>, "azure" <ladybluex1...@xhotmail.com> wrote: >"STAAMFA" <STAAM...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> "Virtualoso"
>> | > ... After all, this NG is about recovery from the 12 steps. >> | >> | And recovery from the 12 Steps is done just how...
>> ...with steppers constantly intruding demanding and >> insisting just that with more interest in the asking of >> it, in an effort to disrupt the doing of it, than the how >> or why of it..
>yep.
>imagine the fear that must propel such tenacity.
>azure
I thought it was propelled by all that " serenity" they had !
On Tue, 08 Oct 2002 14:03:55 GMT, "STAAMFA" <STAAM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Tex"
>| "AngryJohn" <J...@angryjohn.net wrote: >| >| >Otherwise known as the programming overcame all reason and logic. >| >| Drunk is where & when the reason and logic went flying out the window >| ...haha!
>I'm confused isn't that what AA's say they are? Drunks. Seems like you're >picking a non-existing nit with John here. Sounds like you two are in >agreement here. ....hoho!
Some say they are drunks and some don't....some prefer to say they are alcoholics...then too, some say the difference is alcoholics go to AA meetings. Now how can I be the one picking the nit when my post is in response to John's to mine..also if it's non-exiting how can it be picked?
Tried ear candling? It would help with the hearing if you think it sounds like agreement.....Ding Dong!
______________________________________________________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
On Tue, 08 Oct 2002 14:03:54 GMT, "STAAMFA" <STAAM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Tex"
>| >Ok, but how about all of us who did and when cajoled, ordered, forced or >| >coerced into xa were totally and completely repulsed by its traditions? >| >| Most coerced in xa don't get to/past the steps let alone to the >| traditions.
>Name the names of the individuals that don't get to/past the steps let alone >to the traditions?
Judy, Jack, Ron, Fred, Alice, and Bobby to name a few.
>The truth is you can't possibly know that. And since most coerced are >grilled on which step they're on and their progress with the steps, either >by their recovering EAP creeps or their recovering treatment field workers >and other recovering coercers, and their recovery is partially if not wholly >measured by their progress with the steps by their coercers you're just flat >out wrong. Period.
The above might be true in some places....it sure doesn't represent the area where I'm from. Hell, even the Judge told me when I took my card instead of going to jail...the real measurement would be if I ever stood before him facing charges again. The Judge wasn't talking steps, the probation officer wasn't talking steps and the court counselor wasn't talking steps and he even went so far as to say they had so many card carriers they couldn't/didn't track them...just waited for them to show up before the bench again.
You and others call it coerced....fine. Myself, I call it getting a break.
>|Seems someone is bullshitting the bullshitters!
>errrmm Wasn't he talking to you? Do you feel bullshitted?
I've bullshitted and been bullshitted...what's you point?
______________________________________________________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
| | > "Virtualoso" | > | > | > ... After all, this NG is about recovery from the 12 steps. | > | | > | And recovery from the 12 Steps is done just how... | > | > ...with steppers constantly intruding demanding and insisting just that with | > more interest in the asking of it, in an effort to disrupt the doing of it, | > than the how or why of it.. | | Except the thing about NG's is that no one posting "intrudes" on | whatever anyone else is posting.
Just the newsgroup itself.
|If there was any particular "doing of | it" then there just would be.
| | > | >"Tex" | > | >| >Ok, but how about all of us who did and when cajoled, ordered, forced or | >| >coerced into xa were totally and completely repulsed by its traditions? | >| | >| Most coerced in xa don't get to/past the steps let alone to the | >| traditions. | > | >Name the names of the individuals that don't get to/past the steps let alone | >to the traditions? | > | | Judy, Jack, Ron, Fred, Alice, and Bobby to name a few.
Firs and Last names and proof that they didn't get to the steps.
| | >The truth is you can't possibly know that. And since most coerced are | >grilled on which step they're on and their progress with the steps, either | >by their recovering EAP creeps or their recovering treatment field workers | >and other recovering coercers, and their recovery is partially if not wholly | >measured by their progress with the steps by their coercers you're just flat | >out wrong. Period. | > | | The above might be true in some places....
all places where they accept coerced people to AA.
|it sure doesn't represent | the area where I'm from.
Among steppers and their supporters it never does of course.
|Hell, even the Judge told me when I took my | card instead of going to jail...the real measurement would be if I | ever stood before him facing charges again. The Judge wasn't talking | steps, the probation officer wasn't talking steps and the court | counselor wasn't talking steps and he even went so far as to say they | had so many card carriers they couldn't/didn't track them...just | waited for them to show up before the bench again.
