dave

<b>lumberjim's thread</b>
lumberjim started this thread, and it's drawn a fair number of posts. A few different people have sent me portions of it, and I wasn't going to respond, but there are a few points I think that need to be brought up, and so I will do so.

No. I left for reasons stated above and in my farewell post, which have been expanded upon in this thread by others. (Believe it or not, a couple of people actually <b>understand</b> why I left, and have said as such in email.)

I guess it's good that I don't answer to you or value your opinion on my life then, isn't it? It's not such a "little thing" (as I have said above and will demonstrate below). I tried to fix a problem, the other party was unreceptive, and I looked at the whole picture and made a choice. Angelus will be happy, others will be disappointed. They will get over it, and anyone that really cares to know me can private message me or email me.

I don't want attention, which is another one of the reasons I didn't make a huge deal about it and post everything when I left. As for it making me look "childish" - what, trying to resolve a conflict is childish? You say nothing of the other players here? Why, because one of them is so grown up as to call names behind someone's back? If your measure of what is childish and what is not was the one that mattered, then I think this world would be a much worse place than it is. Perhaps you should wonder why you feel yourself so qualified to write about something on which you are largely ignorant? Because until these posts, you didn't really have any fucking idea what happened here.

Er, where did I become increasingly abusive toward sycamore? He was calling me names and you said nothing. I respond, and you come in like the fucking savior. You then acknowledge privately that you're not very good at human relations. Now here you are, acting like an expert.

I have a number of very good friends, and the reason I am blessed as such is because they too <b>act like adults</b> when it's necessary. Fucking around is all well and good 95% of the time, but when relationships are on the line, sycamore and you are apparently incapable of acting your age. He is 28, and you just turned 40. This is what you're capable of? Taking to a public forum to discuss a private matter that you declined to discuss with me when you had the chance? Oh, what a big man you are! You are 40 going on 8.

You don't want a friend who operates that way, and yet you're friends with sycamore? 'Cause he operates pretty much the same way. You know, with namecalling and all.

Here's where it gets even more absurd, folks! Talking about juju's baby or "Mocking Syc for being on Unemployment? Where IS the line, anyway?" - apparently not at making fun of people with disabilities, because <b>you didn't say a goddamn word about that!</b> Once when he was on the phone while in the TT on the way down here and <b>three</b> times in the "Things you should do" thread sycamore made a joke comment about my eye. Where were you then, standing up for decency?

The fact of the matter is, you're <b>not</b> against it, and <b>you're a liar for saying so</b>. On 09/28/2003 you posted the following to LUVBUGZ in the "MotherF#$%@*!!!!!!" thread: "I warned you not to share a thread with me, you worthless fucking attention whore." You're not only not against it, but you do it as well!

I made a habit of calling LUVBUGZ names, and you privately messaged me your approval:

Of LUVBUGZ, I said to you "See, as you recall, I asked you about her a month or so ago. 'Cause I knew then that she was a babbling retard. And she's proven me right. Good lord dumb people peeve me. Who allowed her to get a computer?" and you responded "True. It did take about 300 messages for it to be proven to be completely without any redeeming qualities whatsoever. But true."

After you and I were ripping into her on the forums, you messaged me the following:

"You're a cat person, and you don't live in the city, so I know you've seen when a cat catches some prey and brings it home and plays with it.

That's what we're basically doing."

You said, on 10/03/2003 in a private message: "Thinking about this another way, back in the day we used to put annoying users through an organized silent treatment that was absolutely effective. For LB, this treatment would be devastating. I mean I almost hesitate to suggest it because it's so harsh, but imagine what would happen if none of her posts resulted in so much as a "who cares" post in response?

For an <b>attention whore</b>, that's like torture."

The emphasis was mine, but the words are yours, and the hostility is undeniable when referenced against your posts and private messages.

I said to you, after an attack on LUVBUGZ, "JESUS CHRIST SHE IS STUPID." and you responded "Well yer doin' the good work these days. I can't right now, for some reason, but everyone knows and agrees with you and is happy to see it."

Of my picking on LUVBUGZ and in response to something Matt had said and I forwarded to you, you had the following to say: "Well either way, it's vital important work you're doing.. keep it up."

Does this sound like the type of person that is against the namecalling behavior? Not only not standing up to it (until I am gone) but <b>encouraging</b> it privately?

You are smart, Tony, but you are in an indefensible position. Jen is calling you on it, and instead of addressing her points, you dismiss them with an ad hominem attack. As has been explored many times on the Cellar, all this does is make you look like a fool. (You've succeeded. I am supported quite strongly in private emails whose authors concur that you are way off base. I'm not going to post them so as to keep said persons from incurring your wrath, but from the show of public support, I would guess you have perhaps three people that agree with you.)

She's not flipping blame around; she's simply looked at all the facts (she's read all communications, including the ones I hadn't saved) and has made an opinion. Your attempt to discredit her is insulting only to <b>you</b>, because it shows that you don't have a leg to stand on in this argument and are forced to resort to ad hominem attacks to defend your indefensible position.