Janet Baraclough > wrote in
:

> I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

Obviously the pattern is that you have a tendency to oversimplify but
that's your spiritual hangup.

--

"The officer corps will forgive anything they can
understand, which makes intelligence the only sin."

Carnell, Blakes 7 episode 16

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:42:54 -0600, "gloria.p" >
wrote:

> sf wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:48:00 -0500, Michel Boucher
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, but he got much worse after 9/11 (or actually 11/9 in Canada). Most
> >> of the people have recovered to some extent, but not Sheldon.
> >
> > 9-11 didn't do diddly to Sheldon. I blame those Freedom Fries.
> >
>
>
> Isn't that when he moved from Lung Eyeland to the Upstate Boonies?
>
No, I think he moved before that.


--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:48:29 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > blake murphy > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:22:21 -0500, WTF wrote:

[snipped Michel's story]

> >>> The implication that you wanted comments certainly was here.
> >>
> >> it is? where?
> >
> > In the fact that he posted it to this group. If he really didn't want
> > any comments, he would have written this in his diary. Of course, that
> > didn't mean he wanted nasty and critical comments, but he's been here
> > long enough to know that a few of those were inevitable.
> >
> > I just hope that either some of those comments were in fact helpful to
> > him, or at least that he feels better for having gotten this off his
> > chest publicly.
>
> even if it's true that posting *anything* here is soliciting 'comments' i
> wouldn't say it is 'asking for input.' that would be more like 'what
> should i do?'

I agree completely. He didn't ask for input. He didn't ask for
comments either, but he's certainly smart enough to know that when you
post something here that is remotely interesting and applicable to
people, there will be comments.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel > wrote in
:

>> even if it's true that posting *anything* here is soliciting
>> 'comments' i wouldn't say it is 'asking for input.' that would be
>> more like 'what should i do?'
>
> I agree completely. He didn't ask for input. He didn't ask for
> comments either, but he's certainly smart enough to know that when you
> post something here that is remotely interesting and applicable to
> people, there will be comments.

I never said I didn't think that, but others should also realize that I am
free to disagree and/or to disregard their opinion, or even question it as
I did not solicit it in any direct or indirect fashion. In other words, if
their response was: "Have her arrested!" I could say "That's not what we do
here" and they can't then claim that I am not respecting the terms upon
which they posted their opinion, because there were no terms. Obviously
some people think that their expectorations are pearls of wisdom, and they
are clearly wrong.

When I post requests for assistance or opinions on cooking, I do not berate
those who offer stupid suggestions, because that IS part of the terms.

--

"The officer corps will forgive anything they can
understand, which makes intelligence the only sin."

Carnell, Blakes 7 episode 16

Janet Baraclough wrote:

> First you whined about and accused your SD, claiming to be the
> innocent injured party whose generous act of sharing didn't deserve to
> be taken advantage of; now you're whining about and accusing people
> here who answered, and claiming you're the innocent injured party whose
> generous act of sharing didn't deserve to be taken advantage of.
>
> I'm beginning to see a pattern here.


I guess that it was a bit of a whine, but his complaints were valid.
The types of things that he complained about would annoy me too. It's
bad enough that some people have failure to launch when it comes to
helping their children (and step children) become independent and self
sufficient. Sometimes they come back after a few years on their own.
They have developed their own peculiar habits, making it even harder for
the parents who have started to enjoy the empty nest.

The sad thing IMO, is that her moving out seems to be contingent on her
boyfriend guaranteeing the rent. After moving back in to mooch off
Michel and to annoy him in various ways, she hasn't really become
independent but has only found someone else to support her.

Dave Smith > wrote in news:Ctsrn.53793$V63.37828
@unlimited.newshosting.com:

> The sad thing IMO, is that her moving out seems to be contingent on her
> boyfriend guaranteeing the rent. After moving back in to mooch off
> Michel and to annoy him in various ways, she hasn't really become
> independent but has only found someone else to support her.

She has a job, but her credit is lacking so him guaranteeing the rent is
just a security in case of emergency. I didn't mean to imply that she was
without resources, well at least in the past two months.


--

"The officer corps will forgive anything they can
understand, which makes intelligence the only sin."