The card was handed you none the less. If you were cought not honoring the order you would have faced the consequences.
| You and others call it coerced....fine. Myself, I call it getting a | break.
You can call it what you like. I call it what it is.
| | >|Seems someone is bullshitting the bullshitters! | > | >errrmm Wasn't he talking to you? Do you feel bullshitted? | >
| I've bullshitted and been bullshitted...what's you point?
| | > "Virtualoso" | > | > | "After all, this NG is about recovery from the 12 steps." | > | > Recovery.from-12-steps | > | > not recovery.from-the-12-steps. | > | > | Except for how much it isn't about any such thing at all. | > | > | > And if you would just get on with discussing your need for recovery from 12 | > steps, which your presence here would tend to indicate you needed, maybe we | > could see just that from you since you are here after all presumably to | > recover from 12 steps. | | You presume.
HOW DARE YOU SIR! You prsume far too much. lol
|This is a discussion NG right,
yes.
|not necessarily a personal | "need" NG.
really?
|Or is that your own main interest -- to tackle folks based | on just their personal needs?
Well vert, that would seem to be exactly what you do when you come here and demand explanations for what recovery.from12 steps is knowing full well that you don't believe any such thing is possible. In effect you main interest is in tackling folks based on your personal perception of they may or may not feel are their needs.
|How long you been on this NG? Does all | that indicate your need for recovery?
But virt, you silly little man, was it not you that just noted that personal need is not necessary?
|Seems that Fransway and perhaps | Vorous may have finally recovered, indicated by their seeming absence | from participating with this NG at all anymore.
lol we stop irritating you by posting here then we're recovered by some sick estimation of whatever it is you think we're recovering from, even as you post that no personal need/recovery is necessary for posting her.
| | > | >"Tex" | > | >| "AngryJohn" <J...@angryjohn.net wrote: | >| | >| >Otherwise known as the programming overcame all reason and logic. | >| | >| Drunk is where & when the reason and logic went flying out the window | >| ...haha! | > | >I'm confused isn't that what AA's say they are? Drunks. Seems like you're | >picking a non-existing nit with John here. Sounds like you two are in | >agreement here. ....hoho! | > | > | Some say they are drunks and some don't....
Most do, some don't.
|some prefer to say they are | alcoholics...
Most say that they are alcoholics, prefer to say that, who knows?
|then too, some say the difference is alcoholics go to AA | meetings.
The some would be very intelligent to say that. The making of an alcoholic is in the making of a member.
|Now how can I be the one picking the nit when my post is in | response to John's to mine..
The same way I'm picking a nit in response to the response of the post in which you picked a non-existent nit with John's.
|also if it's non-exiting how can it be | picked?
Exactly. It can't. So stop trying to.
| | Tried ear candling?
What ever is ear candling? Is that some stepper 13th stepping thing?
|It would help with the hearing if you think it | sounds like agreement.....Ding Dong!
hello! sarcasm. It was a play on your words Ding Dong!
> |then too, some say the difference is alcoholics go to AA > | meetings.
> The some would be very intelligent to say that. The making of an alcoholic > is in the making of a member.
That would be aside from what the experts in the field say:
{excerpt from Dr. Chapman, Univ. faculty member, reporting on a talk given by Prof. Vaillant to the Harvard Medical School¹s Dept. of Continuing Education on recent knowledge of Alcoholics and Alcoholism]
³Standing Ovation For Harvard Professor.
I have never heard an audience clap as long, loudly and spontaneously ...
He said that AA is "more like penicillin than the Moonies". He reiterated the theme outlined in [his acclaimed book] The Natural History of Alcoholism by stating that there are ... factors associated with sustained recovery from addictions: ... [including] Increased spirituality and religiosity. He then went on to explain how AA embodies each of the factors.
...AA provides new, mutually caring relationships, uncomplicated ... the 12 steps are spiritual, and recovering alcoholics need [that]...
He went on with consummate subtlety to link the spirituality of AA ... to Jung's notion of humanity linked in common spirituality ... which in turn he linked to the ... way they effect deeper brain structures, inaccessible to logic, willpower, psychoanalysis or CBT. ... Thus he contended that AA's spirituality affects those parts of the brain otherwise inaccessible to treatment.
