================================================ Subject: Re: NCR: ABSOLUTELY STUNNED From: "]\\[][G}{T§TÖ®]v[" To: Date: Tue 28 Aug 2001 17:02:29 -0400 ================================================ You missed the end, where I tag on "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" Of course, you've always come across as a bit of a slow one... ¤]\[][G}{T§TÖ®]v[¤ http://NightStorm.isyourgod.com/ NightStorm_Draco_@hotmail.com NightStorm_Draco@creedlist.com NightStorm@isyourgod.com I've seen the wicked fruit of your vine, Destroy the man who lacks a strong mind Human pride sings a vengeful song Inspired by the times you've been walked on My stage is shared by many millions, Who lift their hands up high because they feel this We are one We are strong, The more you hold us down the more we press on What if you did? What if you lied? What if I avenge? What if eye for an eye? ----- Original Message ----- From: King_Dovregubben To: Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 4:55 PM Subject: Re: NCR: ABSOLUTELY STUNNED Translation: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! > -----Original Message----- > From: Creed Discussion List > [mailto:CREED-DISCUSS@WINDUPLIST.COM] On Behalf Of ]\[][G}{T§TÖ®]v[ > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 1:53 PM > To: CREED-DISCUSS@WINDUPLIST.COM > Subject: Re: NCR: ABSOLUTELY STUNNED > > > Again... this makes it okay to say that Jim does Crack? On > multiple occasions? Basically, Jim had slander being spread > against him on multiple occasions, and he lashed out in a way > that he knew would hit best. 2 weeks of getting attacked can > be equaled out pretty fast with one comment if that's what > you want to do. I'm calling biased. I am not in any way > saying that what Jim said was right (haven't I said all this > before?)... but it wasn't any more right that Keith said the > things that he did. Jim took something that he knew would > hurt Keith, and that was what he used. Keith made something > up about Jim, and threw it at him on 2 separate occasions. I > personally would be extremely pissed off if someone chimed in > on the list that I am a drug user... especially on 2 separate > occasions... and I would lash back a lot sooner than Jim did, > and I would probably not stop at one comment. You replied > back (while I was picking Jayson up from school, so pardon the > delays) that Jim chose to throw common respect out the > window. Well, I feel that wrongfully accusing someone of > being a drug addict is also throwing respect out the > window... as is attacking all Linux users, and grouping them > all into the "homosexual" category, simply because most Linux > users choose (oh yeah... Linux users have an opinion, and > have a right to voice that > opinion) not to use Microsoft operating systems. Does this > mean that I'm allowed to group, and also cut down all > Microsoft users because they keep falling for the "oops, we > have some bugs in this operating system, so for $49.95, you > can buy a fixed version when we put the next Windows Product > out" group, right? Cool. How about I cut down all AOL users > because most of the unsubscribe requests that come through > the list are from people with an AOL address? Oh wait... > that's been done already. Scratch that. And as I added > before, are you able to prove that Jim in fact did not ever > read anything like that? And even if he didn't, does that > then make it right to call him a drug user? But I'm guessing > that no matter what is said here, it's okay for Keith and > Kevin and King to cut down on whomever they want, but those > people aren't allowed to lash back. Thanks for making that clear. > > ¤]\[][G}{T§TÖ®]v[¤ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Debbi R > To: > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 2:45 PM > Subject: Re: NCR: ABSOLUTELY STUNNED > > > I didn't say anything because they weren't taking personal > information that he'd shared with the list and shit on him > with it, which is exactly what he did to Keith. The only > time I saw him get shit on was specifically related to Linux. > And since that was the subject matter of the discussion I > had no issue with it. Any more than I did the Windoze, etc. > I took it for what it was worth to me and responded > accordingly. I never called him for hitting me below the belt > on it nor did I think that anyone hit him below the belt > because he was talking shit and couldn't back it up. > > Another example: > > If someone tells the list that they'd been paralyzed in a car > accident a few years back and some time later gets into a > heated discussion on the merits of stereo versus monophonic > sound, I wouldn't consider comments akin to "oh go jump in a > lake. Oh.. Wait... You can't. Nevermind" at all acceptable > and would react the same way. It's a blindsided attack based > on personal information shared with the list. > > > He was wrong. Period. Any way you slice it. > > To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the > Creed-Discuss list, visit: > http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp > To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp