Shrillomn, a brief expose

Wow....ouch. Many of us have not always seen eye to eye, and Lucille and I have exchanged words before, but sheesh that was a little harsh.

Pretty funny stuff.

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean squat.

I also think you DO understand, with exatitude to spare, just what I was saying and, furthermore, that you didn't like it to the extent that you are here, showing everyone what I said, trying to not only garner sympathy but to cast me in a negative light.

I find it all rather amusing.

BIG red ones, everywhere I look of late, BIG red ones.

Originally Posted by Wilomn

showing everyone what I said...to cast me in a negative light.

Wes, take some responsibility here. If you feel your own words cast you in a negative light, perhaps you should not have said them.

....................

Mike, nice try on taking the focus away from these words:

you ain't all that, no chips for sure. it's NOT all about YOU, thank goodness. Back to dandy you go, keep the phone warm


They are incoherent. And I think Wes' subsequent post was a complaint that they might cast him in a negative light. I will let those who read his words be the judge.

As for your attempt to divert attention from his words by being nasty, others can judge how they feel about that also.

Originally Posted by lucille

Mike, nice try on taking the focus away from these words:

you ain't all that, no chips for sure. it's NOT all about YOU, thank goodness. Back to dandy you go, keep the phone warm


They are incoherent. And I think Wes' subsequent post was a complaint that they might cast him in a negative light. I will let those who read his words be the judge.

As for your attempt to divert attention from his words by being nasty, others can judge how they feel about that also.

I believe that Wes is referring to the old saying "you think you are all that and a bag of chips". Which generally is used when someone thinks they are more important than they are. The Dand comment I would think he is referring to phone sex. I don't know what about his statement is so hard to understand.

....................

Going to have to disagree with you here. As indicated by other posters, Wes was over-the-top with his posts and comments, and that Lucille was accurate with this view:

Originally Posted by lucille
Wes, take some responsibility here. If you feel your own words cast you in a negative light, perhaps you should not have said them.

We can all have differing opinions as to which words may have cast Wes in a bad light, but it doesn't take much reading of the last 30 posts in this thread to see that many felt Wes had cast himself in a bad light on multiple occasions. Now, if some here want to reach back with 6-12 month old innuendos and debate them as well, have at it. But we don't need back 6-12 months to find such to see Wes as he has been chastised here. Just rhetorically asking here Mike, but have you ever written a page about yourself in public forum just to toot your own horn ? We all have probably complemented ourselves in a sentence or two, but compare yourself to someone noble, even if mythical ?

Agree or disagree with Lucille, but why the name-calling Mike ?

With this comment, in support of Wes I believe, and in criticism of Lucille for mentioning the bad karma from Wes:

"GROW THE HELL UP!!!"

Did you see the in-forum discussion earlier in the week where Wes put up a screen-shot of me giving him negative karma ? I added a post mentioning that I was 1-2 (good-bad) in my giving of karma to Wes, while I was 0-3 on receiving it from him. But he came crying to Fauna about the bad karma. Did you miss that? Do you want me to put up a link ? Maybe what's good for the goose is good for the gander ?

First off Mike, let me reiterate that you and I communicate occasionally on the side, and that I like and respect you. Just a bit of a disagreement here this AM. One more for you:

Bullshit like this is exactly why comments left in the karma section of your control panel need to stay there.

I could say that this was between Wes and Lucille, for us to comment on of course, since it was posted here. But I can't criticize Lucile if her standards for confronting Wes are the same as he employs with others. The earlier karma example as a perfect example. But with your above opinion, would you like me to link where Wes has posted PM's that were sent to him with personal information about a third party, yet Wes posted them so as to impugn others anyway ? How about his own words where "nothing is private" in supporting his posting of such ? Whatever Lucille's "sins" here, they were aimed at Wes, and mirrored far more egregious actions which Wes employs himself to "make others look bad" ! How 'bout that .... hmmmmmmm ?