Scented Asshole wrote:
>>>>>>I've repeated what you've written about the subject. You've just
>>>>>>confirmed, though, that you ARE so self-absorbed that you don't feel
>
> bad
>
>>>>>>that others put aside their ideas of a "good time" so you could have
>
> one.
>
>>>>Did that family ever invite you over for another meal?
>>>
>>>Yep. But why are you assuming it
>>>was a family?
>>
>>Once a friend's dad
>>made it into a big adventure
>>where everyone tried veggie
>>burgers for the first time.
>>-- Shit4braincellette, 31 Aug 05
>
> Ah, ok. I guess since they are
> relatives, that can be called a
> family setting.

So you're caught in yet another lie. Imagine that.

>>>>>>>I don't go clubbing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Because you're agoraphobic.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope. There are non crowded clubs.
>>>>>I don't like booze. But since you
>>>>>think that only an agoraphobic would
>>>>>not go clubbing,
>>>>
>>>>Strawman.
>>>
>>>Stop avoiding.
>>
>>It's a strawman.
>
>
> No it's not. You're dodging.
>
>
>>>>>I must assume that
>>>>>you DO go clubbing.
>>>>
>>>>Non sequitur.
>>>
>>>Stop avoiding.
>>
>>It's a non sequitur.
>
>
> You're playing dodge again.
>
>
>>>>>Are you an
>>>>>alcoholic, just like you think I'm a
>>>>>drug addict?
>>>>
>>>>Non sequitur. One needn't drink to go to clubs, or go to clubs to drink.
>>>>FWIW, I seldom ever drink. I'm usually the designated driver for my
>>>>friends who do.
>>>
>>>Maybe you SHOULD drink.
>>
>>Maybe you should **** yourself. Wait. You do that already.
>
>
> How does one do that? Please
> explain in detail.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>and my need for socializing out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We have two examples of how you "socialize" and neither is normal.
>>>>>>>>First, the example of the atmo group. You ditched them early by
>
> lying
>
>>>>>>>>that you had to meet someone else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, it was a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope.
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Someone at home was waiting,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your cat.
>>>>>
>>>>>And a real live person,
>>>>
>>>>Your mommy.
>>>
>>>No,
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>>Mind you she also deserves a smack for
>>>bringing you into the world in the
>>>first place.
>>
>>Feel the vegan love...
>
>
> Waaahhh. You can dish it out
> but you can't take it.
>
>
>>>>>>>but I did leave earlier than
>>>>>>>I had to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why would you leave someone waiting for you at your apartment in the
>>>>>>first place. And it's not a question because I know you lied to get
>
> out
>
>>>>>>of the restaurant. So do you.
>>>>>
>>>>>The only lie was in leaving a little
>>>>>bit earlier than I could have
>>>>>stretched it into.
>>>>
>>>>You admit you lie, but you're trying to diminish *how much* you lied.
>>>>The fact remains that you willfully deceived others to get out of a
>>>>situation. There was nobody waiting for you. Except your cat, or mommy.
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>The place was crammed
>>>>>>>with people and extra chairs at
>>>>>>>tables etc. Yuk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not everyone shares your agoraphobia.
>>>>>
>>>>>Agoraphobia might be the wrong
>>>>>term, since I have a dislike of
>>>>>crowds rather than a fear of them.
>>>>
>>>>It's fear.
>>>
>>>In my case
>>
>>Yes, it's fear in your case.
>
>
> I'm the one who knows, not you.
> And I'll tell you again, it's dislike.
> It should probably be given a
> separate name since it's not a
> fear.
>
>
>>>>>>>>Second, you bragged that your eating disorder was such an issue to
>>>
>>>your
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>friends that they adopted it to make you feel comfortable. Would you
>>>
>>>do
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>the same for them? No. If you were able to compromise, they could've
>>>>>>>>enjoyed their normal food at that party instead of catering to YOUR
>>>>>>>>silly, irrational whims.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We met at a restaurant
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That was in reference to the situation in which everyone else had to
>
> eat
>
>>>>>>veggie burgers because you made such a scene about not eating meat.
>
> Dummy.
>
>>>>>What scene,
>>>>
>>>>The one that caused a family to eat veggie burgers instead of real meat
>>>>so you'd "fit in." The only problem is they had to "fit in" with you.
>>>
>>>How horrible.
>>
>>Your selfishness is an affront to common decency.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>Not as much as some people,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not as much as normal people. You're a shut-in, home-bound,
>>>
>>>agoraphobic,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>carless pot-head. Add it all up and your time for socializing is
>
> nil.
>
>>>>>>>You're
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're a shut-in, home-bound, agoraphobic, carless pot-head. Add it
>
> all
>
>>>>>>up and your time for socializing is nil.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fishing
>>>>
>>>>No, it's established.
>>>
>>>You keep
>>
>>It's already established.
>
>
> Cite your sources.
>
>
>>>>>>>Next time I pass through or visit
>>>>>>>Texas,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You won't "pass through" or visit Texas, you dishonest skag.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have before.
>>>>
>>>>Liar.
>>>
>>>Why would I lie about that?
>>
>>For the same reasons you lied to get out of your atmo gathering which
>>YOU helped set up. You're a congenital liar.
>
>
> No, you are.
>
>
>>>>>I may again.
>>>>
>>>>Liar.
>>>
>>>Again,
>>
>>And again and again. Repeatedly.
>>
>>
>>>why would I lie about that?
>>
>>For the same reasons you lied to get out of your atmo gathering which
>>YOU helped set up. You're a congenital liar.
>
>
> I'm not a liar.
>
>
>>>>>You make 99% of the insults
>>>>
>>>>Exaggeration. Or are you not counting your own?
>>>
>>>I make about 1% of them.
>>
>>You can't count.
>>
>>
>>>>>>Evolved? No. You're a shut-in, home-bound, agoraphobic, carless
>>>
>>>pot-head.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>All that fishing
>>>>
>>>>It's all established by your own posts.
>>>
>>>Cites please.
>>
>>Review your posting history yourself, dummy.
>
>
> You can't, can you.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>You brought up the issue of tolerance and acceptance. As usual,
>
> your
>
>>>>>>>>>>points come back to bite your pimply, sagging old ass.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stop fantasizing about my ass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I never started, so you stop flattering yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're picturing it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, describing it. I've only seen your cankles. That was enough.
>>>>>
>>>>>All you saw was a picture of
>>>>>fallen socks.
>>>>
>>>>No, cankles.
>>>
>>>You're
>>
>>Cankles. Big, fat cankles.
>
> Stop wanking over your imagination
> of me.

Stop flattering yourself.

>>>>>>>I smell something fishy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Try a douche sometime, bitch. Or at least change your panties.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is that
>>>>
>>>>Yes. Clean your cooch.
>>>
>>>Fear of pussy,
>>
>>Not at all.
>>
>>
>>>>You should care enough about yourself that you lessen your dependence on
>>>>your aged parents.
>>>
>>>You don't even know whether my
>>>parents are even alive.
>>
>>You've written that they are.
>
> Ok, I'll take your word on that. I
> don't personally remember posting
> that though.

I hope my parents are still
alive when I retire. I wish
death on neither of them.
-- Shit4braincellette, 8 May 05

Think they might come back to life between now and then if they're
already dead? Dumb skank.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .
> Scented Retard wrote:
> >>>>I've yet to have a host slap a "huge steak and tiny potato" on my
plate,
> >>>>per your inane question which you repeatedly insisted I answer.
> >>>
> >>>But if you did,
> >>
> >>I've already answered the question.
> >
> > You would not eat the steak.
>
> I wrote that I'd rather eat it than offend someone, dumb ass.