Carnell, Blakes 7 episode 16

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:49:49 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:42:54 -0600, "gloria.p" >
>wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>> > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:48:00 -0500, Michel Boucher
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes, but he got much worse after 9/11 (or actually 11/9 in Canada). Most
>> >> of the people have recovered to some extent, but not Sheldon.
>> >
>> > 9-11 didn't do diddly to Sheldon. I blame those Freedom Fries.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Isn't that when he moved from Lung Eyeland to the Upstate Boonies?
>>
>No, I think he moved before that.

Actually I moved upstate in May of 2003, had nothing to do with 9/11
.... I had planned to retire to the Catskills from since I was like
three years old because that's where my grandparents retired and where
I spent lots of time especially during summers.

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:29:13 -0400, brooklyn1 wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:44:54 -0500, Michel Boucher
> > wrote:
>
>>blake murphy > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:06:50 -0400, brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Initially Michel received no nasty comments and in fact he made the
>>>> first nasty comments when he heard constructive criticisms that he
>>>> didn't want to hear, and that's when the comments escalated to nasty.
>>>> Michel was first to make personal attacks... and just because he
>>>> wasn't calling names in no way negates the fact that his retorts were
>>>> not rude/nasty... his retorts were smarmy and smarmy is offensive.
>>>
>>> ohnoes!!!!
>>
>>My bad! hehehe
>>
>>> not sure what the **** this means, though:
>>>
>>>> and just because he
>>>> wasn't calling names in no way negates the fact that his retorts were
>>>> rude/nasty...
>>
>>On this issue of whether I asked for opinions or not, let me put the
>>following to you (you being an abstract term not referring to any person
>>in particular).
>>
>>Last week I sold my first wargame design. Of course, I now have to
>>design the game, but the publisher has indicated that my submission was
>>of much interest to them. Now, by posting this, do any of you actually
>>believe that I'm asking for "constructive criticism" on how I should
>>design my game?
>
> Not necessarilly... by posting anything you're soliciting ALL
> comments, good, bad, indifferent, etc.
>
> My comment is that by selling something you don't have that makes you
> a creepy/shady/immoral character, certainly not someone I'd want to
> conduct business with... you've just proven (to me anyway) that your
> step daughter's account would be much different (diametrically
> different) from your tale of woe. Someone who knows absolutely
> nothing about cooking hanging out in a cooking group for years and
> years always struck me as your being weird, but weird in a nefarious
> way, like a stalker/molester.

you got molesters on the brain, honey.

blake

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:49:44 -0500, Michel Boucher wrote:

> blake murphy > wrote in
> :
>
>>> You read my bio?? I'm touched! :-)
>>
>> there should have been more pictures of the sex with animals.
>
> You need to click on the link that says: For further info *wink*wink*.

oh, shit.

i guess i'll have to disable the parental controls i installed to keep
myself out of mischief.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:09:37 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:48:26 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>> there should have been more pictures of the sex with animals.
>
> Be careful what you wish for. We've already seen sex with fruits and
> vegetables right here in rfc.

maybe the fruits part, but vegetables? someone's having sex with sheldon?

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:10:55 -0400, brooklyn1 wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:26:49 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:06:50 -0400, brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>> Initially Michel received no nasty comments and in fact he made the
>>> first nasty comments when he heard constructive criticisms that he
>>> didn't want to hear, and that's when the comments escalated to nasty.
>>> Michel was first to make personal attacks... and just because he
>>> wasn't calling names in no way negates the fact that his retorts were
>>> not rude/nasty... his retorts were smarmy and smarmy is offensive.
>>
>>ohnoes!!!!
>>
>>not sure what the **** this means, though:
>
> You don't know what anything means... and what's with the dangling
> though... you have a speech impediment too?
>
>>> and just because he
>>> wasn't calling names in no way negates the fact that his retorts were
>>> not rude/nasty...
>>
>>blake

o.k., you tell me then: what does 'wasn't' 'negates' 'not' mean? and what
was 'dangling'?

blake

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:29:13 -0400, brooklyn1 wrote:

> > different) from your tale of woe. Someone who knows absolutely
> > nothing about cooking hanging out in a cooking group for years and
> > years always struck me as your being weird, but weird in a nefarious
> > way, like a stalker/molester.
>
> you got molesters on the brain, honey.

Like he says, you should write what you know about.

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA