I keep waiting for you to make it telestial worthy. You almost had it, the sentence started out good enough, but I have to say. . . and just IMHO the ending was weak! Perhaps you just have to face the music that you may not have the fortitude to post here in the telestial. ;)

No it hasn't gotten more colorful, but I'll consider your suggestion.



Let's get things straight Trevor, it's not been me bringing things, or mentioning your name disparagingly in threads you aren't in. .. it's been you. I've read numerous times you saying things disparaging me in threads I'm not even in. You've never acknowledged any sort of wrong doing. It's all been a big joke to you. So if you are going to continue mentioning me I will comment if I feel like it and explain what actually went down. I didn't go after you, unprovoked on a deliberate pre-meditated campaign to harass, you went after me. I realize now what your prime motivation was. You didn't like how I talked to your buddy Don who left the board in a huff for a short while because I argued with him over his illogical use of Occam's Razor in justification for the Smith only theory instead of the S/R one.



Trevor of course you don't want to read what I wrote. Why should you.

Once again you are lying. That's bull s*** that your interest was to stop Jason talking with me, because of something I'd said said previously which happened to be about "atheism" the one thing I'm quite knowledgeable about. Your interest pure and simple was to harass me. And the reason for your harassment is because it was payback because I had been responsible for your buddy Don leaving the board temporarily. And if it took lying to accomplish it, you saw no problem in doing so. The ends justify the mean, is that it Trevor. You learn that from your years in Mormonism?

Oh come on. Trevor is a kind soul who only wants to help nuts like me not take a gun and blow my brains out. How could any of us believe this would be Trevor? :)

JMS

Thanks, Josh. I appreciate the support. Marg, though, is not exactly a Scratch, so no need to knock yourself out here because I tried to help you over there. Marg and I have to iron some things out.

Oh, sorry. Forgot the <SARCASM> </SARCASM> flags.

:)

JMS

Well, Telestial is about more than colorful metaphors. It is also about solipsism, self pity, and bashing others. Hence this thread.

Josh, what do you take Trevor's words to mean "Marg, though, is not exactly a Scratch, so no need to knock yourself"? I haven't a clue, maybe you do.

Yes. I bear much or most of the guilt for this. I enjoy teasing you. You are doing a fine job of curing me of this.



Yes, I acknowledge that I decided to tease you and irritate you. If it was all a big joke to me at one time, which it was not (seriously I did want to warn Jason against entering into an endless and fruitless exchange with you), you have made it so tedious that it has morphed between funny and unfunny at least several times now. This morning it is in the "increasingly boring" territory.



Well, I can see you were not slow in implementing my suggestion about embellishing your story in some creative way. At least this is a new development.



Yes. I can think of few people who would hold onto this as long as you have. And it seems you delight in raising the entire thing again (for the umpteenth time) if you are provided the least tidbit for an opening. I refer to you calling me a liar, which you have done in so many ways, over so many things, for so long now, and you immediately jump back to this narrative. Yawn.

Let me state for the record that at least Scratch is interesting. When Scratch aims at you, there is a least a little thrill mixed in. There is the joy of watching Scratchian quickness, rhetoric, and spin in action. You, on the other hand, are about as much fun as watching paint dry.

Anyway, I have come to appreciate your finer qualities in spite of our endless struggle over nothing. I was impressed with your input in the UR#7 discussion. You are a decent person. I can see that you highly value good things, including honesty, that you are concerned for the cause of the underdog, and that you are certainly tenacious.

On the other hand, I am totally tired of this discussion of the many wrongs that I did to you in a single thread when I told Jason he would probably be better off not discussing some topic with you before you had even appeared there. So, if you can guide me to some reasonable resolution that would make you feel like you got what you needed out of me, please do. I will tell you in advance that I refuse to apply the word "harass" to my own actions, not only because I think it is a gross exaggeration, but also because of the possible implications of that word, which for legal and other reasons I am not about to adopt as an accurate characterization of my activities in reference to you, a female participant in this discussion board.

I see you are still going on that the real reason you initiated an unprovoked attack was to warn Jason. That's a joke. Jason and I had discussed much more often than I ever did with you, and I was on good terms with him. He needed none of your advice, plus I wasn't even in the thread. So you were just too quick to jump in and initiate an unprovoked attack. And yes it only recently dawned on me what your motivation was. Your attack then was so out of the blue and seemed emotionally based, yet we hadn't been discussing for quite a long time..so the excuse you were warning Jason didn't and still doesn't make sense. So when you recently mentioned to Scratch that the things which irritate you besides him, are the S/R discussion and myself, and given how you've made it clear you are such good friends with Don, along with your campaign against Scratch on behalf of Dan, of course I realize that your motivation was to go after me on behalf of Don. I didn't appreciate at the time how emotionally upsetting it was to you that I was instrumental in your buddy Don leaving the board in a huff temporarily. I don't expect you to honestly acknowledge this. You wouldn't even acknowledge back then that I hadn't said what you claimed I had, EVEN after I got the quotes for you to read. So heck you are not likely to be honest about your motivations either.

Frankly Trevor there have been numerous times you mentioning me in a derogatory manner, so my response and bringing up what you did is not solely of function of your mention of me in the O.P. It's because in the last little while there have been a number of times, and this time I decided to say something.

There's a good reason I called you a liar.

I think it is great that you think I follow every thread and am fully aware of the dynamics of every relationship on MDB. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I was not aware of what you are telling me. Like most people, I am primarily preoccupied with my only life and the threads I am involved in.



I am flattered that all of this still bothers you so much that you are sitting around trying to piece together my "real" motivations. Or maybe it is a little creepy. In either case, I sincerely doubt that I put that much thought into why I did what I did. Here is what I can imagine myself thinking when I read Jason's OP: "Oh man, he is inviting a conversation with marg. I know how much I have enjoyed my conversations with marg (not), so I think I am going to warn him off of doing this. I seem to remember something she said about this topic that I found annoying, so I'll refer to it. Maybe I shouldn't do it on the chance that it will further entangle me in more pointless discussions with marg. Oh well, caution be damned!"

Knowing myself, this is what I would guess I was thinking. But, if you prefer to construct these fanciful concoctions about my "real" motivations, you feel free. I would prefer to put the whole thing behind us, and I am willing to find a reasonable solution to this conflict, but if you really enjoy the tedium of re-chewing this cud until you die, far be it from me to deny you the small pleasures of life, even if I regret the fact that they involve me.



Yes, marg, there have been numerous times that I have mentioned you in a derogatory manner. That is a fact. But, I had hoped that my recent compliments concerning your input in the rule discussion might have contributed to a breather in our feud. Optimism dies hard I guess. What I find humorous is that you would take the clear fact that you repeatedly call me a liar, which is a simple fact as clear and uncontested as any of the others in the list, as an opportunity to revisit this story.

Does Kevin Graham not call people "idiot"? Did Scratch not malign me? Has Eric not expressed disappointment about my behavior because I am a "scholar"?

Have you not repeatedly called me a liar... up to and including this last post?

Why is it that these facts bother you so? Why is it that this fact, in the aftermath of our positive interactions in the rule thread, was enough to push you into recounting what happened how long ago now? Months? A year?

Why aren't you interested in putting this to rest, when offered the opportunity? Is it actually the case that you are not so much aggrieved, as seeking to cause grief? I am quickly losing sympathy for you here, and I imagine others are too. If someone offers you an honest opportunity to move on, you might want to take them up on it, if, as you claim, honesty is important to you. Otherwise it is you who looks like the liar.

No... He kinda is hard to figure out...

JMS

Thanks Josh, so it's not just me.

Trevor, I'm going away this weekend ..leaving now essentially so I don't have time to read and respond and by the time I get back this will probably be unimportant. I believe you asked something along the lines of what is it you can do. Is there anyone else Trevor that I pop into threads to, in order to attack them and there are lots of people I think are ass-holes Trevor, so what is the difference? It's partially because you keep reminding me. It's not that I'm focused on you or thinking constantly of what you did, but every so often your remarks quite often out of the blue such as to Scratch recently in which you stated the things which bother you are me, the s/R theory and Scratch. And there have been other things such as your focus in the thread I set up for you and ttribe to respond to me out of Don's thread so as to not wreck it, and every single post of yours was a blatant attack. So you keep reminding me, you keep harping on how we don't get along , how you hate me and I hate you, you pop into threads to undermine me, it's not that I focus or think about you at all. It's not that I sit there planning how I'm going to undermine you. So when you remind me, I remember how you made up s***...in order to attack. How you encouraged others to attack. Of course they were the type ..to gladly oblige. Yesterday for whatever reason was probably the first time, when it hit me very strongly how much I do truly dislike you as a poster. That doesn't mean I'm going to follow you around trying to make your life miserable on the board. But I suggest you stop reminding me of your attacks on me, and one way would be to quit mentioning my name.

