Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
vegan and vegitarian
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... There's nothing more to talk about in this thread. I understand you thought you were doing the right thing with the copyright infringement issue. I do respect that even if I don't agree with your actions. We obviously don't agree on each other's behaviors and characters as well. You are very wrong about me just as you claim that I'm very wrong about you. Reality probably exists somewhere in the middle. I have nothing to apologize for except unnecessarily antagonizing you in the spirit of fun when you apparently took it very personally (evidenced by your also unnecessary nasty name-calling, stern tone, etc.). For that I apologize. However, I'm not letting you off the hook that easily. While you may think that much of what I wrote were meant as personal attacks, my words were based on honest observations and criticisms. Rather than your "usual" array of evasions, attacks, sidesteps, denials, and other mechanisms you might consider your own complicity in these issues. You know, somebody else just may have legitimate claims. Have a good weekend... |
|
|||
|
|||
vegan and vegitarian
C. James Strutz wrote:
> There's nothing more to talk about in this thread. I understand you > thought you were doing the right thing with the copyright infringement > issue. I do respect that even if I don't agree with your actions. > > We obviously don't agree on each other's behaviors and characters as > well. You are very wrong about me just as you claim that I'm very > wrong about you. Reality probably exists somewhere in the middle. I > have nothing to apologize for except unnecessarily antagonizing you in > the spirit of fun when you apparently took it very personally > (evidenced by your also unnecessary nasty name-calling, stern tone, > etc.). For that I apologize. I'd offer to forgive you, but qualified apologies are disingenuous and insincere. > However, Qualified apologies aren't apologies at all. They're worthless and only a sign of vanity. You shouldn't have even bothered typing it. > I'm not letting you off the hook that easily. While you may > think that much of what I wrote were meant as personal attacks, my > words were based on honest observations and criticisms. Rather than > your "usual" array of evasions, Where have I ever evaded anything in this group? If anything, I've been assailed by some people for NOT avoiding conflicts enough. > attacks, Why do you accuse me of "attacks" while you only "antagonize in the spirit of fun"? Are you also only antagonizing Mr Ball in the spirit of fun when he replies to you about genuine issues in a civil manner? You're a duplicitous, hypocritical fraud, James. > sidesteps, Where have I sidestepped anything? > denials, Examples? Or is this another of your self-justified smears against someone without any actual support for it? > and other > mechanisms you might consider your own complicity in these issues. You > know, somebody else just may have legitimate claims. I await the day when someone with a legitimate claim actually supports it rather than making claims and then suggesting he doesn't have time to verify the matter. Talk about sidestepping and evading while attacking -- all things which you accuse me. > Have a good weekend... They're all good. |
|
|||
|
|||
vegan and vegitarian
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > C. James Strutz wrote: > > There's nothing more to talk about in this thread. I understand you > > thought you were doing the right thing with the copyright infringement > > issue. I do respect that even if I don't agree with your actions. > > > > We obviously don't agree on each other's behaviors and characters as > > well. You are very wrong about me just as you claim that I'm very > > wrong about you. Reality probably exists somewhere in the middle. I > > have nothing to apologize for except unnecessarily antagonizing you in > > the spirit of fun when you apparently took it very personally > > (evidenced by your also unnecessary nasty name-calling, stern tone, > > etc.). For that I apologize. > > I'd offer to forgive you, but qualified apologies are disingenuous and insincere. Nope, it wasn't a disingenuous apology. I apologized for antagonizing you when it became apparent that you were taking it too seriously. > > However, > > Qualified apologies aren't apologies at all. They're worthless and only a sign > of vanity. You shouldn't have even bothered typing it. Nope, it wasn't qualified by anything. I just wanted to make it clear that my apology had nothing to with the fact that you're still a jerk. > > I'm not letting you off the hook that easily. While you may > > think that much of what I wrote were meant as personal attacks, my > > words were based on honest observations and criticisms. Rather than > > your "usual" array of evasions, > > Where have I ever evaded anything in this group? If anything, I've been assailed > by some people for NOT avoiding conflicts enough. Well, for example, your reply here is an evasion. You have changed the context of what I wrote to something else. You "move goalposts" all the time. > > attacks, > > Why do you accuse me of "attacks" while you only "antagonize in the spirit of > fun"? Are you also only antagonizing Mr Ball in the spirit of fun when he > replies to you about genuine issues in a civil manner? I haven't antagonized Jonathon Ball in recent times. He has been reasonably civil to me and we have had some constructive exchanges. > You're a duplicitous, hypocritical fraud, James. > > > sidesteps, > > Where have I sidestepped anything? You continually sidestep responsiblity for your mean and antagonistic behavior in this newsgroup. > > denials, > > Examples? Or is this another of your self-justified smears against someone > without any actual support for it? You denied vindicative intent for turning in Mr. Falafel when it was very obvious that your "letter of the law" defense was a cheap cover, even after I repeatedly demonstrated your motives. > > and other > > mechanisms you might consider your own complicity in these issues. You > > know, somebody else just may have legitimate claims. > > I await the day when someone with a legitimate claim actually supports it rather > than making claims and then suggesting he doesn't have time to verify the > matter. Talk about sidestepping and evading while attacking -- all things which > you accuse me. See above. You ask people for examples, proof, or to otherwise substantiate their claims even when the support for their claims are obvious and overwhelming. You do this so you can either reject their proof or whine that they don't support that which is obvious. That you can't accept a genuine apology is further evidence of the low quality of your character. Your response to this is obvious and predictable - more denial, shirking of responsibility, and sidestepping. Go for it. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
How to order vegitarian sushi | Sushi | |||
Vegitarian recipe book recommendations please! | Vegetarian cooking | |||
New Vegitarian | Vegetarian cooking | |||
Point me to favorite Sonoma Vallley vegan & vegitarian restaurants? | Restaurants | |||
A Challenge To The Vegan Bakers: Help Me Modify This Recipe :Vegan Pumpkin Flax Muffins | Vegan |