My apology to sky
 

To sky. I should never have brought these things up here on rfc.

However, in my defense I also don't feel I should be nagged in chat about
what my insurance riders or what freezer I bought. You're free to offer an
opinion but hey, you aren't the one paying for it. I didn't tell you what
tile to put down when you re-decorated.

As for what is "said in chat stays in chat", it's not like we are discussing
state secrets. I would never disclose intimate, personal information unless
someone told me I could. But that whole thing about "what is said in chat
stays in chat" is just stupid. We're just chatting. I don't even
understand that phrase as it applies to Las Vegas (not that I would ever go
to Vegas). Half the time in chat we're talking about music, DVD's, movies
or the weather. What's the big deal? What should we be keeping a secret.

Anyway, I apoligze to sky for getting upset and mentioning it here. But I
will be 50 years old in July so if someone talks to me like I'm 20 I'm
definitely going to take exception.

Jill

My apology to sky
 

jmcquown wrote:

> To sky. I should never have brought these things up here on rfc.
>

email or chat with this garbage

Nobody gives a shit


--
Mort

My apology to sky
 

Mort wrote:

> jmcquown wrote:
>
>> To sky. I should never have brought these things up here on rfc.
>>
>
> email or chat with this garbage
>
> Nobody gives a shit


Jill can't help it...she's "extremely self - absorbed", ya see...


--
Best
Greg

My apology to sky
 

Ah8h, yes. The self-righteous drama queen is back in her true form.

So, are there any fat or ugly people at HR Block?

-sw


jmcquown wrote:
> To sky. I should never have brought these things up here on rfc.
>
> However, in my defense I also don't feel I should be nagged in chat
> about what my insurance riders or what freezer I bought. You're free to
> offer an opinion but hey, you aren't the one paying for it. I didn't
> tell you what tile to put down when you re-decorated.
>
> As for what is "said in chat stays in chat", it's not like we are
> discussing state secrets. I would never disclose intimate, personal
> information unless someone told me I could. But that whole thing about
> "what is said in chat stays in chat" is just stupid. We're just
> chatting. I don't even understand that phrase as it applies to Las Vegas
> (not that I would ever go to Vegas). Half the time in chat we're talking
> about music, DVD's, movies or the weather. What's the big deal? What
> should we be keeping a secret.
>
> Anyway, I apoligze to sky for getting upset and mentioning it here. But
> I will be 50 years old in July so if someone talks to me like I'm 20 I'm
> definitely going to take exception.
>
> Jill

My apology to sky
 

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:05:07 -0500, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

>To sky. I should never have brought these things up here on rfc.
>
>However, in my defense

Oh yes. Sounds like the start of a genuine apology. NOT

Ya twit.

Lou

My apology to sky
 

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> To sky. I should never have brought these things up here on rfc.
>
> However, in my defense I also don't feel I should be nagged in chat about
> what my insurance riders or what freezer I bought. You're free to offer
> an opinion but hey, you aren't the one paying for it. I didn't tell you
> what tile to put down when you re-decorated.
>
> As for what is "said in chat stays in chat", it's not like we are
> discussing state secrets. I would never disclose intimate, personal
> information unless someone told me I could. But that whole thing about
> "what is said in chat stays in chat" is just stupid. We're just chatting.
> I don't even understand that phrase as it applies to Las Vegas (not that I
> would ever go to Vegas). Half the time in chat we're talking about music,
> DVD's, movies or the weather. What's the big deal? What should we be
> keeping a secret.
>
> Anyway, I apoligze to sky for getting upset and mentioning it here. But I
> will be 50 years old in July so if someone talks to me like I'm 20 I'm
> definitely going to take exception.
>
> Jill
>
Jill, I admire you for having the strength to say what you have said above.
Most, like some above in this thread are incapable of apologizing. They
don't have enough sense of self worth, or ego to say "I made a mistake".
They do everything "correctly" the first time. These are people who fail in
life, or part of their lives and in general don't recognize that.. I've
always felt that a high fraction of ongoing posters are losers, at least in
a significant portion of their lives. That's why we need to post.

