Francis wrote:Once, a post ate at my gut...
What did you do, Francis? How did you respond?
I got mad and replied in a way, way beyond I usually do..
Were I to had some, I would had lost my faith...
There have been a few posts that have made me very, very angry or upset. Angry or upset enough so that when I was no longer at the computer, I was still thinking about them and feeling rage.
I handled each differently.
Makes you wonder what causes people to seek to cause pain to, belittle, and diminish others.
Maybe because they become conscious of their inanity and they can't stand it?
Could be.
I think some people need to feel superior, and they only way they can think of is to make others smaller.
But I think that anonymous environments such as this enable people to behave in ways they wouldn't in a face-to-face situation. It makes them brave--and sometimes mean. Just plain mean.
Yes, Roberta.
In average, they are mean...
But not, in the main, mean.
With a hey nonny nonny!
dlowan wrote:But not, in the main, mean.
With a hey nonny nonny!
Hey nonny yourself, bunny.
Roberta,
I'm sorry you take such offense from my comment, but there was none intended!!
I said it in the same lighthearted, bantering way that you guys are talking!
Sorry for the confusion.
Nah. Smirklies are dumb.
Anyhoo, that's just an attempt at a post hoc fiddle.
Contusion?
You been deliverin contusions?
patiodog wrote:Contusion?
You been deliverin contusions?
He tried, but they was just feathers.
Bull-feathers, I'm sure you said fellers. And if he's been deliverin fellers, I'm a-gonna have to alert the authorit-eyes. Man-pimpin is a violation of TOS, see.
patiodog wrote:Bull-feathers, I'm sure you said fellers. And if he's been deliverin fellers, I'm a-gonna have to alert the authorit-eyes. Man-pimpin is a violation of TOS, see.
Oh? And is WOMAN pimpin' also such a violation?
Depends on the quality of the goods and the spirit of converyance. It's all in the manual, II.i.1546.7.iv{ixl}-rho, if you want to look it up.
patiodog wrote:Depends on the quality of the goods and the spirit of converyance. It's all in the manual, II.i.1546.7.iv{ixl}-rho, if you want to look it up.
I know it by heart, and that is the bit about not feeding the hamsters while they are at work.
Well, it's not meant to be taken literally. It obviously refers to any small, warm, lightly furred mammalian structure. "Feeding" while "working," similarly, aren't to be read in this elevated text as they would be in the latest Cervantes paperback.
aperson wrote:Roberta,
I'm sorry you take such offense from my comment, but there was none intended!!
I said it in the same lighthearted, bantering way that you guys are talking!
Sorry for the confusion.
I'm of two minds in responding. I could say thanks for the apology and apology accepted. Or I could say
However, I'm so confused by the contusion/hamster-feeding discussion that I can't decide.