He told us that AA works. Emrich's recent review showed that attendance at AA meetings, having an AA sponsor and doing the 12 steps all correlated with good outcome in several studies. Project Match showed some superiority of Twelve Step Facilitation over CBT at 3 year follow up. And Bill Miller, once an important protagonist of controlled drinking, found at 8 year follow up that most of his good outcome patients, selected as aspirant controlled drinkers, had achieved abstinence through AA. ...
Lastly he told us why AA is not a cult: (i) The strict outlines of recovery AA style are solely to produce liberty and longevity. All components of AA are voluntary. (ii) No AA member has power over another one. (iii) AA members are not separated from the rest of the community - you can be shunned in one AA meeting and comfortable in another - the old AA saying is that "All it takes for a new meeting is a resentment and a coffee pot." (iv) AA recruits by attraction not promotion. (v) The Twelve Traditions are an important preventive measure to cult like behaviour. (vi) AA has a sense of humour. ...
'It was a wonderful experience just to be in an audience so warmly appreciative of such a major intellect and contributor to our field.' comments Dr Stephen Jurd, Psychiatrist, Head of Drug and Alcohol Department, Royal North Shore Hospital
<STAAM...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Virtualoso" <virtual...@innocent.com> wrote in message > | > | You presume.
> HOW DARE YOU SIR! You prsume far too much. lol
> |This is a discussion NG right,
> yes.
> |not necessarily a personal > | "need" NG.
> really?
> |Or is that your own main interest -- to tackle folks based > | on just their personal needs?
> Well vert, that would seem to be exactly what you do when you come here and > ... knowing full well that you ... In effect you main interest > is ...
Mind reading again? Or just making it all up, as usual.
> |Seems that Fransway and perhaps > | Vorous may have finally recovered, indicated by their seeming absence > | from participating with this NG at all anymore.
> lol we stop irritating you by posting here then we're recovered by some sick > estimation of whatever it is you think we're recovering from, even as you > post that no personal need/recovery is necessary for posting her.
> How terribly inconsistent you are virt.
You're frothing at the mouth again. You regard actually "recovering from the 12 steps" and discontinuing extensive ranting about those dour takes on things as "sick"? Tsk, tsk. You're not done with all your own extensive rantings, apparently. But at least you have the inspiration of more truly free persons, like RF that explained she'd finally realized that such ranting was just a needless waste of time, not worth continuing. You'll get there, eventually, and finally obtain to a similar freedom and more comfortable life yourself, maybe. Recovered, rather than recovering?
Can't remember what it is you're looking for - But these are free, and to the best of my knowledge, non-licence - I O W, they don't need a licence, becaue they are no longer supported. Cheers Tommy
> > It's a massive 600 meg file, and I've lost the install disk (for 3.25 > > floppy). However, if you are still interested, contact me off-list. > > mc > Nah, better not, that'd make you an international pirate. Charles would want > to keel haul you or make you walk the plank. > Kev
In article <f166quop2kvm9ev1e308kug76g81mkk...@4ax.com>, GaryE
<garye...@swbell.net> wrote: > ... If you choose, to do a personal > character assassination to make your point, then you have company. > If they can't take it, they shouldn't dish it out.. "But you said it > first...nananana" Some kid games never get put away, right? > I think people have a right to speak or write what they think. Hopefully > without ad hominem response ... Virt's nonsense ... but I can't understand Virt. > ... by now you must know that I am a strong advocate of returning what people > dish out to me. RIK. Response in Kind. ... > If I am wrong, I promptly admit it. > I had a hard feeling about a certain brand of AA... but which is unfair in > the sense that it's an generalization that only applies to a few ... > When I see those 'ghosts' ... it's a fair trade I guess.
You're a strong advocate of RIK? But not ad hominem? Or is that only "in response" but not when initiated? It's probably not too risky to admit when you're "wrong" when playing it both (or more) ways all at once, eh? What could be wrong with that?
Hard feelings, dishing it out and seeing ghosts, indeed. The Boogeymen "Thumpers" and feared "Fundamentalists" even where there are none. Other than in your own personal Xray vision and mind reading not-understanding, that is. Not that that is being "wrong," even if just not real. But who did so "first" is your main criteria?
Uh, what ... or who... was your topic here?
"I'd just like to see someone talk about my statements, my ideas, my opinions,. Is that possible? You can see how difficult it is." - GaryE
On Tue, 08 Oct 2002 17:20:17 GMT, "STAAMFA" <STAAM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>|It would help with the hearing if you think it >| sounds like agreement.....Ding Dong!