Kent
_______

Constantly struggling with my level of ignorance

My apology to sky
 

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:40:46 -0800, "Kent" > wrote:

>
>"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
>> To sky. I should never have brought these things up here on rfc.
>>
>> However, in my defense I also don't feel I should be nagged in chat about
>> what my insurance riders or what freezer I bought. You're free to offer
>> an opinion but hey, you aren't the one paying for it. I didn't tell you
>> what tile to put down when you re-decorated.
>>
>> As for what is "said in chat stays in chat", it's not like we are
>> discussing state secrets. I would never disclose intimate, personal
>> information unless someone told me I could. But that whole thing about
>> "what is said in chat stays in chat" is just stupid. We're just chatting.
>> I don't even understand that phrase as it applies to Las Vegas (not that I
>> would ever go to Vegas). Half the time in chat we're talking about music,
>> DVD's, movies or the weather. What's the big deal? What should we be
>> keeping a secret.
>>
>> Anyway, I apoligze to sky for getting upset and mentioning it here. But I
>> will be 50 years old in July so if someone talks to me like I'm 20 I'm
>> definitely going to take exception.
>>
>> Jill
>>
>Jill, I admire you for having the strength to say what you have said above.
>Most, like some above in this thread are incapable of apologizing. They
>don't have enough sense of self worth, or ego to say "I made a mistake".
>They do everything "correctly" the first time. These are people who fail in
>life, or part of their lives and in general don't recognize that.. I've
>always felt that a high fraction of ongoing posters are losers, at least in
>a significant portion of their lives. That's why we need to post.

Thanks to you and jill for being the moral fiber of RFC

Lou

My apology to sky
 

jmcquown wrote:

> I will be 50 years old in July so if someone talks to me like I'm 20 I'm
> definitely going to take exception.
>
> Jill

I know exactly what you mean, my response to it in "chat" as much as
anywhere else is to ignore it or abruptly change the subject, and if i
want to "stick it" to the offending person i will play dumb, and
sometimes manage get them very upset with my apparent mental torpidity:)
--

Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.

Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky.../sf_anthem.mp3

My apology to sky
 

"Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:40:46 -0800, "Kent" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
>>> To sky. I should never have brought these things up here on rfc.
>>>
>>> However, in my defense I also don't feel I should be nagged in chat
>>> about
>>> what my insurance riders or what freezer I bought. You're free to offer
>>> an opinion but hey, you aren't the one paying for it. I didn't tell you
>>> what tile to put down when you re-decorated.
>>>
>>> As for what is "said in chat stays in chat", it's not like we are
>>> discussing state secrets. I would never disclose intimate, personal
>>> information unless someone told me I could. But that whole thing about
>>> "what is said in chat stays in chat" is just stupid. We're just
>>> chatting.
>>> I don't even understand that phrase as it applies to Las Vegas (not that
>>> I
>>> would ever go to Vegas). Half the time in chat we're talking about
>>> music,
>>> DVD's, movies or the weather. What's the big deal? What should we be
>>> keeping a secret.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I apoligze to sky for getting upset and mentioning it here. But
>>> I
>>> will be 50 years old in July so if someone talks to me like I'm 20 I'm
>>> definitely going to take exception.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>>
>>Jill, I admire you for having the strength to say what you have said
>>above.
>>Most, like some above in this thread are incapable of apologizing. They
>>don't have enough sense of self worth, or ego to say "I made a mistake".
>>They do everything "correctly" the first time. These are people who fail
>>in
>>life, or part of their lives and in general don't recognize that.. I've
>>always felt that a high fraction of ongoing posters are losers, at least
>>in
>>a significant portion of their lives. That's why we need to post.
>
> Thanks to you and jill for being the moral fiber of RFC
>
> Lou
>
>
Lou, I'm not saying I don't have the same problem. I'm not placing myself
above the group.I said "That's why we need to post"