Yet you also wrote that you would
not eat meat, and you'd explain to
the curious that you weren't interested.
Can't be both.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .
> Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>True friends needn't ask ahead of time so they can decide
if
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>they'll
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>eat
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>before the party or bring their own food.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>True friends are sympathetic to one's eating preferences.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>True friends are honest if your preferences go overboard.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>You automatically assume that vegans go "overboard"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Veganism is already an extreme, so it's reasonable to point
out
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>vegans'
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>extremism when it manifests itself in irrational and offensive
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>actions.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>It's far from reality.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Liar. Have you read through vegan literature or websites
lately
> >
> > to
> >
> >>>>>see
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>how "overboard" they go in imposing their wills upon others?
Not
> >>>>>
> >>>>>only
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>in
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>terms of diet, Putz, but with respect to medicine, apparel,
and
> >
> > so
> >
> >>>>>on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Lesley this morning pasted some diatribe taking credit for
> >>>
> >>>shutting
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>down
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>a farm that provided guinea pigs for medical research.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If the meal is too meat based
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You shouldn't be asked to attend.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You mean 'invited'. An invitation is not a request.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>1. The act of inviting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>2. A spoken or written *REQUEST* for someone's presence or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>participation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>3. An allurement, enticement, or attraction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/invitation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>'Invitation' is still a more appropriate word.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>An invitation IS a request. Dummy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>My emphasis. Are you a dummy or just a liar?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>You don't give many alternatives, do you?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>One more then: Both.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Let's talk about you and Wendy. Are you still seeing her
> >>>>>
> >>>>>personally
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>or
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>just professionally for your "issues" now?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Why are you trying to change the subject again?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>You're the one who's taken this thread away from discussing
> >>>
> >>>Skanky's
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>offenses, Putz. So let's discuss yours. Are you still seeing
> >
> > Wendy
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>personally or just professionally for your "issues"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>You take offence
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>No, Wendy did. That's why she tried to diagnose him with
> >
> > Asperger's.
> >
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>You are jealous
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>No.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Yes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Yes
> >>>>
> >>>>No.
> >>>
> >>>Very
> >>
> >>Not one bit.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>It was proven
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No, it wasn't. Dreck's incessant shit-stirring isn't "proof" of
> >>>>>>anything, except that he lacks character.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It was
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it was not.
> >>>
> >>>It was
> >>
> >>No, it wasn't.
> >
> >
> > Yes it was.
>
> No.
>
> > You claimed to have
> > a girlfriend for 4 years.
>
> Correct.

Liar.

> > Derek posted a link where you
> > said you were currently looking
> > for a girlfriend in 2003 I think it
> > was. They can't both be true.
>
> Why not? :-)

You're not mature enough to handle
non-monogamous relationships.
So, you're claiming both are true?
Yes or no? Without the evasive
smilie which makes one think you
might be joking. No joking here.
Are you claiming both to be true?
Were you looking to cheat?

> >>>>>>>>>of anyone who has
> >>>>>>>>>a real girlfriend
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Jim doesn't have a real girlfriend. She dumped him.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>If that's true,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It is.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>then at least he was
> >>>>>>>still 'getting some'
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The only pussy he's had eats Fancy Feast.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>He gets more than you
> >>>>
> >>>>No, he doesn't.
> >>>
> >>>I'd bet he does.
> >>
> >>You'd lose your welfare cheque, dummy.
> >
> > You're fishing
>
> No, it's established.

Cite your source, snipper.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .
> Scented Retard wrote:
> > Yes. He's the creepiest of the trolls
> > here.
>
> Coming from an arrested-development, morally-confused old skag like you,
> that's a compliment.

Any insult is a compliment when
directed at you.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Retard wrote:
>>>>>And, regarding remaining close to your ex-wife:
>>>>>
>>>>>That's dumb. The odds are stacked against your new relationship
>>>>>as long as the old ball and chain is around.
>>>>
>>>>You feel wives are a ball and chain?
>>>
>>>*Ex*-wives are. So are ex-girlfriends.
>>
>> Maybe to you,
>
> To most men.
>
>>>>You feel one should not remain
>>>>friends with exes?
>>>
>>>What purpose does it serve once you know it's an impediment to the
>>>success of a new relationship?
>>
>> Why throw away a friendship
>
> To get on with one's life. That part of one's life and the relationship
> are both over. A couple can split amicably, and be pleasant should they
> have to deal with each other (e.g., if they have children together); but
> there is no reason for someone to continue to fawn over an ex-partner
> who's already moved on with his or her life.
>
>> just because you don't have sex with
>> that person anymore?
>
> I'll use the following steps from the first article I found during a
> search on "failed relationship" as an outline.
> Recovering from a failed relationship is tough. You can do it,
> though, and find love in five simple steps once you commit to
> leave the past behind
> 1. Leaving the past behind
> 2. Learning the lessons
> 3. Getting out and about
> 4. The dating game
> 5. When love comes again
> http://tinyurl.com/dby7q
>
> First, the past is past. In Jim's case, his past is all he wants because
> it's part of his familiar structure. I bet Wendy suggested that Kristen
> was sort of a security blanket for him, possibly even that Kristen enabled
> Jim's desire for "structure" (in his case meaning "living in the past") by
> continuing to give him time whenever he wanted. I also bet that Jim is an
> issue in Kristen's current marriage; the person Jim should ask for honesty
> about that isn't Kristen (his enabler), but her husband. Two's company,
> three's a crowd -- a potentially hostile crowd when the third wheel is an
> ex-spouse.
>
> Second, he's yet to learn the lessons of either failed relationship. He
> continues to blame Wendy for pressing hard, being too intense,
> controlling, and being difficult to be in a relationship with (while he
> tries to suggest in the next breath that everything was perfect).
> Meanwhile, he continues to put his ex-wife before himself and his current
> or future relationships. See step 1.
>
> Third, fourth, and fifth go together. He's admitted he's something of a
> loner:
> It was also good for her to understand why *I like to be alone*,
> why *I am not "touchy-feely"*, why *I don't reciprocate emotions
> very well*, why I need structure and don't adapt to changes very
> well.
> -- CJS, 16 Dec 2004
>
> The break up has left him with "time to think about things," as he put it.
> He's not getting out. He's not moving along. He's still friends with
> Kristen, which in and of itself wouldn't necessarily be bad BUT he has to
> get over her and get on with his own life. That relationship has already
> affected one. Kristen cut Jim out of her life when she started banging
> someone else and divorced him to marry her paramour. It's puzzling that he
> thinks she's still a great friend after doing that to him.
>
> Finally, my advice about moving on and leaving the past in the past is
> neither novel nor extreme. Many, if not most, relationship counselors and
> mental health experts recommend doing that.
>
>>>In the case of Jim and Wendy, Wendy's complaints weren't born of
>>>insecurity -- they were because Jim was stuck in his comfortable old
>>>rut. Jim chose a close friendship with his ex-wife over committing to
>>>new life with someone else. That's certainly his right, but it's very
>>>unhealthy for establishing any future relationship. It's also unhealthy
>>>for him.
>>
>> It's very healthy.
>
> No, not if Kristen is his enabler/security blanket. Then it's patently
> unhealthy for both of them and her current marriage.
>
>> It's too bad though
>> that his girlfriend was insecure
>> about it.
>
> Wendy is a psychologist and, though I question her attempt to diagnose Jim
> with Asperger's to explain his actions (or inactions), I think she's
> probably mature and professional enough to separate her own insecurities
> from what she observes. She and Jim were in a relationship for a few
> years. This was an ongoing issue in their relationship and Jim chose the
> woman who rejected him instead of the one who wanted a future with him.
>
>>>Kristen got on with her life. Wendy's getting on with hers. Jim is
>>>just... stuck.
>>
>> In you sick little head.
>
> I'm not sick, Skanky, and most relationship and marriage counselors would
> agree with what I've already written. Apparently Wendy (the psychologist)
> did, too; I told Jim that his relationship with her would end sooner than
> later because of being a relationship pack-rat like that. I didn't write
> any of that out of malice, and there's nothing untoward in what I've
> suggested to him about relationships. Kristen has already divorced him.
> That relationship is over. They can be amicable if they run into each
> other. But I think it's unhealthy for both of them to go out of their way
> to pursue encounters together. It's ruined one of Jim's relationships
> already, and I suspect it's doing the same for Kristen's.
>
>> You want to picture him as stuck somewhere bad.
>
> I have the one he's painted of himself. He emotionally wore out Wendy. She
> wanted him to stop dividing his attention between her and his EX-wife --
> not exactly unreasonable. In desperation, she turned to a clinical
> explanation for why he's the way he is. In the end, he's chosen his
> comfort zone -- his enabler EX-wife and his four cats -- over Wendy and a
> new life together. Yet he blames Wendy, except to say that he was
> unwilling to commit (see previous sentence) and then lists what he
> perceives to be her flaws. None of that is good.