>hello! sarcasm. It was a play on your words Ding Dong!
No...ding dong was a play on your ho ho...like in cupcakes!
Just heard about ear candling about 6 months ago...not a stepper deal at all...just an great way to clean one's ears out...helps the sinus' too.
______________________________________________________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
>"STAAMFA" <STAAM...@yahoo.com> >| wrote: >| >| > >| >"Tex" >| > >| >| >Ok, but how about all of us who did and when cajoled, ordered, forced >or >| >| >coerced into xa were totally and completely repulsed by its >traditions? >| >| >| >| Most coerced in xa don't get to/past the steps let alone to the >| >| traditions. >| > >| >Name the names of the individuals that don't get to/past the steps let >alone >| >to the traditions? >| > >| >| Judy, Jack, Ron, Fred, Alice, and Bobby to name a few.
>Firs and Last names and proof that they didn't get to the steps.
Proof ...Poof...Jackson, Jones, Doe, and Watson...call 1-800-FuckMe...leave your mailing address and a copy of their confessions will be sent to you ...COD of course!
>| >| >The truth is you can't possibly know that. And since most coerced are >| >grilled on which step they're on and their progress with the steps, >either >| >by their recovering EAP creeps or their recovering treatment field >workers >| >and other recovering coercers, and their recovery is partially if not >wholly >| >measured by their progress with the steps by their coercers you're just >flat >| >out wrong. Period. >| > >| >| The above might be true in some places....
>all places where they accept coerced people to AA.
Who accepts what? AA lets anyone through the doors in most instances...even you. And no not all places...
>|it sure doesn't represent >| the area where I'm from.
>Among steppers and their supporters it never does of course.
To vague to give credence to your argument here.
>|Hell, even the Judge told me when I took my >| card instead of going to jail...the real measurement would be if I >| ever stood before him facing charges again. The Judge wasn't talking >| steps, the probation officer wasn't talking steps and the court >| counselor wasn't talking steps and he even went so far as to say they >| had so many card carriers they couldn't/didn't track them...just >| waited for them to show up before the bench again.
>The card was handed you none the less. If you were cought not honoring the >order you would have faced the consequences.
The point was they weren't worried about catching me....if I got drunk I'd catch myself...and the consequences would have been for the crime not the going or not going or step taking or not.
>| You and others call it coerced....fine. Myself, I call it getting a >| break.
>You can call it what you like. I call it what it is.
For you, yes. For me, No. Big deal!
>| >| >|Seems someone is bullshitting the bullshitters! >| > >| >errrmm Wasn't he talking to you? Do you feel bullshitted? >| >
>| I've bullshitted and been bullshitted...what's you point?
>You just made it for me.
You saying you haven't? Haha!
______________________________________________________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
>>It wasn't. I stated when things happened. Period. I understand that many >> with an ax to grind have decided the chronology makes AA to >>blame.....but then many others, also with some sort of ax to grind have >>decided the chronology makes MM to blame. Personally, I find both camps >>on that argument to be pretty asinine.
>>Things happened the way they did.
> You still haven't explained how you know this.
Ummmm.....all the reports, including newspapers, at the time.
Oh wait....I forgot. We're only supposed to take what *you* say at face value. Newspapers, her own quotes, her own version of the timing, as well as the versions of those around her quoted in the media really don't count in the face of Buddy's "If Tara Says It, It CAN'T Be True" view of the world.
GaryE wrote: > > You tag onto Tara's nonsense, for whatever reason, trying to make > >yourself appear to be the open-minded, free-thinking voice of reason, > >which you aren't, I would imagine, and you expect no response...??
> I am open minded to an extent Tom. I changed from a believer to an > agnostic. That took some open mind to change what I had held and > identified with for 40 some odd years. I think people have a right to > speak or write what they think. Hopefully without ad hominem response > but hey, so I'm naive too. I expect you will respond until you face > drops Tom. Be my guest. RIK, you're tagging onto Virt's nonsense and > I can understand Tara but I can't understand Virt. Suppose I have a > learning defect?
I haven't tagged onto Virt's anything. Virt and I, in regards to the way we work the program/think about A.A. are about as dissimilar as you can get... He impresses me as a religious type; I'm certainly not that. I also don't blindly defend A.A... It really pisses me off when people try to portray me as a Big Book thumper, as Tara seemed to be doing, when they don't even know me... I've been kicked off damn near every mail list on the Internet because I refuse to blindly follow their particular party line... I have little patience with most of the arfer's because they can't specifically state what they find wrong with A.A. other than vague generalizations...
