Re: To Bob Badour, sorry

From: Cimode <>
Date: 17 Jun 2006 04:34:00 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Tony D wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > Yes it is different. Totally different, because it demonstrates a
> > totally different motivation on your part.
> >
> > Your intention is clearly to dismiss BB's responsability into provoking
> > guilt with Rich Ryan. Instead, you favor of saying Rich Ryan is not
> > the one living to his own's standard and add more guilt...
> >
> > You give it a smooth look-and-feel wax but when you look at the facts
> > and only facts it quickly appears all you have said is pure crapola...
> >
> > Besides, if you believe that what I said is not different from what you
> > said then you should agree to it...and stop the BS. The victim here is
> > not BB it's Rich Ryan...
> >
> In the context of this thread at least, you're coming over as a fount
> of boundless charm and grace yourself. Let's look at this post, shall
> we ?
> 1. You have ascribed a motivation to someone else's post.
> 2. You have supplied your own interpretation of that post, based on
> your own viewpoint and agenda.
> 3. You accuse the poster of attempting to induce guilt in Rich Ryan.
> 3. You accuse the poster of being a charming purveyor of "crapola".
> 4. You demand a course of action from the poster.
> 5. You order the poster to "stop the BS".
> 6. You ascribe victimhood to Rich Ryan.

You doubled up 3 don't you know how to count?

1 - YES and I have not been proven wrong
2 - It is a conclusion based on facts observed on this thread AND other
3 - YES..

3- NO...I perceive the poster as a victim...I said you and others are full of crappola
4- YES I urge him to ignore the crappola comments posted and make up his own mind reading and documenting himself rather than listen to barking dogs...
5- 6 I did NOT attribute the BS to the poster but to people like you
and other barking dogs..I see Rich Ryan as a victim of your delluded spirit...

> Quite how all this squares with your apparent views about Bob Badour
> isn't immediately apparent to me.


for further details... Received on Sat Jun 17 2006 - 13:34:00 CEST

Original text of this message