| re: I am not Mr. Egg/ I am not negative | |
|
Posted by: |
Leesa (gallytrotter@mchsi.com) 08:10 pm UTC 09/23/08 |
| In reply to: | I am not Mr. Egg/ I am not negative - steven_stuart 07:10 pm UTC 09/23/08 |
| Just for the record, I didn't 'rant' about Susan during the Wagner thread--Smeg mentioned her blog and I quieried that it was strange that she's allowed to use photos of Jim Steinman and publically claim they are in fact someone completely different. Not many celebrities (or others) would tolerate that and yeah, there probably are some legalities involved. But whatever. Also, neither Pudding nor myself 'accused' you point blank of actually being someone else. In fact he apologised to you if indeed you weren't the Egg. There are aLOT of coincidences and your overreaction and quick to play the victim here isn't helping convince anyone familiar with the situation. I'm sorry I upset you, but we're all commenting only on the coincidences. Leesa J > I am not Mr. Egg. I now know who Susan is. Although I > don't know why Pudding's post about her was so horrible. > Thanks to you I now know that Jim Cypherd is a fictional > character. > I don't know why Pudding is so worried about who is Susan > and who is Mr. Egg. Belmont has also been accused of being > Mr. Egg and Susan. And for Dave, Vulvania changed the > thread name to Belmont when she replied to him. What's so > shocking about that? People change the thread subject line > all the time. As for Pudding's remarks about dual > personalities, I am only posting under this one name. But > I heard that was not the case for Leesa (who pretended to > be upset that I invoked Jim Cypherd's name when she > herself published a rant against Susan during the Wagner > posts - saying that she didn't know why Susan hadn't been > brought to court for the Jim Cypherd claims). I wonder why > Pudding worried about my writing: "I really enjoyed > reading your response. You make some great points." There > are people out there claiming that they created Jim's > music (and I'm not saying that it's Susan - I do not wish > to invoke her name). There are people saying that BOOH > will fail (and it is Wagner's favourite project at the > moment) and yet Pudding jumps on me for complimenting > Jackster. I'm sorry that Smeghead believes Pudding because > I had traded some good posts with him. I can assure > Smeghead that I am not going to cause trouble for him or > anyone else. The post that Pudding picked up on was about > Operas Vs. Musicals. I don't know what possible harm that > conversation could have made to Pudding or anyone else. It > was certainly not an attempt to cause trouble. Wordnix > thought that I was Mr. Egg because I said that Obsidian > was now New York and no longer California. It's true. > Maybe Wagner could post about it. Wordnix said that > everyone except Susan deserves another chance. This is > because he was Jackster. From looking back at the old > posts I see that both Jackster and Mr. Egg sometimes found > it difficult to win friends and influence people. But > surely the Susan character deserves another chance too (is > she real or did my friend Ryan invent her?). > Pudding wrote an absolutely vicious post about her and it > would seem that she is not allowed on to the board to > defend herself. Smeghead told me that she invented Jim > Cypherd when Jim blogged saying that he had never met her. > She was probably embarrassed and didn't know what else to > say. I notice that Pudding and Leesa made accusations > against me in the Is Mr. Egg Back On The Board thread. But > they didn't want to answer any of my questions. Like what > exactly did Mr. Egg do wrong? Did he generate the kind of > complaints that Susan obviously does? I'm sorry to get > into all this negative stuff. Yesterday I was happy > posting my opinions about BOOH and DOTV but Pudding and > Leesa decided to attack me. I enjoy this board when it is > not negative. And Pudding insists on making it negative. > He doesn't believe Wagner was Jim. I am attacked for > complimenting wordnix Jackster. He writes the most vile > post about Susan when he knows that she is not allowed on > the board to defend herself (and that was completely out > of the blue and for no reason). Smeghead's post about > Susan was quite different. It was in response to me > talking about Jim Cypherd and it was clinical and not > hateful. I like the board when it is positive. Like if you > read back a while, Jsteinfan came up with the really great > idea of Bat Out Of Hell as a computer game. I posted my > agreement and suggested that the story could be Jim's > Obsidian concept. There was nothing negative going on. And > there was nothing negative about the Operas Vs. Musicals > thread but Pudding decided to pounce. I really wonder what > this Mr. Egg character did to Pudding to make him so > sensitive. Even if I was Mr. Egg, why would he care? And > to Dave, I changed the thread to Pudding's name and > Leesa's name because I was having to defend myself, which > can be an uncomfortable position to be in. Vulvania > changed her thread line to Belmont because she was > speaking to Belmont. It makes sense to do that. I'm sorry > Mr. Egg also made sense sometimes. Or was he completely > stupid? I don't know. Pudding is the Mr. Egg expert but he > won't tell me. He attacked me and ran for cover. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: I am not Mr. Egg/ I am not negative - Pudding 01:40 am UTC 09/24/08 |
| Next: | re: I am not Mr. Egg/ I am not negative - Pudding 07:54 pm UTC 09/23/08 |
| Thread: | |