OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> "Curt James" wrote:
>
> > > Thank you.
> >
> > Well, aren't you just so incredibly gracious, Johnny? Did you gain tons
> > of therapeutic value and relaxation by telling our mutual friend that
> > you could beat him senseless?
> >
> > Otoh, instigation is a form of bullying as well and for that fact I'll
> > also cut you the tiniest slice of slack for now. You deserve your fair
> > share of dirt, however, imo.
>
> <snip>before you go any further, please read "The Truth about
> Personal Protection" by Masaad Ayoob.
>
> And "The Ayoob Files".
>
> That second book took me 2 months to get shipped. It's that popular.
>
> It will most likely give you some good insights and understanding.
>
> I know one thing for sure...
>
> The police are not paid anywhere near enough, and there are far too few
> of them. :-(
I trust that's true, however I hope I haven't given you a false
impression that I'm anti-law enforcement. I just don't like a few of
the laws.
> And I could never be paid enough to be a Prosecutor.
Likewise prosecutors. They don't make the laws, right? They simply
prosecute those who break the laws.
> The real money is in defense law. That means that it takes a
> certain amount of dedication.
Well, I'm certain there could be other variables also. Aren't star
players recruited for defense law firms or is that just something that
happens on TV?
> If you want to attack JMW as a person, ok.
SWWEEEEET!!!! ALL SYSTEMS GO!!!! WE HAVE ~*LIFT OFF!!!!!!*~ ATTACK
PROCEDURES IMPLEMENTED!!!!!! GO, GO,
GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> (even tho' I won't agree as I've gotten to know him privately).
And I'll bet that's just peachy keen, however JMW has shown himself to
be something of an idiot, imo, by virtue of his little troll list and
his contradictions exhibited - conduit, enabler, and selective killfile
usage to name a few. I have no problem, however, if you have a differen
opinion of the man. It's relative to the treatment received as well as
your level of maturity, forgiveness, acceptance, and other Om-like
personality traits.
> But without proper education, you really don't have the
> understanding required to attempt to attack his choice
> of career.
I don't remember attacks against his career as much as questions of his
behavior as it relates to him as an individual and as his actions
relate to what I'd describe as unlawyerlike nonsense. The invitation to
Ohio where he'll be waiting alone and unarmed as well as his comment to
another MFW patron that he could beat him senseless. You like him, hey,
more power to you. I realize you have a different relationship. Me? I
think he's something very much akin to a POS for reasons given.
> Please keep in mind that I have just as much regard
> for teachers, so I'm not attacking you either, just asking
> you for a bit more compassion.
I do not feel attacked by you at all, Om. I appreciate your efforts
while not planning on responding too positively. I also respect your
intent without agreeing with you, unfortunately.
> I would have loved to be a teacher at one point in the life sciences,
> but I chose health care for financial security reasons. I grew up dirt
> poor.
Hey, you're not alone. ;o)
> That's my one and only lousy excuse. ;-)
Not a bad "excuse" at all, Om. I've had plenty of 20K a year jobs and
so my 40K a year as an educator is a blessing. Plus it's more fun than
fun!
> Peace, Om
Peace is indeed the key, however it's something of a war with Williams.
He's deserving of compassion? I don't think so.
Perhaps you missed the following, but I don't believe you did. I
applaud your attempts at being peacemaker, however choose not to follow
suit. You've said it's my job to make my students better people and I
agree with that opinion, however even I know limits and have told my
bullying students something quite like, "If you kick a dog, you can
expect to get bit."
The following is a rerun, but it fairly sums up my ax-to-grind factor
so far as JMW is concerned.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....1c98cf2?hl=en&
JMW wrote:
> Curt James wrote:
> > JMW wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > There's a point to be made here, <snip>.
And I recognized your point immediately, in my opinion. Your point was
to be inflammatory, John. As always, you're candycoating it or you're
wrapping it in a blanket of "for the greater good of the newsgroup."
What you're accomplishing, however, is no more than a self-serving
attempt at controlling another poster's behavior or presence in what
you seem to consider your domain.
You're a wannabe bully and behave as such.
> > > If you don't understand the concept,
Dismissive, rude, condescending, and truly something of a colossal
jerk. I should change that characterization, however, as you're much
more a pitiful and sad annoyance.
