Mario,
You certainly do seem, in my opinion, to be worried about some sort of a conspiracy and about everyone insulting you when such is apparently not the case as far as I can see. Yet you continually, in my opinion, insult others, like me, on these forums. It is truly, in my opinion, the proverbial pot calling the kettle black!
As with the majority of the lack of intellect that has been displayed in this thread amongst other issues. I find it intriguing that instead of simply replying to a concern I had with your post, you have chosen to some on the public forum and insult my intelligence.
Please explain to me in detail how you think I insulted your intelligence? I never even once alluded to your intelligence or possible lack of it! Also please explain what you mean by "the majority of the lack of intellect displayed in this thread". Are you referring to me as lacking intellect? It seems quite possibly that way to me, but I am uncertain. Please explain further in plainer language that is direct and to the point.
You keep on bringing up the point that this is some type of a group effort as insinuated in the following:
You people keep playing in your pretend courtroom.
There is no court in session. There is no group of people judging. There are a bunch of individuals who are connected by this forum, you are now one of us. It is not an anti Mario conspiracy as far as I am aware. You can choose to think so, but you also have another choice. Maybe, just maybe (and I am not saying one way or the other) you are wrong on the issues at hand since so many people seem to be (as you seem to see it) against you.
You also seem to think that I am making an effort to aggravate your situation. This is as far from the truth as could be. I am discussing an interesting issue as I told you previously. I wonder, are you insinuating by this statement below that I am a liar:
Not to mention you go one step future to insinuate that the accused has the right to file a counter suit. Your post leaves me to believe there was clear motive and intent to future aggravate the problem/problems at hand. And this is “supposedly” after not reading everything in its entirety.
Clear motive and intent. Mario are you a lawyer? You surely try to talk like one. I truly am wondering? The thing I pointed out about the other party being able to file a counter suit was not an attempt to fan any flames or aggravate a situation but to calm one down - if anything other than to discuss it. You, in my opinion, should really start to think a bit more objectively instead of emotionally before you write. If you decide to sue someone like the original poster to this forum for copyright violation, I am willing to bet a dollar to a doughnut that a number of valid counter suits could be brought against you for what you have written. Maybe you ought to take a deep breath and think about what you are doing here. You keep on accusing other people of things, a number of things. Maybe some of them are being disrespectful; but you apparently, in my opinion, see an enemy behind every keyboard. Such is not the case behind my keyboard, and I would bet that is the case with others too. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they are out to get you. As I said, I posted originally because it was interesting. I am pretty sure that is why many others have posted. I do not believe people began posting in any sort of anti Mario campaign - do you? I will admit, however, I am posting now because you keep, in my opinion, bad mouthing me.
You insinuate, in my opinion, that I may have lied when I said I did not read all of the posts on this thread, let me quote you again:
And this is “supposedly” after not reading everything in its entirety
Why would you place 'supposedly' in quotation marks if not other than what I have inferred - that you believe me to be lying? Do you really think I would want to read posts about someone's dog passing feces? I saw one post that indicated there were others like it (possibly with pictures), and I avoided those other posts. I do not even want to know how this thread got onto the subject of someone's dog's doo-doo. Why would I want to know? Can you blame me on this one?
You also fault my attitude:
Your attitude displayed to me was not appreciated.
Did I have an attitude? Was I the first to display an attitude or was it you? My attitude as you call it was nonexistent in my original post if you mean any sort of an attitude other than an interested attitude. As for my subsequent posts, my attitude could only be described as rather defensively benign or maybe even astounded, in my opinion. I am not the one who sent a message to someone off forum about the forum, questioning his motives. As I see it, you had no call to do so. In my mind such an email was discourteous to myself and to other forum members. If you want to discuss issues, with me, that arose in this forum, then in my opinion, you should do so in this forum. Is that attitude? If it is, then I am proud I have such a fair attitude.
You also seem to see some sort of mysterious cover-up in my post, if I understand you correctly:
As far as your latest post that seemed to come out of the blue. That was very interesting. Seemed to go out of your way to make this apparent. That’s makes it sound to me as a cover up of some kind.