Stop trolling, asshole...

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Retard wrote:
> >>>>And, regarding remaining close to your ex-wife:
> >>>>
> >>>>That's dumb. The odds are stacked against your new relationship
> >>>>as long as the old ball and chain is around.
> >>>
> >>>You feel wives are a ball and chain?
> >>
> >>*Ex*-wives are. So are ex-girlfriends.
> >
> > Maybe to you,
>
> To most men.

Just the ones who are not real
men.

> >>>You feel one should not remain
> >>>friends with exes?
> >>
> >>What purpose does it serve once you know it's an impediment to the
> >>success of a new relationship?
> >
> > Why throw away a friendship
>
> To get on with one's life. That part of one's life and the relationship
> are both over. A couple can split amicably, and be pleasant should they
> have to deal with each other (e.g., if they have children together); but
> there is no reason for someone to continue to fawn over an ex-partner
> who's already moved on with his or her life.

Who said there would be fauning?
Just because 2 people don't have
sex with each other anymore doesn't
mean they can't stay friends, unless
all there was was the sex. Or also,
when they left on bad terms. How
long have your bad end relationships
been going on for?

> > just because you don't have sex with
> > that person anymore?
>
> I'll use the following steps from the first article I found during a
> search on "failed relationship" as an outline.
>
> Recovering from a failed relationship is tough. You can do it,
> though, and find love in five simple steps once you commit to
> leave the past behind
> 1. Leaving the past behind
> 2. Learning the lessons
> 3. Getting out and about
> 4. The dating game
> 5. When love comes again
> http://tinyurl.com/dby7q

That sounds like it only refers to
relationships that end bitterly.

> First, the past is past. In Jim's case, his past is all he wants because
> it's part of his familiar structure. I bet Wendy suggested that Kristen
> was sort of a security blanket for him, possibly even that Kristen
> enabled Jim's desire for "structure" (in his case meaning "living in the
> past") by continuing to give him time whenever he wanted. I also bet
> that Jim is an issue in Kristen's current marriage; the person Jim
> should ask for honesty about that isn't Kristen (his enabler), but her
> husband. Two's company, three's a crowd -- a potentially hostile crowd
> when the third wheel is an ex-spouse.

Sounds like you've never stayed
on good terms with an ex since
you assume this was the case with
C. James (whether or not it was).

> Second, [blah blah]

> > It's very healthy.
>
> No, not if Kristen is his enabler/security blanket. Then it's patently
> unhealthy for both of them and her current marriage.

Enabler for what? As to security
blankets, true friends are, in a sense.
They are many other things too, but
they are comforts. For one spouse
to demand that the other not see his/
her friends is unreasonable. It's not
even like he was still having sex with
her, was he?

> > It's too bad though
> > that his girlfriend was insecure
> > about it.
>
> Wendy is a psychologist and, though I question her attempt to diagnose
> Jim with Asperger's to explain his actions (or inactions), I think she's
> probably mature and professional enough to separate her own insecurities
> from what she observes. She and Jim were in a relationship for a few
> years. This was an ongoing issue in their relationship and Jim chose the
> woman who rejected him instead of the one who wanted a future with him.

Sounds like he stood by his friend
even when a controlling girlfriend
wanted to change that.

> >>Kristen got on with her life. Wendy's getting on with hers. Jim is
> >>just... stuck.
> >
> > In you sick little head.
>
> I'm not sick,

Yes you are.

> > You want to picture him as stuck somewhere bad.
>
> I have

You have been using what you know
of his relationships against him to try
and hurt them. You are a bully.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .
> Scented Asshole wrote:

Stop sniffing my butt, Useless,
unless you're gonna kiss it.

> >>>>>>I've repeated what you've written about the subject. You've just
> >>>>>>confirmed, though, that you ARE so self-absorbed that you don't feel
> >
> > bad
> >
> >>>>>>that others put aside their ideas of a "good time" so you could have
> >
> > one.
> >
> >>>>Did that family ever invite you over for another meal?
> >>>
> >>>Yep. But why are you assuming it
> >>>was a family?
> >>
> >>Once a friend's dad
> >>made it into a big adventure
> >>where everyone tried veggie
> >>burgers for the first time.
> >>-- Shit4braincellette, 31 Aug 05
> >
> > Ah, ok. I guess since they are
> > relatives, that can be called a
> > family setting.
>
> So you're caught in yet another lie. Imagine that.

What lie? I was simply not confirming
or denying.

> >>Cankles. Big, fat cankles.
> >
> > Stop wanking over your imagination
> > of me.
>
> Stop flattering yourself.

YOU'RE the one picturing my legs
in such a manner.

> >>>You don't even know whether my
> >>>parents are even alive.
> >>
> >>You've written that they are.
> >
> > Ok, I'll take your word on that. I
> > don't personally remember posting
> > that though.
>
> I hope my parents are still
> alive when I retire. I wish
> death on neither of them.
> -- Shit4braincellette, 8 May 05
>
> Think they might come back to life between now and then if they're
> already dead? Dumb skank.

Even that leaves the narrow window
of them passing between May and
now. They haven't, but you didn't
know that for sure until just now when
I said so in this paragraph.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky wrote:
> >>>>Stop referring to yourself in third-person, dummy. You've moved back
in
> >>>>with your parents.
> >>>
> >>>Stop fishing,
> >>
> >>It isn't fishing. Was Mommy waiting up for you back at the apartment
> >>when you met with the atmo people?
> >
> > Was she
>
> Yes.

Fishing. It's killing you isn't it.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

C. James Strutz whined:
>>>>>>And, regarding remaining close to your ex-wife:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's dumb. The odds are stacked against your new relationship
>>>>>>as long as the old ball and chain is around.
>>>>>
>>>>>You feel wives are a ball and chain?
>>>>
>>>>*Ex*-wives are. So are ex-girlfriends.
>>>
>>>Maybe to you,
>>
>>To most men.
>>
>>
>>>>>You feel one should not remain
>>>>>friends with exes?
>>>>
>>>>What purpose does it serve once you know it's an impediment to the
>>>>success of a new relationship?
>>>
>>>Why throw away a friendship
>>
>>To get on with one's life. That part of one's life and the relationship
>>are both over. A couple can split amicably, and be pleasant should they
>>have to deal with each other (e.g., if they have children together); but
>>there is no reason for someone to continue to fawn over an ex-partner
>>who's already moved on with his or her life.
>>
>>
>>>just because you don't have sex with
>>>that person anymore?
>>
>>I'll use the following steps from the first article I found during a
>>search on "failed relationship" as an outline.
>> Recovering from a failed relationship is tough. You can do it,
>>though, and find love in five simple steps once you commit to
>>leave the past behind
>>1. Leaving the past behind
>>2. Learning the lessons
>>3. Getting out and about
>>4. The dating game
>>5. When love comes again
>>http://tinyurl.com/dby7q
>>
>>First, the past is past. In Jim's case, his past is all he wants because
>>it's part of his familiar structure. I bet Wendy suggested that Kristen
>>was sort of a security blanket for him, possibly even that Kristen enabled
>>Jim's desire for "structure" (in his case meaning "living in the past") by
>>continuing to give him time whenever he wanted. I also bet that Jim is an
>>issue in Kristen's current marriage; the person Jim should ask for honesty
>>about that isn't Kristen (his enabler), but her husband. Two's company,
>>three's a crowd -- a potentially hostile crowd when the third wheel is an
>>ex-spouse.
>>
>>Second, he's yet to learn the lessons of either failed relationship. He
>>continues to blame Wendy for pressing hard, being too intense,
>>controlling, and being difficult to be in a relationship with (while he
>>tries to suggest in the next breath that everything was perfect).
>>Meanwhile, he continues to put his ex-wife before himself and his current
>>or future relationships. See step 1.
>>
>>Third, fourth, and fifth go together. He's admitted he's something of a
>>loner:
>>It was also good for her to understand why *I like to be alone*,
>>why *I am not "touchy-feely"*, why *I don't reciprocate emotions
>>very well*, why I need structure and don't adapt to changes very
>>well.
>>-- CJS, 16 Dec 2004
>>
>>The break up has left him with "time to think about things," as he put it.
>>He's not getting out. He's not moving along. He's still friends with
>>Kristen, which in and of itself wouldn't necessarily be bad BUT he has to
>>get over her and get on with his own life. That relationship has already
>>affected one. Kristen cut Jim out of her life when she started banging
>>someone else and divorced him to marry her paramour. It's puzzling that he
>>thinks she's still a great friend after doing that to him.
>>
>>Finally, my advice about moving on and leaving the past in the past is
>>neither novel nor extreme. Many, if not most, relationship counselors and
>>mental health experts recommend doing that.
>>
>>
>>>>In the case of Jim and Wendy, Wendy's complaints weren't born of
>>>>insecurity -- they were because Jim was stuck in his comfortable old
>>>>rut. Jim chose a close friendship with his ex-wife over committing to
>>>>new life with someone else. That's certainly his right, but it's very
>>>>unhealthy for establishing any future relationship. It's also unhealthy
>>>>for him.
>>>
>>>It's very healthy.
>>
>>No, not if Kristen is his enabler/security blanket. Then it's patently
>>unhealthy for both of them and her current marriage.
>>
>>
>>>It's too bad though
>>>that his girlfriend was insecure
>>>about it.
>>
>>Wendy is a psychologist and, though I question her attempt to diagnose Jim
>>with Asperger's to explain his actions (or inactions), I think she's
>>probably mature and professional enough to separate her own insecurities
>>from what she observes. She and Jim were in a relationship for a few
>>years. This was an ongoing issue in their relationship and Jim chose the
>>woman who rejected him instead of the one who wanted a future with him.
>>
>>
>>>>Kristen got on with her life. Wendy's getting on with hers. Jim is
>>>>just... stuck.
>>>
>>>In you sick little head.
>>
>>I'm not sick, Skanky, and most relationship and marriage counselors would
>>agree with what I've already written. Apparently Wendy (the psychologist)
>>did, too; I told Jim that his relationship with her would end sooner than
>>later because of being a relationship pack-rat like that. I didn't write
>>any of that out of malice, and there's nothing untoward in what I've
>>suggested to him about relationships. Kristen has already divorced him.
>>That relationship is over. They can be amicable if they run into each
>>other. But I think it's unhealthy for both of them to go out of their way
>>to pursue encounters together. It's ruined one of Jim's relationships
>>already, and I suspect it's doing the same for Kristen's.
>>
>>
>>>You want to picture him as stuck somewhere bad.
>>
>>I have the one he's painted of himself. He emotionally wore out Wendy. She
>>wanted him to stop dividing his attention between her and his EX-wife --
>>not exactly unreasonable. In desperation, she turned to a clinical
>>explanation for why he's the way he is. In the end, he's chosen his
>>comfort zone -- his enabler EX-wife and his four cats -- over Wendy and a
>>new life together. Yet he blames Wendy, except to say that he was
>>unwilling to commit (see previous sentence) and then lists what he
>>perceives to be her flaws. None of that is good.
>
> Stop trolling, asshole...

Stop whining, putz. You know I'm right.

Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>>Derek posted a link where you
>>>said you were currently looking
>>>for a girlfriend in 2003 I think it
>>>was. They can't both be true.
>>
>>Why not? :-)
>
> You're not mature enough

Look who's talking, lol.

> to handle
> non-monogamous relationships.

I never was serious about that with Jenae. She realized as much and
joked back:

Or maybe you just said that to help in your
efforts to pick me up? lol
-- Jenae, May 4 2003

>>>>>>>>>>>of anyone who has
>>>>>>>>>>>a real girlfriend
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Jim doesn't have a real girlfriend. She dumped him.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If that's true,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>then at least he was
>>>>>>>>>still 'getting some'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The only pussy he's had eats Fancy Feast.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He gets more than you
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, he doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd bet he does.
>>>>
>>>>You'd lose your welfare cheque, dummy.
>>>
>>>You're fishing
>>
>>No, it's established.
>
> Cite your source, snipper.

Look up your own posts about welfare, stupid.

Scented Retard wrote:
>>>>>>I've yet to have a host slap a "huge steak and tiny potato" on my
>
> plate,
>
>>>>>>per your inane question which you repeatedly insisted I answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>But if you did,
>>>>
>>>>I've already answered the question.
>>>
>>>You would not eat the steak.
>>
>>I wrote that I'd rather eat it than offend someone, dumb ass.
>
> Yet

I wrote that I'd rather eat it than offend someone, dumb ass.

Scented Retard wrote:
>>>Yes. He's the creepiest of the trolls
>>>here.
>>
>>Coming from an arrested-development, morally-confused old skag like you,
>>that's a compliment.
>
> Any insult

From such an arrested-development old skag like you is a compliment.

Scented Asshole wrote:
>>>>>>>>I've repeated what you've written about the subject. You've just
>>>>>>>>confirmed, though, that you ARE so self-absorbed that you don't feel
>>>
>>>bad
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>that others put aside their ideas of a "good time" so you could have
>>>
>>>one.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Did that family ever invite you over for another meal?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep. But why are you assuming it
>>>>>was a family?
>>>>
>>>>Once a friend's dad
>>>>made it into a big adventure
>>>>where everyone tried veggie
>>>>burgers for the first time.
>>>>-- Shit4braincellette, 31 Aug 05
>>>
>>>Ah, ok. I guess since they are
>>>relatives, that can be called a
>>>family setting.
>>
>>So you're caught in yet another lie. Imagine that.
>
> What lie?

The lie about the situation you found yourself. I question whether or
not the event even occurred because you can't even keep it straight
about someone's father being there or not.

> I was simply not confirming
> or denying.

You were simply lying, liar. You can't keep your story straight. You
mention a father and "everyone" and then can't remember if it was a
family or not.

>>>>Cankles. Big, fat cankles.
>>>
>>>Stop wanking over your imagination
>>>of me.
>>
>>Stop flattering yourself.
>
> YOU'RE the one

Stop flattering yourself. I don't desire you in any way, shape, or form.

>>>>>You don't even know whether my
>>>>>parents are even alive.
>>>>
>>>>You've written that they are.
>>>
>>>Ok, I'll take your word on that. I
>>>don't personally remember posting
>>>that though.
>>
>>I hope my parents are still
>>alive when I retire. I wish
>>death on neither of them.
>>-- Shit4braincellette, 8 May 05
>>
>>Think they might come back to life between now and then if they're
>>already dead? Dumb skank.
>
> Even that leaves the narrow window
> of them passing between May and
> now.

Cut the ****ing bullshit and stop trying to wiggle out of what you've
already written, you boring passivist skank.

> They haven't,

No shit, Sherlock.

> but you didn't

I know what you've written. Unlike your shitty memory, mine works quite
fine. Your uneducated sophisty about "veganics" and the other nonsense
you've peddled here is bad enough, but you're not taking your arguments
to a higher level (just a lower one) by engaging in this folly of "you
don't know..." when you've already written as much. You stupid, stupid,
stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, STUPID whore.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >>>Derek posted a link where you
> >>>said you were currently looking
> >>>for a girlfriend in 2003 I think it
> >>>was. They can't both be true.
> >>
> >>Why not? :-)
> >
> > You're not mature enough
>
> Look who's talking, lol.
>
> > to handle
> > non-monogamous relationships.
>
> I never was serious about that with Jenae. She realized as much and
> joked back:
>
> Or maybe you just said that to help in your
> efforts to pick me up? lol
> -- Jenae, May 4 2003

I was thinking of a different quote.
One where you were looking for
a vegan girlfriend.

