people might actually benefit from some dog-health posts, and snipping helps
too. I'm purposely not snipping, hoping to annoy you as much as you two have
annoyed me with this constant sniping.

Cheri

Cheri, I do apologize. But adding your scent, too, can only make it
worse. That's exactly how this all got started in the first place.
You're really only left with two options, I'm afraid. Ignore the
thread altogether. Or kill file the particpants. Sorry!

wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:58:32 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

And I think many of your posts are interesting, too, which is why our
snarkfest is such a waste of time and energy.
Then stop.

I did. But you didn't.

That is completely irelevent to what was just
said. Personal responsibility is clearly not
your strong suit. Once again for the victims
of the world, only you control your keyboard.
If you're going to say over and over again
what a waste of time it is....then stop. Only
you have the power to do that.

I never said "Stop *this*" I simply said that
if its such a waste of your time, then stop.
You're interjecting complaints about how its
wasting your time (whether those complaints
are whining or trying to appear as though
you're rising above it all isn't important),
so either stop, or take responsibility for
your own participation.

I do. I'm completely willing to own my own
participation in this snarkfest....and have
been willing to (and doing so) this whole time.

The only one here pretending the blame *must*
completely be someone else's is you.

snip a bunch more "No! Its all YOUR fault"
protestations from the anonymous one
though why a "bystander" would really give a
**** about trimming posts that they're
supposedly not even reading is beyond me


You were primed to take some stuff out on
someone you weren't applying your agenda
towards. Big deal.

It took you all of one post to get with the snark, so how primed must
you have been?

I'm not the one pretending that anything I
type is everyone else's fault and
responsibility. That's your forte.

It is not necessary for you to
admit to it for the behavior to be apparent.
Your permission to see it isn't a
prerequisite for it to be seen. It is what it is.
Are you still giddy by any chance?
Never was, of course. I was imitating what
you were projecting here.

No, I think you're an especially giddy person. By nature.

Again you try to pretend you know anything
about a person's personal life and then build
(oh my! Could it be?) a Strawman about who
they must be.

I did that once. Once. To you. Just today in
fact. I thought I'd try this "monkey see,
monkey do" thing you are helpless to prevent
in yourself and see how it went making a
comment about your real life. All I surmised
was that you were a saty at home wife....and
frankly I erased it three times before
deciding to just see how it felt to cross
that boundary.

And yet, you do it almost every post.
Interesting.

I tend to get
snarky myself. I'm nothing special, just another human being with
faults and limitations.
I doubt for anyone here (and certainly not
me) that this right here is a problem.
I don't like snark.
And yet you put far more energy into that
than into anything else. Weird.

I'm not putting much energy into at all. Because I don't like it. You
should be thankful that I don't like it.

Are you implying that you should in any way
be scary? This is one of your jokes right?

Snark can become a way of life, as it has with
Melinda.
See? you have no information about that. No
more than I have about you.

Boy, you Aquarians and your Ouija board proclamations. I told you I've
lurked here, off and on, for quite some time. I also have a life to
live, yes, but I enjoy keeping abreast of canine issues. And it
doesn't take much lurking anyway, to get Melinda's number.

Well, you don't actually have her number, so
I guess you missed a lot over the multiple
years and years you've supposedly been
lurking here.

And with the prolific amount of arguing and
posting you've been doing the last week, I
doubt like hell that's even true. You have
yet to post anything that isn't clearly
leading straight to an argument *with
anyone*. Not even Chard. That one was obvious
from the get go, and now this....you have a
knack. Even after all that "lurking" for
heading straight for the argument.

And yet I have never extrapolated your
behavior here with what you do in your real
life. Yet you seem to get that personal
witout all that much provocation.

I think I've said this before. I'm good at mimicking behaviors.
Yours, for example.

Hard to mimic something that I have never
done to you. But then that was stated flat
out in the sentence this nonsense was in
reply to.

Not that you've provided them yet, but I
would love some cites from all those times I
brought your real life into this (real or
imagined) and then insulted you for it. I
won't hold my breath though....as I said,
you've not done it once. Great assertion,
nothing to back it up no matter how many
times you are asked to. Typical of you so far.

But by all means, keep pretending that snark
isn't at the very least a usenet way of life
for you....all visible evidence to the contrary.

I have participated in many of the groups on Usenet, but the dog
groups are snarkier than most. Which is why I was content to lurk for
quite some time.

Snark can also quickly get out of hand. Snark can even kill.

Down with snark!
Live it or leave it.

Then I pick door Number 1, Bob!

That woud involve stopping
("Down with Snark", "Ok if that's what you
believe....LIVE IT")

At the very least, live it or stop whining
about it.

I'm not whining. I'm snarking.

You're actually doing a lot of both.

wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:30:08 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:41:26 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:41:11 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:


Yes, it does. And it will. Especially if you can find it in yourself
to put a can on the snark.

You also
had a chance to make a deal, but you passed.
I waited actually. I didn;t jump in and pay
lip service to the agreement (as you did),
but instead I said nothing at all to you or
*about* you until you started in with your
insults again.
That's one explanation. I like mine better.
Of course you do.
Thank you!

