Give Goldman Sachs the Sack

Originally posted by generalissimo
what is there to "get" about you?

Do you have some hidden knowledge you're trying to share with us that we don't know about?

Could it be he simply wants attention and through it seeks some form of personal validation?

Could that explain the superciliousness?

Originally posted by Scriabin
Could it be he simply wants attention and through it seeks some form of personal validation?

Could that explain the superciliousness?

That sounds more like you scrogface.

Originally posted by Scriabin
Could it be he simply wants attention and through it seeks some form of personal validation?

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 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.

Originally posted by FMF
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.

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.

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 Scriabin
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.

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.

Originally posted by whodey
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.

well, you ignorant boil on the buttocks, you would say that, as you don't know what most words mean, do you?

just asking

Originally posted by Scriabin
well, you ignorant boil on the buttocks, you would say that, as you don't know what most words mean, do you?

just asking

I think you will be pleased to know that I do in fact know what an ignorant boil of buttocks is, thank you very much!! 😠

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 Scriabin
Could it be he simply wants attention and through it seeks some form of personal validation?

Could that explain the superciliousness?

Could it be he simply wants attention and through it seeks some form of personal validation?

probably yes.

Originally posted by FMF
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.

To quote the late, great Ronald Reagan:

"there you go again .."

Originally posted by Scriabin
"there you go again .."

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!

Originally posted by FMF
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!

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 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 Scriabin
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?

Vacuous personal abuse? What a surprise!

Originally posted by Scriabin
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.

complete silence on what [my last post] addressed

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?