> > > ask yourself this: why are sex offenders required
> > > to register?
Did someone say you're a lawyer?
I guess you're accustom to being assigned parallels that hold no truth.
Sad fact of life, isn't it?
> > How would you apply that statement to me, John?
>
> I'm glad you asked, Curt.
Of course you are. Misguided by obviously glad.
> Convicted sex offenders tend to wash away stigma by
> moving away from their old surroundings.
Immediately, your parallel is shown to be false as I've maintained my
presence in RAB for more than eight years. You may want to check your
facts there. Let me help:
http://www.geocities.com/curt_james/RABstats.html
Those stats go back to December 2004, however Google archives would
offer posts going back years before that. Adversarial is the climate in
general in RAB and I have not shied away from that, however it's no
surprise that you would fail to quote any positive statements you could
find in RAB's archives wrt yours truly. No surprise at all, John.
Likewise, I've participated in RMH for an equal number of years. But
you know about RMH because your attempt at inflammatory cross-posting
to THAT newsgroup was met by an icy wall of silence, wasn't it?
The dynamics are notably different in each of these newsgroups, however
the fact remains that I have not moved away from "old surroundings" at
all. Oh, perhaps you're applying that with MFW as new surroundings.
Does this mean that I cannot add to my circle of newsgroups? ACS is
another ng where I have infrequently visited. Does that merit such a
parallel comment? No, not in my opinion and, I suspect, not in the
opinion of anyone with the common sense to see beyond their own nose.
Yes, it would be easy to interpret my reaction toward you as egging you
on, however I prefer to look at it as simply not buying what you're
selling. The "I'm The Monitor Here." John Williams bonus package.
Sorry, no sale.
> Unfortunately, they retain their personality characteristics.
And, sadly, so have you. Isn't there an operation for what you've got,
John?
> Requiring registration in the new town informs the
> residents of the risk.
Again, your attempted parallel is ridiculous. The risk the MFW
residents run is of being bored to death by our constant bickering. Who
will take action on that risk first? Well?
> A similar phenomenon occurs on Usenet. Sometimes,
> a person becomes a real arsehole in a certain newsgroup.
AIN'T THAT THA TRUTH????!!!!
)
> After a while, none of the regulars in that newsgroup can
> stand that person, and he is consistently insulted or ignored
> by nearly everyone but the occasional newbie who wanders in.
Again, adversarial is the nature of RAB as your little speech does not
apply to me at all wrt RMH. So with RAB in mind, I'll try to explain a
few things to you, John.
I can see why some would be annoyed by my presence in RAB. I just won't
go away. GRRRR! RAB did have a lot of patrons and many of those faces
are now gone. Those few that remain of that old group typically whine
and cry about me. And that's ALL that they do. Weird. Strike any
nerves, John?
Well, there is one who appears now and again and makes no comment re
yours truly. The smartest one of that particular bunch some would say.
Nevertheless, I've encouraged my vocal detractors to "rebuild" RAB as
they see fit, but apparently they'd much rather spend their energies on
making rude comments about me. Going so far as to following me around.
HA! Productive? I'd say no. (And, yes, I recognize the pot-kettle-black
insanity of even replying to your posts, John.)
You may get the illusion that everyone hates me on RAB. There is the
thread after all.
) However this is not the case. I write a lot. I'm
in the minority on that count so far as RAB is concerned. Review the
stats at the link above if you doubt me, John. Some others have the
inability to ignore the fact that I write a lot. Hey, now that should
ring a bell or two with you, Johnny! And so they piss and moan and,
yes, act like what you might describe as an "arsehole."
Regardless, I'll tell you what I've told them: Please don't blame your
disappointment, seeming misery and dissatisfaction on me.
John, speak with your friends, interact with anyone you please, enjoy
your artwork. I have. True. Despite what you may believe you're
achieving by using my image as a canvas of sorts, you've provided me
with more than one laugh. Often, however, that laugh is at the thought
of your more than likely wrinkled up face as you work on the creation.
heh
With RAB, as with you, I almost have to believe that new blood has some
of the old guard concerned. It's not about me. It's about change. And
that, John Williams, is something no one can stop.
Hth.