You passed because your
inner snark needs an outlet,
I didn't "pass" though. Since its Misuse of
the word Strawman day, I guess I get to
accuse you of:

Strawman!
You effectively passed when you took out your garden hose of snark and
sprayed me with it.
And yet you "passed" first. Keep flinging
that there mud, cowboy. Suits you.
No, I didn't. From the moment I made the offer, I directed no snark in
your direction until you aimed it at me in one of your replies to your
tag-team leader - about me. You can look it up.

(oh, I'm just giddy now. I understand the
rush you must have gotten from tossing it
around so inappropriately. How fun!)
I think giddy is a very good choice of words for you.

and I was available.
Possibly. BUt then what's your reason for
agreeing and then immediately turning around
and bashing?
Because I have a tendency, like most human beings do, to get fed up
with all the snark.
But you never stopped. Pretending doesn't
make it so.
But I did stop. When I made the offer. Yet you couldn't bring
yourself to do the same. Now it's up to you.

Do you get off on a more active hypocrisy?
You should look that word up, too. In fact, you should go out an buy a
really good dictionary and read it cover-to-cover. Twice.

And yeah, shaded insults are still potshots.
Of course. The more shaded the better.
Its very clear you hide behond that. Too bad
it doesn't actually mean you aren't being an
active asshole, so responsibility can't be
deflected. I know how hard you must try, though.
I am a product of my environment!

But I guess as long as you agree out loud,
but break the deal almost immediately, it
still counts a noble? Is that how you're
playing it today?
I didn't break the deal. First, you didn't accept it when you had a
chance. Second, by dousing me in snark soon after I offered the deal,
you showed that you had made your decision.

The pious crap is a little overplayed, don't
you think?
That's another straw man! You really do need to look that word up
again, and fast!

You can always can the stark and see how that works out for you.
I stopped replying to you altogether. Didn't
impact your behavior one bit.
That's not a straw man, but it is a lie. A bald-faced lie. You snarked
about me in a reply to The Queen of Snark herself, which is rather
strange, because you've mentioned your distaste of Melinda many times.
Wow. A+ for making **** up.
You did not stop replying to me, or snarking at me. You did it in a
reply to your Queen. You can look it up.
The lie (if you were able at this point to
comprehend what you are reading) was that I
mentioned my "distate for Melinda many
times". How you missed my very next sentence
that *specified* that is....well, amazing.

The lie is that you snarked, when you claim you didn't.

Uh no. I said I didn't snark *at you*. The
rest is you trying to backpedal by putting
words in my mouth.

It has
nothing to do with Melinda, other than you did it in a post to her,
not to me.


Oh, you mean in that passive aggressive way
that you do?

I thought that was acceptable to you, since
you do it all the time.

You must be getting upset. That was a rookie
mistake.

I never get upset. The fact that you keeping claiming that I'm upset,
or "losing it," when all the evidence is to the contrary, suggests
projection on your part, or maybe just a low level of intelligence.

Or simply an analysis of your reading
comprehension going down the tubes and your
own behavior countering everything you claim.

So maybe you're not upset. Perhaps you're
just a world class hypocrite.

I disagree vehemently with her on many
topics. I also have argued with her MANY
times for dynamics for certain posters.

I have never once mentioned a "distaste" for
her. But feel free to provide a cite or be
called an outright liar. I'll start by
calling you a liar, and you can dispel that
or not at your leisure.
Okay. You have a point. I should have said that you have at times
found her behavior or treatment of certain individuals to be
distastful, more or less. Perhaps you didn't expressly use the word
distasteful, but others words meaning virtually the the same thing.
Uh, not even that.

But then I'm talking here to the person that
clearly has issues with the difference
between who a person is and that person's
behavior. So I guess it makes sense that you
would mistake a disagreement with her
behavior with a distaste for *her*.

I don't think there's much difference between who a person is, and her
behavior.

Well, that does explain a lot then.

When your kids act badly, I guess you tell
them that they *ARE* bad people, right?
Because you've just stated that there is no
difference between the behavior and who a
person is.

So to be consistent, you'd have to tell your
children that their bad behavior makes them
*bed people*. Or that doing something
irresponsibly (as kids will do) makes them
simply irresponsible human beings all around.
I mean, you did just say that....and that's
how you approach folks here....but since I
don't really believe that you tell your kids
things like that, I doubt that you *really*
believe that there's no difference. Just that
it sounded good to say.


But in Melinda's case, I have a strong distaste for her
behavior, and can only assume that that is who she is. It would shock
the hell out of me if she were actually a Mother Teresa in real life.

When all you have is a hammer....

I usually come to a project with every tool I can get my hands on.

Can't see that from here.

You
never know when you might need a chain-saw, for example. But I try to
use the tool that does the least amount of damage, yet still gets the
job done.

Can't see that from here.

