Originally posted by ScriabinI've already thanked you for your cut and pastes about Goldman Sachs. If I post a few requests for your further thoughts and some explanations of your take on this complicated Goldman Sachs issue, will you stop making a fool of me on this Forum and allow me to spread my wings just a little and find friends and acceptance from the others here? Being liked on this web site is more important to me, I think, than it is for you. You are the one poster who gets right to the heart of my insecurities and jealousies. You are so brutal. I am asking you, heart to heart, please go easy on me, Scriabin. Please.
Could it be he simply wants attention and through it seeks some form of personal validation?
Originally posted by FMFAll right already. But you are again having a laugh. Fine, I'll play along, nod nod, wink wink, Bob's your uncle.
I've already thanked you for your cut and pastes about Goldman Sachs. If I post a few requests for your further thoughts and some explanations of your take on this complicated Goldman Sachs issue, will you stop making a fool of me on this Forum and allow me to spread my wings just a little and find friends and acceptance from the others here? Being liked on this ...[text shortened]... es. You are so brutal. I am asking you, heart to heart, please go easy on me, Scriabin. Please.
don't know which is worse, your superciliousness as you follow me around and add commentary to derail a perfectly legitimate area of discussion, or your feigned humility and obvious sarcasm.
but let's pretend it isn't sarcasm. Let's assume, arguendo, that you really would like to change the state of play.
I would point out I've already assisted in short circuiting the "open msg to FMF" thread, as I was quite straightforward about it being unjust and unnecessary. I wouldn't have done what they were doing to you there to Jeremiah, and he was a bigger pain in the rear end by far.
I didn't snipe or try to derail your thread on that bar scene in the other forum -- I was careful not to ruffle any of your many feathers.
What you put in the plural as my "cut and pastes" was one NYT article as background to a series of allegations I've made about this one investment bank which I believe the equivalent today of what Jay Gould, J.P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Henry Ford, and Andrew Carnegie were to their respective eras.
You might say I don't trust them.
so you come into the thread just to comment on my posts and add nothing at all to the discussion because it really doesn't interest you.
And you ask in all insincerity for me to be understanding, etc. I am reminded of Bogart's wonderful Sam Spade confronted by his late partner's wife, asking Sam "to be kind" to her. The expression on his face and his terrific dialogue fits how I feel perfectly. However, unlike Sam, I'll keep it under my hat.
Spread your wings all you want -- leave me alone and I'll refrain from pointing out how you manage to make quite enough of a fool of yourself without help from me or anyone else.
Wow, 5 pages of posts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I wonder if we can go another 5. I'll start things off.
Hey Scriabi, I wish you would stop using self portraits as your avator.....of your mother that is. 😛
Now see, that was just plain mean and uncalled for. Sorry Scrabi. You know I love ya!!
Originally posted by ScriabinI"ll go with the feigned humility. You will tell me if I guess correctly won't you? I was going to say superciliousness but I have no idea what exactly means. In fact, I'm pretty sure you have no idea either. I say your just pulling words out of your blessed assurance and making them up as you go.
don't know which is worse, your superciliousness as you follow me around and add commentary to derail a perfectly legitimate area of discussion, or your feigned humility and obvious sarcasm.
Originally posted by whodeywell, you ignorant boil on the buttocks, you would say that, as you don't know what most words mean, do you?
I"ll go with the feigned humility. You will tell me if I guess correctly won't you? I was going to say superciliousness but I have no idea what exactly means. In fact, I'm pretty sure you have no idea either. I say your just pulling words out of your blessed assurance and making them up as you go.
just asking
Originally posted by ScriabinI think you will be pleased to know that I do in fact know what an ignorant boil of buttocks is, thank you very much!! ðŸ˜
well, you ignorant boil on the buttocks, you would say that, as you don't know what most words mean, do you?
just asking
If nothing else, at least you left poor FMF alone you big stiglefangous infurioratious brute you.
Just answering.
Originally posted by Scriabin
All right already. But you are again having a laugh. Fine, I'll play along, nod nod, wink wink, Bob's your uncle.
don't know which is worse, your superciliousness as you follow me around and add commentary to derail a perfectly legitimate area of discussion, or your feigned humility and obvious sarcasm.
but let's pretend it isn't sarcasm. Let's assume, arguendo, that you really would like to change the state of play.
I would point out I've already assisted in short circuiting the "open msg to FMF" thread, as I was quite straightforward about it being unjust and unnecessary. I wouldn't have done what they were doing to you there to Jeremiah, and he was a bigger pain in the rear end by far.
I didn't snipe or try to derail your thread on that bar scene in the other forum -- I was careful not to ruffle any of your many feathers.
What you put in the plural as my "cut and pastes" was one NYT article as background to a series of allegations I've made about this one investment bank which I believe the equivalent today of what Jay Gould, J.P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Henry Ford, and Andrew Carnegie were to their respective eras.
You might say I don't trust them.
so you come into the thread just to comment on my posts and add nothing at all to the discussion because it really doesn't interest you.
And you ask in all insincerity for me to be understanding, etc. I am reminded of Bogart's wonderful Sam Spade confronted by his late partner's wife, asking Sam "to be kind" to her. The expression on his face and his terrific dialogue fits how I feel perfectly. However, unlike Sam, I'll keep it under my hat.
Spread your wings all you want -- leave me alone and I'll refrain from pointing out how you manage to make quite enough of a fool of yourself without help from me or anyone else.
If I were, say, a mere part-time-troll, yanking your chain, day after day - this long and bewilderingly self-regarding post of yours would be exactly the kind of stuff I'd dream of extracting from you.
Originally posted by FMFTo quote the late, great Ronald Reagan:
Originally posted by Scriabin
[b]All right already. But you are again having a laugh. Fine, I'll play along, nod nod, wink wink, Bob's your uncle.
don't know which is worse, your superciliousness as you follow me around and add commentary to derail a perfectly legitimate area of discussion, or your feigned humility and obvious sarcasm.
but let's pr ...[text shortened]... ours would be exactly the kind of stuff I'd dream of extracting from you.
"there you go again .."
Originally posted by FMFSo sorry you were embarrassed.
Lame comeback. But whatever.
Your long post was about as embarrassing as it gets.
edit: Hey now. You've got generalissimo on board! Way to go!
Again with the characterization of my post and complete silence on what it addressed, namely your previous post which I found about as smarmy and low a tactic by a well-known forum "character" as one could imagine.
heart-to-heart indeed.
Your complete lack of candor, your total immersion in snarky sarcasm, and your absence of anything of value to say still begs the question:
if you don't want to talk about Goldman Sachs, why don't you shut up and move on?
Originally posted by ScriabinVacuous personal abuse? What a surprise!
So sorry you were embarrassed.
Again with the characterization of my post and complete silence on what it addressed, namely your previous post which I found about as smarmy and low a tactic by a well-known forum "character" as one could imagine.
heart-to-heart indeed.
Your complete lack of candor, your total immersion in snarky sarcasm, and your a ...[text shortened]... estion:
if you don't want to talk about Goldman Sachs, why don't you shut up and move on?
Originally posted by Scriabincomplete silence on what [my last post] addressed
Again with the characterization of my post and complete silence on what it addressed, namely your previous post which I found about as smarmy and low a tactic by a well-known forum "character" as one could imagine.
Uh? Your last post was akin to some pompous twat smelling his own farts.
What - apart from complete silence - would be the appropriate response to such a thing?