I actually went out of my way to be honest, because I would not want to have discovered later that I knew Steve but had said I did not earlier on. You say I came "out of the blue" with this info. Maybe it seems that way to you because Steve emailed me 'off forum' just as you had done. He emailed me through the faunaclassified email capabilities, I think it is called a private message. In fact when Steve emailed me off forum to tell me, in essence: 'he was sorry he did not attend my local herp society's meeting yesterday and see me there' - I posted my reply in this forum (sound familiar). I said, in essence that: 'whoops maybe I know one the original poster from my society because he is apparently a member'. Steve again contacted me off forum and told me, in essence, that: 'no he was not yet a member but had meant to attend yesterday's society meeting and join'. That is when I posted that I did not actually know him at the end of my reply to Ken Harbart's post about copyright law. But you, in my opinion, find this only to be further indication of some sort of cover-up. Do you always see cover-ups when someone is simply being honest with you? I hope not, especially since there was no cover-up in any of my posts.
You also say, as I understand it, I treated you with disrespect or at least insinuate such in my opinion.
Heck, even when I do, as Glenn has completely pointed out, it is impossibly for anything to be handled privately to but this matter to rest. I simply emailed him my concern on his post. He chose not to show the same respect.
As I pointed out earlier, I believe it was you who may have been disrespectful because you chose to write to me out of the view of others on this rather PUBLIC forum in answer to my post on the same forum. You, in my opinion, took a path somewhat of secrecy by emailing me off forum or, at least you tried to, in my opinion. If others are involved in a discussion (forum) then how is it respectful for you to email me privately on an issue that is in a public forum? Maybe you did not mean to be disrespectful but disrespectful is, in my opinion, exactly what it may have amounted to in some people's opinions. Think of it this way: If you discovered that I was having some sort of 'off forum' email discussion with Steve about the content of this forum, and that I was not disclosing it to everyone in the forum, how would you feel? Would you be pleased; or would you feel that I had been disrespectful to you by not including you in the discussion? I am willing to bet you would accuse me of being something not all that nice! That is why I immediately posted the whole thing about Steve possibly being a member of my local society and my possibly knowing him. It did not come 'out of the blue' as you thought. It came about because Steve (just as you had done) emailed me off forum, and I decided to respond 'on forum'. I was not trying to be disrespectful to Steve by doing this, nor was I being disrespectful to you by doing so. By the way, there is a difference between your emails and Steve's. The difference between Steve's email to me and your email to me was that Steve only said he was sorry he had not been at the meeting, and later in another email he told me that he had never actually met me and was not yet a member but wanted to join. It was sort of pleasant conversation about something not really part of the issue at hand. He did not actually discuss the issues that we were discussing on this forum. Your email on the other hand was a bit accusatory, as I understood it, and it did talk about the issues discussed on this forum. Either way, I responded to both 'on forum'. Why should I hide anything that regards this forum 'off forum'? I thought that was pretty respectful of everyone involved. That is how I look at it. If you want to consider that to be disrespectful, that is your prerogative.
After saying what in my opinion, were numerous negative things about me, you apparently indicate that you went back to read one or some of my postings on this thread. You then say that my postings were intelligent. I take a compliment when I get one, thanks. I do, however, wonder why do you bash me and then praise me? Maybe you reread my post after you entered all of the above that I refer to, and then maybe you edited your post. Still I am confused a bit by it all. The quote I am about to show, is why I am confused, as it comes directly after the previous quote I showed also from your post. They seem to me to be diametrically opposed:
Now again back to Glenn
I just got done writing the above and hit refresh. And quickly read through your post. This is the type of post's I would rather see here. This is a post I can respect someone for saying. One with some intelligence. Their has been a lack of post's like this on this thread.
This is probably the first one if any that has shown any intelligence by someone that has came in here.
I guess those two quotes coming one right after the other really confuse me; although I will say thanks for going back to reread my post. Maybe now you will realize I was not attacking you or Steve, but was only making what I thought was pretty interesting conversation in that original post of mine in this thread..
Well, anyhow, it is too bad that you and Steve had a falling out. Maybe both of you ought to take a deep breath or two and try to work out things instead of arguing. After seeing what has been going on here I think both of you were possibly at fault in the issue but that is only my opinion. Neither one of you seems all that willing to give an inch from what I have seen, but then again, I have not read every post so I guess that my opinion on this point is of little use to you. Originally, I only pointed out what I thought was rather interesting on the copyright stuff and law suit stuff that one or both of you had brought up.
I won't bother to reply again to any negative stuff. You, of course, can have your say in reply to me; but I will not respond to you again about any negative stuff. It is getting way too off topic, and I am sure it is not appreciated by the web slave... I certainly do not need this forum changing into the battle of Glenn vs. Mario.
Best of luck to both of you in getting your differences worked out.
Best regards,
Glenn Bartley