I can easily disagree profoundly with someone
and still consider them a friend.
Your googling leaves a lot to be desired.
No googling here. I hate google. I'm a Ping Person.
Wow. Whatever.

Also Wolfram|Alpha. Very new, and very, very good, in its own unique
way.

Again....whatever.

And I pray for the day that you will stop replying to me, but my
prayers are going unanswered.
You're actions are your own responsibility.
Pray away. But the only one in charge of you
is....you.
Of course, but I rarely give a person two chances to start over again
(one seems like more than enough, and you've had it already, and
rejected it), so we're apparently bound together for life.
Wow. You really victimize yourself. No one is
responsible for your behavior (I guess I'll
just keep typing that until you either read
it, or I get bored)

I never victimize myself. And I blame no one for my behavior but
myself.

Its all you've been doing for two days in here.

We're not even bound together right now.
Either one of us could just....stop.

But you do love to paint dramatic pictures, eh?

You wrote that we were bound together for life.
Dude, that's melodrama no matter *who* you are.

You thought that was dramatic? Okay, I suppose that makes sense, since
you also think I'm "losing it," etc. Now that was dramatic.

Or until
you stop dousing me with snark.
Yeah, you're my victim. Right.

I'm no one's victim, but I am the one who was snarked upon first.

"I'm no one's victim, but...."

I am in control of ALLLLL your behaviors.

You are in control of none of my behaviors.

Then stop. Or stop whining about how big a
waste of time this is.
Or stop pretending you're only doing this
because I did it first.

You're doing this because *you want to*. Period.


You could always killfile me and see how that
works out for you. Might even lend some
credibility to your claims of superiority.
Another straw man! We now have a rainforest of straw men, and they
appear to be multiplying like rabbits! I yearn for the day when straw
men, and their puppet masters, are forced to flee the country.
You'd be in the first wave forced out
though....so how would that save you from the
presence of those you're bellyaching about?
You're wrong, of course, but until you read a good dictionary, you
won't even know it.
I'm wrong that you present strawmen yourself?

I'm no stranger to the straw man, but I don't use them like so many
Pez candies, like you do.

Yeah. Your assumptions about other people's
personal lives here is based in fact.

What a jackass move.

No. You've done your fair share, so you'd be
in the first wave being evicted.
Nota bene: My kill file is already bulging with trolls and various
miscreants. And Scotty, my chief engineer, informs me: "One more and
she blows, Cap'n!"
Cop out. Whine away, or killfile. Choice is
yours.
Isn't the proper term: snark away?
Depends on what's being conveyed.

Snark is being conveyed, but correct me if I'm wrong. I'll try to up
the snark, just for you.

Make no difference. Do it or don't. Up to you.

Since I was conveying to you to either whine
away (you *are* whining when you claim your
own nasty behavior is solely at the mercy of
everyone else's) or killfile, the proper
term is exactly as I stated it.

Straw man! Never made that claim. See? You can't go long without
using a straw man.

Every time you say the *only* reason you are
snarking is because of other people's actions
you are making *exactly* that claim.

That's not a strawman, when its in every one
of your posts.

Anyway, I have to go pick up the kids right now, so see if you can put
your snark shifter into "idle" for a while.
Boy, you really don't understand that each
person is autonomous.

Are you drinking, or something?

No. Are you an adult?

Why would you think your little activites as
a stay at home Mom would have any bearing on
me or my posts?

Who said I did? I just warned you that I would not be able to return
snark to you for a little while.

Convenient that you snipped just that little
bit, but that isn;t at all what you said or
were conveying.
"
Anyway, I have to go pick up the kids
right now, so see if you can put
your snark shifter into "idle" for a while. "

A reply from you wasn't the issue.

I know how much you live and breathe
snark,

Strawman! (your new favorite word)

so I wanted you to know that you would have to be content with
your own snark while I was away.

"
Anyway, I have to go pick up the kids
right now, so see if you can put
your snark shifter into "idle" for a while."

But now I'm back, and the snarkfest
can continue!

Again, no one's actions are contingent on
anyone else's.

Even when you say that you get it, you say
something that proves that you simply don't.

Unlike you, I am responsible for my
choices....good or bad. Try it on for size.

Well then, you made a very bad choice when you didn't accept my offer
to put an end to this crap.

According to you. It was pretty much obvious
to you that you weren't in a position to
stick with it anyway. So I thought I'd wait
and see. You jumped in at the first
opportunity and then announced that it wasn't
your fault because someone else pushed your
"on" switch.

Shortly, your tag-team captain should be
along, too, and then the amount of snark will increase geometrically.
And while that's unfortunate, that's life in the dog groups.

Or not.

wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:30:45 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

wrote:

I don't sermonize.
Ha ha ha ha!

That was funny.

Aww, I bet you laught at all the girls.

No. Just the full of **** ones.

wrote:

You're really only left with two options, I'm afraid. Ignore the
thread altogether. Or kill file the particpants. Sorry!


So you do understand personal
responsibility....when its other people who
need to own it.

But when its you complaining about someone
else's posts, your actions are their fault.

I see a trend here...