Kent,
___
, constantly struggling with my level of ignorance,

My apology to sky
 

Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:40:46 -0800, "Kent" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> To sky. I should never have brought these things up here on rfc.
>>>
>>> However, in my defense I also don't feel I should be nagged in chat
>>> about what my insurance riders or what freezer I bought. You're
>>> free to offer an opinion but hey, you aren't the one paying for it.
>>> I didn't tell you what tile to put down when you re-decorated.
>>>
>>> As for what is "said in chat stays in chat", it's not like we are
>>> discussing state secrets. I would never disclose intimate, personal
>>> information unless someone told me I could. But that whole thing
>>> about "what is said in chat stays in chat" is just stupid. We're
>>> just chatting. I don't even understand that phrase as it applies to
>>> Las Vegas (not that I would ever go to Vegas). Half the time in
>>> chat we're talking about music, DVD's, movies or the weather.
>>> What's the big deal? What should we be keeping a secret.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I apoligze to sky for getting upset and mentioning it here.
>>> But I will be 50 years old in July so if someone talks to me like
>>> I'm 20 I'm definitely going to take exception.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>>
>> Jill, I admire you for having the strength to say what you have said
>> above. Most, like some above in this thread are incapable of
>> apologizing. They don't have enough sense of self worth, or ego to
>> say "I made a mistake". They do everything "correctly" the first
>> time. These are people who fail in life, or part of their lives and
>> in general don't recognize that.. I've always felt that a high
>> fraction of ongoing posters are losers, at least in a significant
>> portion of their lives. That's why we need to post.
>
> Thanks to you and jill for being the moral fiber of RFC
>


Remind to send Kent and Jill some lumber, Lou...that way they can build thei
r crosses even *higher*...


--
Best
Greg

My apology to sky
 

jmcquown wrote:
> To sky. I should never have brought these things up here on rfc.
>
> However, in my defense I also don't feel I should be nagged in chat
> about what my insurance riders or what freezer I bought. You're free
> to offer an opinion but hey, you aren't the one paying for it. I
> didn't tell you what tile to put down when you re-decorated.
>
> As for what is "said in chat stays in chat", it's not like we are
> discussing state secrets. I would never disclose intimate, personal
> information unless someone told me I could. But that whole thing
> about "what is said in chat stays in chat" is just stupid. We're just
> chatting. I don't even understand that phrase as it applies to Las
> Vegas (not that I would ever go to Vegas). Half the time in chat
> we're talking about music, DVD's, movies or the weather. What's the
> big deal? What should we be keeping a secret.
>
> Anyway, I apoligze to sky for getting upset and mentioning it here.
> But I will be 50 years old in July so if someone talks to me like I'm
> 20 I'm definitely going to take exception.
>
> Jill

That's one very weak apology, and you did "disclose intimate, personal
information" not that long ago from a source that can can no longer
defend herself. You are a narcissist. It's obvious as hell.

Bruce

My apology to sky
 

Lou Decruss wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:40:46 -0800, > wrote:
>
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> To sky. I should never have brought these things up here on rfc.
>>>
>>> However, in my defense I also don't feel I should be nagged in chat about
>>> what my insurance riders or what freezer I bought. You're free to offer
>>> an opinion but hey, you aren't the one paying for it. I didn't tell you
>>> what tile to put down when you re-decorated.
>>>
>>> As for what is "said in chat stays in chat", it's not like we are
>>> discussing state secrets. I would never disclose intimate, personal
>>> information unless someone told me I could. But that whole thing about
>>> "what is said in chat stays in chat" is just stupid. We're just chatting.
>>> I don't even understand that phrase as it applies to Las Vegas (not that I
>>> would ever go to Vegas). Half the time in chat we're talking about music,
>>> DVD's, movies or the weather. What's the big deal? What should we be
>>> keeping a secret.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I apoligze to sky for getting upset and mentioning it here. But I
>>> will be 50 years old in July so if someone talks to me like I'm 20 I'm
>>> definitely going to take exception.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>>
>>>
>> Jill, I admire you for having the strength to say what you have said above.
>> Most, like some above in this thread are incapable of apologizing. They
>> don't have enough sense of self worth, or ego to say "I made a mistake".
>> They do everything "correctly" the first time. These are people who fail in
>> life, or part of their lives and in general don't recognize that.. I've
>> always felt that a high fraction of ongoing posters are losers, at least in
>> a significant portion of their lives. That's why we need to post.
>>
> Thanks to you and jill for being the moral fiber of RFC
>
> Lou
>

Now THAT was funny!