> >>>>>>>>>>>of anyone who has
> >>>>>>>>>>>a real girlfriend
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Jim doesn't have a real girlfriend. She dumped him.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>If that's true,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It is.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>then at least he was
> >>>>>>>>>still 'getting some'
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>The only pussy he's had eats Fancy Feast.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>He gets more than you
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No, he doesn't.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'd bet he does.
> >>>>
> >>>>You'd lose your welfare cheque, dummy.
> >>>
> >>>You're fishing
> >>
> >>No, it's established.
> >
> > Cite your source, snipper.
>
> Look up your own posts about welfare, stupid.

Who's stupid? I never said I was
or wasn't on welfare. I just know a
fair bit about it, as do many Canadians
since it was in the news a number
of years back when changes were
made to it.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .
> Scented Asshole wrote:
>>>>>>>>>I've repeated what you've written about the subject. You've just
>>>>>>>>>confirmed, though, that you ARE so self-absorbed that you don't
>>>>>>>>>feel
>>>>
>>>>bad
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>that others put aside their ideas of a "good time" so you could
>>>>>>>>>have
>>>>
>>>>one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Did that family ever invite you over for another meal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yep. But why are you assuming it
>>>>>>was a family?
>>>>>
>>>>>Once a friend's dad
>>>>>made it into a big adventure
>>>>>where everyone tried veggie
>>>>>burgers for the first time.
>>>>>-- Shit4braincellette, 31 Aug 05
>>>>
>>>>Ah, ok. I guess since they are
>>>>relatives, that can be called a
>>>>family setting.
>>>
>>>So you're caught in yet another lie. Imagine that.
>>
>> What lie?
>
> The lie about the situation you found yourself. I question whether or not
> the event even occurred because you can't even keep it straight about
> someone's father being there or not.
>
>> I was simply not confirming
>> or denying.
>
> You were simply lying, liar. You can't keep your story straight. You
> mention a father and "everyone" and then can't remember if it was a family
> or not.
>
>>>>>Cankles. Big, fat cankles.
>>>>
>>>>Stop wanking over your imagination
>>>>of me.
>>>
>>>Stop flattering yourself.
>>
>> YOU'RE the one
>
> Stop flattering yourself. I don't desire you in any way, shape, or form.
>
>>>>>>You don't even know whether my
>>>>>>parents are even alive.
>>>>>
>>>>>You've written that they are.
>>>>
>>>>Ok, I'll take your word on that. I
>>>>don't personally remember posting
>>>>that though.
>>>
>>>I hope my parents are still
>>>alive when I retire. I wish
>>>death on neither of them.
>>>-- Shit4braincellette, 8 May 05
>>>
>>>Think they might come back to life between now and then if they're
>>>already dead? Dumb skank.
>>
>> Even that leaves the narrow window
>> of them passing between May and
>> now.
>
> Cut the ****ing bullshit and stop trying to wiggle out of what you've
> already written, you boring passivist skank.
>
>> They haven't,
>
> No shit, Sherlock.
>
>> but you didn't
>
> I know what you've written. Unlike your shitty memory, mine works quite
> fine. Your uneducated sophisty about "veganics" and the other nonsense
> you've peddled here is bad enough, but you're not taking your arguments to
> a higher level (just a lower one) by engaging in this folly of "you don't
> know..." when you've already written as much. You stupid, stupid, stupid,
> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, STUPID whore.

Upset, are we???

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
. ..
> C. James Strutz whined:
>>>>>>>And, regarding remaining close to your ex-wife:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's dumb. The odds are stacked against your new relationship
>>>>>>>as long as the old ball and chain is around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You feel wives are a ball and chain?
>>>>>
>>>>>*Ex*-wives are. So are ex-girlfriends.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe to you,
>>>
>>>To most men.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>You feel one should not remain
>>>>>>friends with exes?
>>>>>
>>>>>What purpose does it serve once you know it's an impediment to the
>>>>>success of a new relationship?
>>>>
>>>>Why throw away a friendship
>>>
>>>To get on with one's life. That part of one's life and the relationship
>>>are both over. A couple can split amicably, and be pleasant should they
>>>have to deal with each other (e.g., if they have children together); but
>>>there is no reason for someone to continue to fawn over an ex-partner
>>>who's already moved on with his or her life.
>>>
>>>
>>>>just because you don't have sex with
>>>>that person anymore?
>>>
>>>I'll use the following steps from the first article I found during a
>>>search on "failed relationship" as an outline.
>>> Recovering from a failed relationship is tough. You can do it,
>>>though, and find love in five simple steps once you commit to
>>>leave the past behind
>>>1. Leaving the past behind
>>>2. Learning the lessons
>>>3. Getting out and about
>>>4. The dating game
>>>5. When love comes again
>>>http://tinyurl.com/dby7q
>>>
>>>First, the past is past. In Jim's case, his past is all he wants because
>>>it's part of his familiar structure. I bet Wendy suggested that Kristen
>>>was sort of a security blanket for him, possibly even that Kristen
>>>enabled Jim's desire for "structure" (in his case meaning "living in the
>>>past") by continuing to give him time whenever he wanted. I also bet that
>>>Jim is an issue in Kristen's current marriage; the person Jim should ask
>>>for honesty about that isn't Kristen (his enabler), but her husband.
>>>Two's company, three's a crowd -- a potentially hostile crowd when the
>>>third wheel is an ex-spouse.
>>>
>>>Second, he's yet to learn the lessons of either failed relationship. He
>>>continues to blame Wendy for pressing hard, being too intense,
>>>controlling, and being difficult to be in a relationship with (while he
>>>tries to suggest in the next breath that everything was perfect).
>>>Meanwhile, he continues to put his ex-wife before himself and his current
>>>or future relationships. See step 1.
>>>
>>>Third, fourth, and fifth go together. He's admitted he's something of a
>>>loner:
>>>It was also good for her to understand why *I like to be alone*,
>>>why *I am not "touchy-feely"*, why *I don't reciprocate emotions
>>>very well*, why I need structure and don't adapt to changes very
>>>well.
>>>-- CJS, 16 Dec 2004
>>>
>>>The break up has left him with "time to think about things," as he put
>>>it. He's not getting out. He's not moving along. He's still friends with
>>>Kristen, which in and of itself wouldn't necessarily be bad BUT he has to
>>>get over her and get on with his own life. That relationship has already
>>>affected one. Kristen cut Jim out of her life when she started banging
>>>someone else and divorced him to marry her paramour. It's puzzling that
>>>he thinks she's still a great friend after doing that to him.
>>>
>>>Finally, my advice about moving on and leaving the past in the past is
>>>neither novel nor extreme. Many, if not most, relationship counselors and
>>>mental health experts recommend doing that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>In the case of Jim and Wendy, Wendy's complaints weren't born of
>>>>>insecurity -- they were because Jim was stuck in his comfortable old
>>>>>rut. Jim chose a close friendship with his ex-wife over committing to
>>>>>new life with someone else. That's certainly his right, but it's very
>>>>>unhealthy for establishing any future relationship. It's also unhealthy
>>>>>for him.
>>>>
>>>>It's very healthy.
>>>
>>>No, not if Kristen is his enabler/security blanket. Then it's patently
>>>unhealthy for both of them and her current marriage.
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's too bad though
>>>>that his girlfriend was insecure
>>>>about it.
>>>
>>>Wendy is a psychologist and, though I question her attempt to diagnose
>>>Jim with Asperger's to explain his actions (or inactions), I think she's
>>>probably mature and professional enough to separate her own insecurities
>>>from what she observes. She and Jim were in a relationship for a few
>>>years. This was an ongoing issue in their relationship and Jim chose the
>>>woman who rejected him instead of the one who wanted a future with him.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Kristen got on with her life. Wendy's getting on with hers. Jim is
>>>>>just... stuck.
>>>>
>>>>In you sick little head.
>>>
>>>I'm not sick, Skanky, and most relationship and marriage counselors would
>>>agree with what I've already written. Apparently Wendy (the psychologist)
>>>did, too; I told Jim that his relationship with her would end sooner than
>>>later because of being a relationship pack-rat like that. I didn't write
>>>any of that out of malice, and there's nothing untoward in what I've
>>>suggested to him about relationships. Kristen has already divorced him.
>>>That relationship is over. They can be amicable if they run into each
>>>other. But I think it's unhealthy for both of them to go out of their way
>>>to pursue encounters together. It's ruined one of Jim's relationships
>>>already, and I suspect it's doing the same for Kristen's.
>>>
>>>
>>>>You want to picture him as stuck somewhere bad.
>>>
>>>I have the one he's painted of himself. He emotionally wore out Wendy.
>>>She wanted him to stop dividing his attention between her and his
>>>EX-wife -- not exactly unreasonable. In desperation, she turned to a
>>>clinical explanation for why he's the way he is. In the end, he's chosen
>>>his comfort zone -- his enabler EX-wife and his four cats -- over Wendy
>>>and a new life together. Yet he blames Wendy, except to say that he was
>>>unwilling to commit (see previous sentence) and then lists what he
>>>perceives to be her flaws. None of that is good.
>>
>> Stop trolling, asshole...
>
> Stop whining, putz. You know I'm right.

