From: Dene on 6 Dec 2007 00:46
On Dec 5, 9:12 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote:
> No, Greg. *Your* behaviour shows that it doesn't bother *you* that much.
> If it bothered you so much, why did you identify to whom Tex was
Alan....do you live for this kind of silly nitpicking? Isn't it ski
bum season yet? Read my original response to his insult. I used the
words, "considered the source" which means I wasn't personally
insulted by his words. They didn't bother me. My self image is
immune to his types.
> > The issue is whether it bothers you, the reader. That's the answer to
> > your question, Alan. I knew his latest insult would require some
> > context to the reader so I gave it. It isn't his first time insulting
> > my wife or another. Providing his history allows everyone to be on
> > the same page and personally deciding whether it's ok to disparage
> > somebody's wife.
> And remaining silent would have left what he said something so innocuous
> that many wouldn't have even known it was an insult...
Which is precisely why the reader needed to know the context, so they
(the reader) could decide if these types of OTT insults are
acceptable. I didn't want it to remain innocuous. It's happened
before. Will it happen again? I hope not. Perhaps a little peer
pressure might insure that wives stay out of the fray.
You're not married, are you?
From: Dene on 6 Dec 2007 01:44
On Dec 5, 8:45 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> Dene <gdst...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 2:35 pm, BAR <Screw...(a)Your.Place> wrote:
> > > You need to go see Full Metal Jacket where you will be instructed in the
> > > difference between rifles and guns.
> > I've seen it.
> But apparently learned nothing from it.
> Having done my bit in Canada's reserves, I too know the difference
> between a gun and a rifle.
A rifle is a gun. A pistol is a gun. A shotgun is a gun. Yawn.....
From: Gordo on 6 Dec 2007 04:57
"Dene" <gdstrue(a)aol.com> wrote in message
> On Dec 5, 8:43 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote:
>> If it bother's him, why would he be so willing to explain this insult so
>> that those who had no clue what it meant (such as myself) are now in on
>> > That should be considered
>> > off limits even in the world of usenet, yet it seems that Koenig gets a
>> > pass
>> > from almost everyone concerned. If it didn't bother him, I'd think
>> > that
>> > something was wrong, and I hope that others have called Koenig on the
>> > behavior.
>> But his behaviour shows that it doesn't bother him.
> It doesn't bother Koenig in the least bit. He's that type of person.
> Picture the bullying jock in middle school. That's Koenig, who never
> grew up. There's one like him at every reunion......usually
> drunk.....reliving the glory days.
> The issue is whether it bothers you, the reader. That's the answer to
> your question, Alan. I knew his latest insult would require some
> context to the reader so I gave it. It isn't his first time insulting
> my wife or another. Providing his history allows everyone to be on
> the same page and personally deciding whether it's ok to disparage
> somebody's wife.
So, let me get this straight. Dene, you're being roasted now because you
gave the context on the insult from Tex against your wife?? Unbelievable.
He's proving that he's contemptible and there have been a few from his
circle of friends that have called him on it, but I'm confused why Baker
would allow the criticism simply because you (who's wife was insulted) chose
From: John van der Pflum on 6 Dec 2007 08:59
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:39:58 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight(a)conramp.net>
>On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:20:44 -0500, John van der Pflum
>>On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:52:08 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight(a)conramp.net>
>>>John, there are posters on RSG who use handles that you don't know.
>>>That is the point. Just because someone prefers to remain anon, and I
>>>don't include the nomens and Pseudo Borks (who should be kill filed)
>>>doesn't mean that they can't post a reasonable question. It's done
>>>all of the time.
>>I completely agree with all of the above paragraph.
>>>Oh, and the charge that I post anonymously is patently false.
>>Very true, Roger Gibson. :-)
>Who the hell is Roger Gibson?????
Your real name since you hide behind that Bobby Knight alias. Duh.
From: John van der Pflum on 6 Dec 2007 09:03
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:05:05 -0500, "Steve S"
>"glfnaz" <glfnaz(a)qwesttrash.com> wrote in message
>> You like San Adams?
>Is that Spanish beer?