> So he moves to another newsgroup where he is an unknown.
HA! I'm no gun person, at least not since I earned that marksman ribbon
in the Navy, but shooting holes in your argument is, I suspect, like
shooting fish in a barrel.
The Queen of Cans and Jars ring any additional bells, John? Hmmm.
"So he moves to another newsgroup where he is an unknown." Is that what
you wrote?
I don't think so. And, I was visiting only to ask who won the Olympia,
Cutler or Coleman. I'm sure you remember that thread. You, like mica,
opened your yaps in a - what I'd call - confrontational or at least
less than inviting manner.
If anyone is to blame for my presence here, well, firstly it's me. As I
choose to stay. I like it here, but I will not shy from attempted abuse
and - more importantly - I love weights and improving my body, my
strength, my health. Also, I have enjoyed the virtual camaraderie I've
found in this newsgroup. You don't like that? Sucks to be you. Use the
kill file you encouraged everyone else to use on the likes of TBR.
You encouraged TBR's presence as much as anything going on his TBR's
brain, I strongly suspect. And, yes, I will say that your sniping has
encouraged me to respond in kind on more than one occasion. Plus,
again, I will thank you for your negative attitude's impact on my
weight training. Physically, I was much weaker when I made that post in
2004 than I am now. This is in part because of the motivation I gained
from choosing to listen to you whine about trolls and blablablah, on
and on. I thought, how can I participate here without actually lifting?
And so I rededicated my lifting efforts partially in response to your
whiiiiiining annoyance.
We're a matched set in that regard though, aren't we? You match me
drivel for drivel. Or you try.
You're leaps and bounds ahead of me on the jpeg/gif front as well as
web pages devoted to me, however. What's that say about you? Do seeming
STALKERS have to register anywhere?
> Unfortunately, those people retain their personality
> characteristics, and gradually, the same thing happens
> all over again.
Hmmm. Let me ask you... any parallels to the "me and you" interaction
and any other interactions you've shared in this newsgroup? Huh, John?
Does "gradually, the same thing happens all over again" apply to you
with anyone else?
A little help here! Never mind. I already know the answer.
Colossal jerk? I was wrong.
Pitiful. Sad. Bitter.
( Unfortunately, those words more accurately
describe you, John Williams.
> Often, the person will defend himself by exclaiming, "I am a courteous,
> friendly, and knowledgeable person, and there would have been no
> problem if the regulars in this newsgroup had not mistreated me!" It
> is then that the person's earlier history in another newsgroup can be
> revealing as to his real personalities traits.
Have I made such statements? I think I've commented on the
pot-kettle-blackness of it all more than once. You love Google archives
as much as I do, apparently, so why don't you take a peek there? And I
have "mistreated" you as much as you've attempted to mistreat me, imo.
Yes, I'd say I've at the very least given as good as I've got. (What
was that I said about tooting your own horn? Guilty!)
> You see, history has a habit of repeating itself.
True. And yet some people apparently never learn, do they?
> > Regardless, and as I said previously, you're a pawn here.
> > And you're apparently too stupid to realize it.
>
> Quite the opposite, dear Curt. I have been waiting quite a while
> for the RAB gang to confirm what I have been saying all along.
So you say. But I believe you lie.
You attempted the same thing with the RMH patrons, but that didn't work
out as planned, did it? So, like an unsuccessful door-to-door salesman,
you packed up your junk and peddled it elsewhere. You found your
customer, I'll give you that. But that certainly doesn't prove your
parallel at all. In fact, it makes it all the more ridiculous.
I believe you're acting like a fool, John. And I wouldn't be surprised
if that opinion is shared by others. Might want to check on that, too.
Or not. Hey, it's your reputation.
And for any who may've skipped to the bottom and prefer humor to
bickering:
http://www.cartoonstock.com/director...r_salesmen.asp
/rerun
Compassion for John Williams? I don't see it happening. Although I have
stated I would appreciate he remove his web pages which he has
currently "devoted to" yours truly. That'd be a start, but although you
may see him in a certain light (as is your right) I suspect he's
anything but deserving of your kind thoughts. Of course I could be
wrong. I have been many times in the past and expect I will be an equal
or greater number of times in the future.
--
Curt
Re: Lawyers simplified 