I'll tell you what, marg. Since you essentially seem to be saying that the only thing I can do to avoid having you drag up this old news is not interact with you, you have your wish. I will not interact with you unless you decide to interact with me. If you decide to respond to something I have said, I will consider it my privilege to respond appropriately. Otherwise, I will leave you alone. In fact, it will be my pleasure. I expect, however, that you will no longer mention these events or accuse me of dishonesty out of the blue as your general commentary on what I say or how I act. So, fair is fair. I expect you to leave me alone just as I will leave you be.

Deal?

That's not at all what I said. Did you interact with me when you first posted a response to Jason in a thread I wasn't even in. Did you interact with me when you recently on a number of times mentioned my name with Scratch with negative implications? Did you interact with me when you referred in your opening post to the incident which led to me saying you are a liar? So it's not to do with interaction with me. You brought up the past in the opening post, you've never acknowledged wrong doing and by bringing it up my impression is you are belittling the incident. So you asked what would you need to do for me to not comment and I said, quit reminding me, quit bringing it up. Your deliberate antagonizing remarks since that incident, indicate it's you who hasn't let go.



It's always been your choice to respond appropriately to me or not, to focus on issues or focus on me. You do whatever you feel like.



No deal. I try not always successfully to be as objective as possible and not let emotions take over how I respond to anyone. I try to address the issues and keep clear of the person, again not always successfully. But if someone plays dishonest games against me, it is likely at some point, I will give them a bit of a hard time as well, but I would try to be honest even so.

So, marg, you have no real interest in putting an end to this conflict, since you are unwilling to do anything to bring it to an end, and you will not be satisfied by anything I do to put an end to it. You want it to continue unabated as long as you please.

Gotcha.

That destroys your credibility regarding honesty, at least for me.

Any agreement to a deal which involves you restricting yourself in honestly responding to me does not entail honesty.

But since you appear to want to make peace I'll make you a counter offer. You can say whatever you wish to me. If you don't like what I say or how I say it by all means tell me publicly. I will agree to not bring up the incident in the past in which I accused you of lying if you curtail ... maligning me to others, disrespecting me in comments with others particularly when I'm not even involved in the discussion, piling on or aligning with someone else I'm in disagreement with in discussion or going on a smear campaign to discredit me. This counter offer enables you to be completely honest about your disrespect and/or dislike of me personally or how I post without negative repercussion of me bringing up the past incident or calling you dishonest or a liar, while at the same time restricting your indirect tactical imo dishonest message board game playing.

How you came to this bizarre interpretation of my suggestion that we avoid exchanges is beyond me.



Whew. I was beginning to think I was posting for nothing.



Oh, that is fine. As long as you keep to it too. You see, I am not the only one of us who has brought up the other out of the blue in the middle of an unrelated thread. You have done so as well. But, if you too can refrain from doing that, it begins to sound like we may have a deal. Having said that, I do not agree that our mutual sniping would qualify as a "smear campaign" on either side, which, in my mind, is nothing more than rhetorical histrionics on your part. Furthermore, your demand that I don't take the side of a person you disagree with in a discussion is silly. I can agree with someone with whom you disagree without wishing, intending, or seeking you ill.

So minus those two little points of disagreement, I am fine with the rest. I intend to engage you as little as possible in the future, if at all.

Yes I remember doing so in Don's long recent thread, I believe I mentioned you were dishonest.



Ok I'm in agreement.



Well this is all pretty much moot, because I don't intend to continue participating much if at all on this board, perhaps just maintain interest in the S/R theory. But we'll see whether or not I follow through with my intentions.