You're not even close...

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Scented Asshole wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>I've repeated what you've written about the subject. You've just
> >>>>>>>>>confirmed, though, that you ARE so self-absorbed that you don't
> >>>>>>>>>feel
> >>>>
> >>>>bad
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>that others put aside their ideas of a "good time" so you could
> >>>>>>>>>have
> >>>>
> >>>>one.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>Did that family ever invite you over for another meal?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Yep. But why are you assuming it
> >>>>>>was a family?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Once a friend's dad
> >>>>>made it into a big adventure
> >>>>>where everyone tried veggie
> >>>>>burgers for the first time.
> >>>>>-- Shit4braincellette, 31 Aug 05
> >>>>
> >>>>Ah, ok. I guess since they are
> >>>>relatives, that can be called a
> >>>>family setting.
> >>>
> >>>So you're caught in yet another lie. Imagine that.
> >>
> >> What lie?
> >
> > The lie about the situation you found yourself. I question whether or
not
> > the event even occurred because you can't even keep it straight about
> > someone's father being there or not.
> >
> >> I was simply not confirming
> >> or denying.
> >
> > You were simply lying, liar. You can't keep your story straight. You
> > mention a father and "everyone" and then can't remember if it was a
family
> > or not.
> >
> >>>>>Cankles. Big, fat cankles.
> >>>>
> >>>>Stop wanking over your imagination
> >>>>of me.
> >>>
> >>>Stop flattering yourself.
> >>
> >> YOU'RE the one
> >
> > Stop flattering yourself. I don't desire you in any way, shape, or form.
> >
> >>>>>>You don't even know whether my
> >>>>>>parents are even alive.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You've written that they are.
> >>>>
> >>>>Ok, I'll take your word on that. I
> >>>>don't personally remember posting
> >>>>that though.
> >>>
> >>>I hope my parents are still
> >>>alive when I retire. I wish
> >>>death on neither of them.
> >>>-- Shit4braincellette, 8 May 05
> >>>
> >>>Think they might come back to life between now and then if they're
> >>>already dead? Dumb skank.
> >>
> >> Even that leaves the narrow window
> >> of them passing between May and
> >> now.
> >
> > Cut the ****ing bullshit and stop trying to wiggle out of what you've
> > already written, you boring passivist skank.
> >
> >> They haven't,
> >
> > No shit, Sherlock.
> >
> >> but you didn't
> >
> > I know what you've written. Unlike your shitty memory, mine works quite
> > fine. Your uneducated sophisty about "veganics" and the other nonsense
> > you've peddled here is bad enough, but you're not taking your arguments
to
> > a higher level (just a lower one) by engaging in this folly of "you
don't
> > know..." when you've already written as much. You stupid, stupid,
stupid,
> > stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> > stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> > stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> > stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> > stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> > stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> > stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> > stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> > stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> > stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> > stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> > stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> > stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> > stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> > stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
> > stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, STUPID whore.
>
> Upset, are we???

Heheh.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Scented Retard wrote:
>>>>>>And, regarding remaining close to your ex-wife:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's dumb. The odds are stacked against your new relationship
>>>>>>as long as the old ball and chain is around.
>>>>>
>>>>>You feel wives are a ball and chain?
>>>>
>>>>*Ex*-wives are. So are ex-girlfriends.
>>>
>>>Maybe to you,
>>
>>To most men.
>
> Just

Most men. And most women, too.

>>>>>You feel one should not remain
>>>>>friends with exes?
>>>>
>>>>What purpose does it serve once you know it's an impediment to the
>>>>success of a new relationship?
>>>
>>>Why throw away a friendship
>>
>>To get on with one's life. That part of one's life and the relationship
>>are both over. A couple can split amicably, and be pleasant should they
>>have to deal with each other (e.g., if they have children together); but
>>there is no reason for someone to continue to fawn over an ex-partner
>>who's already moved on with his or her life.
>
> Who said there would be fauning?

Ask Wendy about that.

> Just because 2 people don't have

We're discussing a specific couple, and a particular "friendship" (a
co-dependent/enabling relationship) which played a role in destroying it.

>>>just because you don't have sex with
>>>that person anymore?
>>
>>I'll use the following steps from the first article I found during a
>>search on "failed relationship" as an outline.
>>
>>Recovering from a failed relationship is tough. You can do it,
>>though, and find love in five simple steps once you commit to
>>leave the past behind
>>1. Leaving the past behind
>>2. Learning the lessons
>>3. Getting out and about
>>4. The dating game
>>5. When love comes again
>>http://tinyurl.com/dby7q
>
> That sounds like it only refers to
> relationships that end bitterly.

Most relationships end with heartache and heartbreak.

>>First, the past is past. In Jim's case, his past is all he wants because
>>it's part of his familiar structure. I bet Wendy suggested that Kristen
>>was sort of a security blanket for him, possibly even that Kristen
>>enabled Jim's desire for "structure" (in his case meaning "living in the
>>past") by continuing to give him time whenever he wanted. I also bet
>>that Jim is an issue in Kristen's current marriage; the person Jim
>>should ask for honesty about that isn't Kristen (his enabler), but her
>>husband. Two's company, three's a crowd -- a potentially hostile crowd
>>when the third wheel is an ex-spouse.
>
> Sounds like

You have no ****ing idea what you're talking about.

>>Second,
>
>>>It's very healthy.
>>
>>No, not if Kristen is his enabler/security blanket. Then it's patently
>>unhealthy for both of them and her current marriage.
>
> Enabler for what?

For his refusal to move on with his life, for his stagnation, for his
finding comfort in an unhealthy zone.

> As to security
> blankets, true friends are, in a sense.

Not in this sense.

> They are many other things too, but
> they are comforts. For one spouse
> to demand that the other not see his/
> her friends is unreasonable.

With friends in general, I agree. I disagree when it involves friends
with whom the other spouse has had a romantic relationship -- sex or no
sex. The issue goes beyond insecurity and trust because there's a prior
history of contact that goes beyond mere friendship. If Jim were to tell
Wendy, "The past is past," she could reasonably ask him why he's still
so close to the woman who cheated on him and divorced him (and why he's
STILL closer to Kristen than he'd ever be to Wendy).

> It's not even like he was still having sex with
> her, was he?

That's a ridiculous point, Skanky. There are many issues which affect
people in relationships, not just sex. There's also desire and similar
emotions and feelings which can seem very puzzling to the affected
spouse or partner.

>>>It's too bad though
>>>that his girlfriend was insecure
>>>about it.
>>
>>Wendy is a psychologist and, though I question her attempt to diagnose
>>Jim with Asperger's to explain his actions (or inactions), I think she's
>>probably mature and professional enough to separate her own insecurities
>>from what she observes. She and Jim were in a relationship for a few
>>years. This was an ongoing issue in their relationship and Jim chose the
>>woman who rejected him instead of the one who wanted a future with him.
>
> Sounds like he stood by his friend

He chose his unfaithful ex-wife over starting over and building a
relationship with someone else.

> even when a controlling girlfriend

I'm not convinced she's controlling. From Jim's account, she tried to
find a way to clinically explain his behavior and stick things out.

> wanted to change that.

I don't blame her. Apparently she saw signs that bothered her.

>>>>Kristen got on with her life. Wendy's getting on with hers. Jim is
>>>>just... stuck.
>>>
>>>In you sick little head.
>>
>>I'm not sick,
>
> Yes

No.

>>>You want to picture him as stuck somewhere bad.
>>
>>I have
>
> You have been using what you know

I tried helping him two years ago, before he ever admitted there was a
real problem; indeed, he tried to suggest there was no problem and Wendy
was cool with his continued relationship with Kristen. Now he knows I
was right and he was wrong. He wouldn't hurt if he'd listened to me. He
can learn his lesson and move on, or he can keep repeating the same
mistakes and grow old lonely. It's his choice.

Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>Stop referring to yourself in third-person, dummy. You've moved back
>
> in
>
>>>>>>with your parents.
>>>>>
>>>>>Stop fishing,
>>>>
>>>>It isn't fishing. Was Mommy waiting up for you back at the apartment
>>>>when you met with the atmo people?
>>>
>>>Was she
>>
>>Yes.
>
> Fishing.

Maybe you had a large rabbit named Harvey waiting for you...

Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>>>>Derek posted a link where you
>>>>>said you were currently looking
>>>>>for a girlfriend in 2003 I think it
>>>>>was. They can't both be true.
>>>>
>>>>Why not? :-)
>>>
>>>You're not mature enough
>>
>>Look who's talking, lol.
>>
>>
>>>to handle
>>>non-monogamous relationships.
>>
>>I never was serious about that with Jenae. She realized as much and
>>joked back:
>>
>>Or maybe you just said that to help in your
>>efforts to pick me up? lol
>>-- Jenae, May 4 2003
>
> I was thinking

First time for everything. Jenae knew I was kidding.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>of anyone who has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>a real girlfriend
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Jim doesn't have a real girlfriend. She dumped him.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>If that's true,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>then at least he was
>>>>>>>>>>>still 'getting some'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The only pussy he's had eats Fancy Feast.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>He gets more than you
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, he doesn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'd bet he does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You'd lose your welfare cheque, dummy.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're fishing
>>>>
>>>>No, it's established.
>>>
>>>Cite your source, snipper.
>>
>>Look up your own posts about welfare, stupid.
>
> Who's stupid?

You are. So is David Harrison. I could make a list of all the nitwits
who've disgraced AFV/AAEV/TPA with their presence, but it would be quite
lengthy.

> I never said I was

I'll say it then: YOU ARE STUPID.

> I just know a fair bit about it

Because you were or still are on it.

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>I've repeated what you've written about the subject. You've just
>>>>>>>>>>confirmed, though, that you ARE so self-absorbed that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>feel
>>>>>
>>>>>bad
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>that others put aside their ideas of a "good time" so you could
>>>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>
>>>>>one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Did that family ever invite you over for another meal?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yep. But why are you assuming it
>>>>>>>was a family?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Once a friend's dad
>>>>>>made it into a big adventure
>>>>>>where everyone tried veggie
>>>>>>burgers for the first time.
>>>>>>-- Shit4braincellette, 31 Aug 05
>>>>>
>>>>>Ah, ok. I guess since they are
>>>>>relatives, that can be called a
>>>>>family setting.
>>>>
>>>>So you're caught in yet another lie. Imagine that.
>>>
>>>What lie?
>>
>>The lie about the situation you found yourself. I question whether or not
>>the event even occurred because you can't even keep it straight about
>>someone's father being there or not.
>>
>>
>>>I was simply not confirming
>>>or denying.
>>
>>You were simply lying, liar. You can't keep your story straight. You
>>mention a father and "everyone" and then can't remember if it was a family
>>or not.
>>
>>
>>>>>>Cankles. Big, fat cankles.
>>>>>
>>>>>Stop wanking over your imagination
>>>>>of me.
>>>>
>>>>Stop flattering yourself.
>>>
>>>YOU'RE the one
>>
>>Stop flattering yourself. I don't desire you in any way, shape, or form.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>You don't even know whether my
>>>>>>>parents are even alive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You've written that they are.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok, I'll take your word on that. I
>>>>>don't personally remember posting
>>>>>that though.
>>>>
>>>>I hope my parents are still
>>>>alive when I retire. I wish
>>>>death on neither of them.
>>>>-- Shit4braincellette, 8 May 05
>>>>
>>>>Think they might come back to life between now and then if they're
>>>>already dead? Dumb skank.
>>>
>>>Even that leaves the narrow window
>>>of them passing between May and
>>>now.
>>
>>Cut the ****ing bullshit and stop trying to wiggle out of what you've
>>already written, you boring passivist skank.
>>
>>
>>>They haven't,
>>
>>No shit, Sherlock.
>>
>>
>>>but you didn't
>>
>>I know what you've written. Unlike your shitty memory, mine works quite
>>fine. Your uneducated sophisty about "veganics" and the other nonsense
>>you've peddled here is bad enough, but you're not taking your arguments to
>>a higher level (just a lower one) by engaging in this folly of "you don't
>>know..." when you've already written as much. You stupid, stupid, stupid,
>>stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
>>stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
>>stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
>>stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
>>stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
>>stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
>>stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
>>stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
>>stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
>>stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
>>stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
>>stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
>>stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
>>stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
>>stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid,
>>stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, STUPID whore.
>
> Upset, are we???

No, I'm amused that she's like the female version of Sophist Boob Black.

