not logged in
| re: "Ignore" Means: Not to React, "React" Means: Not to Ignore | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 08:48 pm UTC 05/31/07 |
| In reply to: | "Ignore" Means: Not to React, "React" Means: Not to Ignore - pidunk 08:18 pm UTC 05/31/07 |
I shall ignore your aspiring darts of missives from this time on, as I have already stated all that I need to state. As for what there is to salvage of a normal fan board, I shall make replies as judged to be able to connect with true fans. I don't mind replying for the sake of lurkers. Lurkers have reasons for lurking. It takes an iron stomach to post and to tolerate the barrage of diatribes against actual interests in all things good of Jim. Jim is aware of this situation and it is a thing that I wish did not exist. Is the solution banning anyone? You would like to ban someone who represents Jim? A friend of Jim's? That only shows the depth of your contempt of Jim. It shows it in a transparent way. You are intelligent enough to converse and refuse to. You are intelligent enough to manage and you don't. You use words like stalk, when only on an internet message board, you use phrases like "replying to herself" when supplementing a previous uneditable post, and you discuss proof that is disproven as gospel against proof that is proven. You are a sick bunch of mothers. But I love Jim, I care about JD, I care about the elder Jim, and I care about the music. I care about Rory who watches his name be placed in innappropriate places, being used to denigrate Jim who he cares about, and I care about truth in these instances and for these sakes. Moreover, I don't mind at all if you really would learn how to behave. > > > And, while I'm on the subject, I build him, you break him, > so who is in what permanent state of what psychosis? > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | "Ignore" Means: Not to React, "React" Means: Not to Ignore - pidunk 08:18 pm UTC 05/31/07 |
| Next: | BAN THIS STUPID HAG - Pudding 08:54 pm UTC 05/31/07 |
| Thread: |
|