> > It's the truth... I used to be a member of that Lamplighter > >abomination... I decided it was shit, left, and haven't looked > >back... Even there, though, I can recognize a few good things > >that I picked up there... You can't sem to do the same about A.A. > >to save yourself...
> Errr Tom, this is Usenet. Not AA. With the exception of my close > friends 27th AA anniversary I haven't been to a meeting in over six > years. Does that meet your criteria for me?
This is as about as close to ameeting as I've been to in a while myself... You can say this is usenet not A.A. all you like, but it's still an association with A.A... Your "meeting", if you will... This "meeting" seems to be keepin' me sober, I haven't been to a face to face meeting in a long time myself...
> I know from personal > >exerience that online stuff takes up more time than face to face > >ever did for me.
> I used to spend a hour a day for five years in a regular home group > meeting, a couple of speaker meetings a week on top of that, and one > other group that a friend of mine had started I attended once in a > while. I also did a fair amount of service work.
No way in hell am I going to devote that kind of time to A.A. or anything else... You weren't a member, you were a goddam fanatic... Screw service work... I give the local Alano club that I go to every now and then a check every year... They need money and I consider that doing my part...
> So the time I spend > here is minuscule compared to that. But there are people who spend a > great deal of time here, right? I agree with that. I don't know what > that means. If they feel they benefit from it, more power. It's no > skin off my back.
> I spend a couple of hours a night readin' this stuff, > >as opposed to one hour a week face to face... Simple math...
> Thou sayeth.
And it be so... For me, online A.A. takes ten times the amount of time face to face takes... About the only plusses are I don't have to listen to them chant prayers, or smile at some peckerhead I don't know or like...
> ><the rest snipped because I'm off to work> You hear only what > >you want to hear anyway, so it's pointless... Have a good day, > >Gary...:O)
> Nice to see you smile Tom. I don't want to wind up on your enemies > list because I haven't got the time you have to write all these posts.
It takes a lot more than it used to to get on my enemies list... I don't really have that much of one anymore... It ain't worth the trouble...
Tom
\\\|/// \\ - - // ( @ @ ) ---oOOo-(_)-oOOo------------------------------- Tom Gosnell t...@thegoz.com --------------Oooo----------------------------- oooO ( ) ( ) ) / To visit my Website... \ ( (_/ Click there --> http://www.thegoz.com \_)
manofh...@webtv.net (Henry Cotter) wrote in message <news:5350-3D97F4DC-775@storefull-2316.public.lawson.webtv.net>... > I often get this garbage from AA true believers that the 12 Steps are > "spiritual and not religious." I wonder how they can say this with a > straight face knowing full well that God is mentioned in *6* of these > Steps.
Agreed. Here's my slant on "Spiritual or Religious"
> In article <fBBo9.11$X...@news1.central.cox.net>, STAAMFA > <STAAM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Virtualoso"
> > | "After all, this NG is about recovery from the 12 steps."
> > Recovery.from-12-steps
> > not recovery.from-the-12-steps.
> > | Except for how much it isn't about any such thing at all.
> > And if you would just get on with discussing your need for recovery from 12 > > steps, which your presence here would tend to indicate you needed, maybe we > > could see just that from you since you are here after all presumably to > > recover from 12 steps.
> You presume. This is a discussion NG right, not necessarily a personal > "need" NG. Or is that your own main interest -- to tackle folks based > on just their personal needs? How long you been on this NG? Does all > that indicate your need for recovery? Seems that Fransway and perhaps > Vorous may have finally recovered, indicated by their seeming absence > from participating with this NG at all anymore.
Most people most likely stop posting here because of STAAMFA's controlling argumentative no it all style of posting.
Virtualoso wrote: > {excerpt from Dr. Chapman, Univ. faculty member, reporting on a talk > given by Prof. Vaillant to the Harvard Medical School¹s Dept. of > Continuing Education on recent knowledge of Alcoholics and Alcoholism]
> ³Standing Ovation For Harvard Professor.
> I have never heard an audience clap as long, loudly and spontaneously > ...
> He said that AA is "more like penicillin than the Moonies". He > reiterated the theme outlined in [his acclaimed book] The Natural > History of Alcoholism by stating that there are ... factors associated > with sustained recovery from addictions: ... > [including] Increased spirituality and religiosity. He then went > on to explain how AA embodies each of the factors.