C. James Strutz whined:
>>>>>>>>And, regarding remaining close to your ex-wife:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's dumb. The odds are stacked against your new relationship
>>>>>>>>as long as the old ball and chain is around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You feel wives are a ball and chain?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>*Ex*-wives are. So are ex-girlfriends.
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe to you,
>>>>
>>>>To most men.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>You feel one should not remain
>>>>>>>friends with exes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What purpose does it serve once you know it's an impediment to the
>>>>>>success of a new relationship?
>>>>>
>>>>>Why throw away a friendship
>>>>
>>>>To get on with one's life. That part of one's life and the relationship
>>>>are both over. A couple can split amicably, and be pleasant should they
>>>>have to deal with each other (e.g., if they have children together); but
>>>>there is no reason for someone to continue to fawn over an ex-partner
>>>>who's already moved on with his or her life.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>just because you don't have sex with
>>>>>that person anymore?
>>>>
>>>>I'll use the following steps from the first article I found during a
>>>>search on "failed relationship" as an outline.
>>>>Recovering from a failed relationship is tough. You can do it,
>>>>though, and find love in five simple steps once you commit to
>>>>leave the past behind
>>>>1. Leaving the past behind
>>>>2. Learning the lessons
>>>>3. Getting out and about
>>>>4. The dating game
>>>>5. When love comes again
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/dby7q
>>>>
>>>>First, the past is past. In Jim's case, his past is all he wants because
>>>>it's part of his familiar structure. I bet Wendy suggested that Kristen
>>>>was sort of a security blanket for him, possibly even that Kristen
>>>>enabled Jim's desire for "structure" (in his case meaning "living in the
>>>>past") by continuing to give him time whenever he wanted. I also bet that
>>>>Jim is an issue in Kristen's current marriage; the person Jim should ask
>>>>for honesty about that isn't Kristen (his enabler), but her husband.
>>>>Two's company, three's a crowd -- a potentially hostile crowd when the
>>>>third wheel is an ex-spouse.
>>>>
>>>>Second, he's yet to learn the lessons of either failed relationship. He
>>>>continues to blame Wendy for pressing hard, being too intense,
>>>>controlling, and being difficult to be in a relationship with (while he
>>>>tries to suggest in the next breath that everything was perfect).
>>>>Meanwhile, he continues to put his ex-wife before himself and his current
>>>>or future relationships. See step 1.
>>>>
>>>>Third, fourth, and fifth go together. He's admitted he's something of a
>>>>loner:
>>>>It was also good for her to understand why *I like to be alone*,
>>>>why *I am not "touchy-feely"*, why *I don't reciprocate emotions
>>>>very well*, why I need structure and don't adapt to changes very
>>>>well.
>>>>-- CJS, 16 Dec 2004
>>>>
>>>>The break up has left him with "time to think about things," as he put
>>>>it. He's not getting out. He's not moving along. He's still friends with
>>>>Kristen, which in and of itself wouldn't necessarily be bad BUT he has to
>>>>get over her and get on with his own life. That relationship has already
>>>>affected one. Kristen cut Jim out of her life when she started banging
>>>>someone else and divorced him to marry her paramour. It's puzzling that
>>>>he thinks she's still a great friend after doing that to him.
>>>>
>>>>Finally, my advice about moving on and leaving the past in the past is
>>>>neither novel nor extreme. Many, if not most, relationship counselors and
>>>>mental health experts recommend doing that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>In the case of Jim and Wendy, Wendy's complaints weren't born of
>>>>>>insecurity -- they were because Jim was stuck in his comfortable old
>>>>>>rut. Jim chose a close friendship with his ex-wife over committing to
>>>>>>new life with someone else. That's certainly his right, but it's very
>>>>>>unhealthy for establishing any future relationship. It's also unhealthy
>>>>>>for him.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's very healthy.
>>>>
>>>>No, not if Kristen is his enabler/security blanket. Then it's patently
>>>>unhealthy for both of them and her current marriage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It's too bad though
>>>>>that his girlfriend was insecure
>>>>>about it.
>>>>
>>>>Wendy is a psychologist and, though I question her attempt to diagnose
>>>>Jim with Asperger's to explain his actions (or inactions), I think she's
>>>>probably mature and professional enough to separate her own insecurities
>>>
>>>>from what she observes. She and Jim were in a relationship for a few
>>>
>>>>years. This was an ongoing issue in their relationship and Jim chose the
>>>>woman who rejected him instead of the one who wanted a future with him.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Kristen got on with her life. Wendy's getting on with hers. Jim is
>>>>>>just... stuck.
>>>>>
>>>>>In you sick little head.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sick, Skanky, and most relationship and marriage counselors would
>>>>agree with what I've already written. Apparently Wendy (the psychologist)
>>>>did, too; I told Jim that his relationship with her would end sooner than
>>>>later because of being a relationship pack-rat like that. I didn't write
>>>>any of that out of malice, and there's nothing untoward in what I've
>>>>suggested to him about relationships. Kristen has already divorced him.
>>>>That relationship is over. They can be amicable if they run into each
>>>>other. But I think it's unhealthy for both of them to go out of their way
>>>>to pursue encounters together. It's ruined one of Jim's relationships
>>>>already, and I suspect it's doing the same for Kristen's.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You want to picture him as stuck somewhere bad.
>>>>
>>>>I have the one he's painted of himself. He emotionally wore out Wendy.
>>>>She wanted him to stop dividing his attention between her and his
>>>>EX-wife -- not exactly unreasonable. In desperation, she turned to a
>>>>clinical explanation for why he's the way he is. In the end, he's chosen
>>>>his comfort zone -- his enabler EX-wife and his four cats -- over Wendy
>>>>and a new life together. Yet he blames Wendy, except to say that he was
>>>>unwilling to commit (see previous sentence) and then lists what he
>>>>perceives to be her flaws. None of that is good.
>>>
>>>Stop trolling, asshole...
>>
>>Stop whining, putz. You know I'm right.
>
>
> You're

You know I'm right. Your sister (Vickie?) agrees with me, and so does
"the psychologist" Wendy.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky wrote:
> >>>>>>Stop referring to yourself in third-person, dummy. You've moved back
> >
> > in
> >
> >>>>>>with your parents.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Stop fishing,
> >>>>
> >>>>It isn't fishing. Was Mommy waiting up for you back at the apartment
> >>>>when you met with the atmo people?
> >>>
> >>>Was she
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >
> > Fishing.
>
> Maybe you had a large rabbit named Harvey waiting for you...

Maybe I did, and maybe I didn't.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Sophist Boob Black's STUPID separated twin wrote:
>>>>>>>>Stop referring to yourself in third-person, dummy. You've moved back
>>>
>>>in
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>with your parents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stop fishing,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It isn't fishing. Was Mommy waiting up for you back at the apartment
>>>>>>when you met with the atmo people?
>>>>>
>>>>>Was she
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>Fishing.
>>
>>Maybe you had a large rabbit named Harvey waiting for you...
>
> Maybe I did, and maybe I didn't.

Maybe someday you'll grow up. On second thought, you're kinda late for that.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

> You know I'm right. Your sister (Vickie?) agrees with me, and so does "the
> psychologist" Wendy.

Vicky is my cousin. I don't know what's with you digging into my personal
life but I would appreciate it if you would stop. Please stop propagating
any discussion of my relationships and please stop trolling. I'm asking you
nicely - please stop.

C. James Strutz wrote:
> I don't know what's with you digging into my personal life

You've volunteered it.

> I would appreciate it if you would stop.

Fine, call Dr Laura.

> I'm asking you nicely - please stop.

Just for the record, I nicely and respectfully offered you that advice
about how your relationship with your ex would affect your relationship
with your girlfriend two years ago. I've intended no malice.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>> I don't know what's with you digging into my personal life
>
> You've volunteered it.

I initially volunteered some information as an attempt to diffuse the
misinformation that was flying around here. It became fodder for more
misinformation - I won't make that mistake again. Then you dug further into
my personal life to carry on the discussion for your amusement. No, we're
not impressed that you can search the Google archives for dirt on people. We
can do that too.

>> I would appreciate it if you would stop.
>
> Fine, call Dr Laura.

???? Dr. Laura helps people with moral and ethical dilemmas. You're the one
with those kind of issues around here - YOU call Dr. Laura. She'd kick your
ass in a Texas heartbeat.

>> I'm asking you nicely - please stop.
>
> Just for the record, I nicely and respectfully offered you that advice
> about how your relationship with your ex would affect your relationship
> with your girlfriend two years ago.

We know, this is only the fourth time you've mentioned it. Quit begging for
accolades.

> I've intended no malice.

Then you have really awful empathy and judgement....

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>I don't know what's with you digging into my personal life
>>
>>You've volunteered it.
>
> I initially volunteered some information as an attempt to diffuse the
> misinformation that was flying around here.

You confirmed just about everything.

>>>I would appreciate it if you would stop.
>>
>>Fine, call Dr Laura.
>
> ???? Dr. Laura helps people with moral and ethical dilemmas.

And relationship issues.

>>>I'm asking you nicely - please stop.
>>
>>Just for the record, I nicely and respectfully offered you that advice
>>about how your relationship with your ex would affect your relationship
>>with your girlfriend two years ago.
>
> We know,

Then stop whining, Jim.

>>I've intended no malice.
>
> Then you have really awful empathy and judgement....

My judgment thus far has been right on target. That leaves the empathy
factor, and I admit I can be abrasive sometimes. Tough shit.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
. ..

> I admit I can be abrasive sometimes.

This is like making a mole hill out of a mountain. :^)

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>I admit I can be abrasive sometimes.
>
> This is like

Tough shit. My judgment thus far has been right on target.