Bruce

My apology to sky
 

Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq. wrote:
>
>
> jmcquown wrote:
>
>> I will be 50 years old in July so if someone talks to me like I'm 20
>> I'm definitely going to take exception.
>>
>> Jill
>
> I know exactly what you mean, my response to it in "chat" as much as
> anywhere else is to ignore it or abruptly change the subject, and if i
> want to "stick it" to the offending person i will play dumb, and
> sometimes manage get them very upset with my apparent mental torpidity:)

So the moral of this story is that when you hit exactly 49-1/2 years old
you lose your morals and become narcissistic?

Bruce

My apology to sky
 

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq. wrote:
>>
>>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> I will be 50 years old in July so if someone talks to me like I'm 20 I'm
>>> definitely going to take exception.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> I know exactly what you mean, my response to it in "chat" as much as
>> anywhere else is to ignore it or abruptly change the subject, and if i
>> want to "stick it" to the offending person i will play dumb, and
>> sometimes manage get them very upset with my apparent mental torpidity:)
>
> So the moral of this story is that when you hit exactly 49-1/2 years old
> you lose your morals and become narcissistic?
>
I can't stand Jill but you are so tiresome. Under any nym.

My apology to sky
 

"Mort" > wrote in message
...
> jmcquown wrote:
>
>> To sky. I should never have brought these things up here on rfc.
>>
>
> email or chat with this garbage
>
> Nobody gives a shit
>

I'm with you, Mort, but I gotta tell you, you smell like a dirty sock.

My apology to sky
 

Kent wrote:

> I've always felt that a high fraction of ongoing posters are losers, at
> least in a significant portion of their lives. That's why we need to post.

NB: "we" rather than "they".

Bob

My apology to sky
 

Greg wrote:

> Remind to send Kent and Jill some lumber, Lou...that way they can build
> their crosses even *higher*...

Ya know...

Jill was wrong to drag the issue here. Age is no excuse. But do we really
have to make a sideshow out of it just because neither Jill nor Kent are our
favorite posters?

I have noticed that Kent seems to be trying harder to make positive
contributions here, and Jill posted all those untried recipes from her
grandmother: Don't those things count for anything?

Let's just let this one die (or at least change the subject line to
"Telemarketers", so John Kuthe can play along.)

Bob

My apology to sky
 

Joseph wrote:

> I know exactly what you mean, my response to it in "chat" as much as
> anywhere else is to ignore it or abruptly change the subject, and if i
> want to "stick it" to the offending person i will play dumb, and sometimes
> manage get them very upset with my apparent mental torpidity:)

What does it mean when you start quoting Sanskrit to them?

Bob

My apology to sky
 

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
> Greg wrote:
>
>> Remind to send Kent and Jill some lumber, Lou...that way they can build
>> their crosses even *higher*...
>
> Ya know...
>
> Jill was wrong to drag the issue here. Age is no excuse. But do we really
> have to make a sideshow out of it just because neither Jill nor Kent are
> our favorite posters?
>
> I have noticed that Kent seems to be trying harder to make positive
> contributions here, and Jill posted all those untried recipes from her
> grandmother: Don't those things count for anything?
>
> Let's just let this one die (or at least change the subject line to
> "Telemarketers", so John Kuthe can play along.)
>
> Bob
Bob, thank you for your comment.

Kent

My apology to sky
 

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Joseph wrote:
>
>> I know exactly what you mean, my response to it in "chat" as much as
>> anywhere else is to ignore it or abruptly change the subject, and if i
>> want to "stick it" to the offending person i will play dumb, and
>> sometimes manage get them very upset with my apparent mental torpidity:)
>
>
> What does it mean when you start quoting Sanskrit to them?
>
> Bob

Im amused enough by them to get Vedanticaly pedantic:)

Sat Nam,

Mr. Swami Havanagoodtime Vishnuwerehere Esq.