> ...AA provides new, mutually caring relationships, uncomplicated ... > the 12 steps are spiritual, and recovering alcoholics need [that]...
> He went on with consummate subtlety to link the spirituality of AA ... > to Jung's notion of humanity linked in common spirituality ... which in > turn he linked to the ... way they effect deeper brain structures, > inaccessible to logic, willpower, psychoanalysis or CBT. ... Thus he > contended that AA's spirituality affects those parts of the brain > otherwise inaccessible to treatment.
Careful Virt, you'll be slipping into that collective unconscious angle.
> Lastly he told us why AA is not a cult: (i) The strict outlines of > recovery AA style are solely to produce liberty and longevity. All > components of AA are voluntary. (ii) No AA member has power over > another one. (iii) AA members are not separated from the rest of the > community - you can be shunned in one AA meeting and comfortable in > another - the old AA saying is that "All it takes for a new meeting is > a resentment and a coffee pot." (iv) AA recruits by attraction not > promotion. (v) The Twelve Traditions are an important preventive > measure to cult like behaviour. (vi) AA has a sense > of humour. ...
>>> You tag onto Tara's nonsense, for whatever reason, trying to make >>>yourself appear to be the open-minded, free-thinking voice of reason, >>>which you aren't, I would imagine, and you expect no response...??
>>I am open minded to an extent Tom. I changed from a believer to an >>agnostic. That took some open mind to change what I had held and >>identified with for 40 some odd years. I think people have a right to >>speak or write what they think. Hopefully without ad hominem response >>but hey, so I'm naive too. I expect you will respond until you face >>drops Tom. Be my guest. RIK, you're tagging onto Virt's nonsense and >>I can understand Tara but I can't understand Virt. Suppose I have a >>learning defect?
> I haven't tagged onto Virt's anything. Virt and I, in regards to > the way we work the program/think about A.A. are about as > dissimilar as you can get... He impresses me as a religious type; > I'm certainly not that. I also don't blindly defend A.A... It really > pisses me off when people try to portray me as a Big Book > thumper, as Tara seemed to be doing, when they don't even > know me...
This is getting really incredible, Tom. You are ascribing all kinds of things to me that never even happened.
And you called *me* delusional.
When have I *ever* stated, or even outright implied that you are a "thumper" of any variety.
Its coming across though you just decided you didn't care for me (which I truly have no problem with, by the way) and then you can't help but filter everything you read of mine through that. You have now come up with two things I never said, nor implied.....in only two days. Keep up the good work, Tom. Next you'll be saying that I accused you of being from another planet sent here to cultivate human snack packs in meetings. Jeez.
Virtualoso wrote: > In article <3DA36B4E.1070...@verizon.net>, Tara > <tara.gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Next you'll be saying that I accused you of being >>from another planet ...
> No, that's Buddy's deal about me. How on... well, earth ... did such a > thing even occur to you. You wouldn't to start sounding like Buddy, > would you?
I told you.....I'm only Buddy when I put on my Carmen Miranda banana hat.
Its in the cleaners, so I don't know *who* that is pretending to be Buddy these days. Some other impostor, I suppose.
> Most people most likely stop posting here because of STAAMFA's controlling > argumentative no it all style of posting.
Know is the word you were looking for. No does not mean what you intended in the above sentence. Haven't seen you offer up any facts to counter any of the things STAAMFA has posted. Sounds more like sour grapes waterboy, you just don't have what it takes to win the argument because what you need does not exist.
Tara wrote in message <3DA358F2.1090...@verizon.net>... >Buddy H. wrote: >> Tara wrote:
>>>It wasn't. I stated when things happened. Period. I understand that many >>> with an ax to grind have decided the chronology makes AA to >>>blame.....but then many others, also with some sort of ax to grind have >>>decided the chronology makes MM to blame. Personally, I find both camps >>>on that argument to be pretty asinine.
>>>Things happened the way they did.
>> You still haven't explained how you know this.
>Ummmm.....all the reports, including newspapers, at the time.
Whatever happened to anonymity at the level of press.. etc.
>Oh wait....I forgot. We're only supposed to take what *you* say at face >value. Newspapers, her own quotes, her own version of the timing, as >well as the versions of those around her quoted in the media really >don't count in the face of Buddy's "If Tara Says It, It CAN'T Be True" >view of the world.
Could 'anything' she said have been at the suggestion of her attorney? She was going to court, right? Maybe the earlier email to MM was because of some 'prior' offense.. we don't really 'know' squat, do we?
|
