Originally posted by FMFNo.
There's a doctored version of it in circulation, apparently. sonhouse has been quoting from it ~ I have no reason to believe he was the one who doctored it. Perhaps you have also been manipulated in the same way.
The original version was posted verbatim by HandyAndy. Sonhouse merely typed a quote in error.
I sincerely hope you're not trying to generate confusion. This is the second time you've made this suggestion. If you see a counterfeit copy, then by all means post the original version you received from Suzianne.
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwThe quote sonhouse offered was fake and it changed the meaning of what Suzianne said considerably. Odd that, yes? How his "error" changed the very meaning of the message. It seemed to set him off gushing a torrent of insults and silly name-calling in cyberspace. If there has been any attempt to create confusion, it has been by sonhouse. But if it was, as you suggest, an "error" he should just clear up any confusion he has caused.
I sincerely hope you're not trying to generate confusion. This is the second time you've made this suggestion. If you see a counterfeit copy, then by all means post the original version you received from Suzianne.
Originally posted by josephwHow so? [1] I received the ridiculous message from Suzianne. [2] I sent it to, among others, Handy Andy. [3] Handy Andy posted it, with Suzianne's permission, on the forum. How can I be said to have "generated confusion"? Meanwhile [4] sonhouse posted a supposed "quote" that wasn't in the message that Suzianne sent. So, there it is. Who has "generated confusion"? It's certainly not me.
I sincerely hope you're not trying to generate confusion.
Originally posted by FMFThe "error" is of little or no consequence in my opinion. I merely overlooked it in view of the body of the entire PM. I seriously doubt there's a "doctored" version going about.
The quote sonhouse offered was fake and it changed the meaning of what Suzianne said considerably. Odd that, yes? How his "error" changed the very meaning of the message. It seemed to set him off gushing a torrent of insults and silly name-calling in cyberspace. If there has been any attempt to create confusion, it has been by sonhouse. But if it was, as you suggest, an "error" he should just clear up any confusion he has caused.
But of course sonhouse should correct the error. He could stand to be less virulent as well, in my opinion.
Originally posted by josephwYou could be right. Although your pronouncement that the real message contained no abuse or threats created the impression that you weren't looking at the same text that Suzianne sent me and that I sent to various people. But you have your reasons for your viewpoint, no doubt, and sonhouse may have posted what he did by accident. It's all very possible.
The "error" is of little or no consequence in my opinion. I merely overlooked it in view of the body of the entire PM. I seriously doubt there's a "doctored" version going about.
Originally posted by josephwsonhouse is a kind ~ and loyal ~ chap for sure, so I'm fairly sure the error was an upshot of his over eagerness to defend his friend. I'd prefer to think that than to think he allowed himself to be manipulated by someone. The name-calling though, hopefully, was for his own benefit and in service of exhibiting his own sincere vehemence (and for the entertainment of the likes of chaney3 and Very Rusty and robbie carrobie, because all that kind of stuff - names, insults, epithets - it's all meaningless and ineffectual to me.
But of course sonhouse should correct the error. He could stand to be less virulent as well, in my opinion.
Originally posted by FMFYour post above a somewhat confusing.
How so? [1] I received the ridiculous message from Suzianne. [2] I sent it to, among others, Handy Andy. [3] Handy Andy posted it, with Suzianne's permission, on the forum. How can I be said to have "generated confusion"? Meanwhile [4] sonhouse posted a supposed "quote" that wasn't in the message that Suzianne sent. So, there it is. Who has "generated confusion"? It's certainly not me.
Look, I really don't care anymore about you sending the PM around. I don't think you needed to do that, but that's just my opinion. It, the PM, wasn't so bad after all anyway. I just don't think it needed to be "shared".
The reason I said anything about generating confusion was because it was you solely that had suggested there was possibly a counterfeit in circulation.
That idea is somewhat obtuse in my opinion because I don't think anyone here is so vested in it to go to such lengths. Except maybe you, since it was you that first suggested it.
But I don't really believe you'd do that, but stranger things have happened.
Originally posted by josephwFair enough. But it was my call to make, not yours. And across the three threads that have sprouted from this, I feel I have had adequate opportunity to explain myself and that I have done so in a way that I can stand by and take responsibility for.
Look, I really don't care anymore about you sending the PM around. I don't think you needed to do that, but that's just my opinion. It, the PM, wasn't so bad after all anyway. I just don't think it needed to be "shared".
Originally posted by FMFTo me too.
sonhouse is a kind ~ and loyal ~ chap for sure, so I'm fairly sure the error was an upshot of his over eagerness to defend his friend. I'd prefer to think that than to think he allowed himself to be manipulated by someone. The name-calling though, hopefully, was for his own benefit and in service of exhibiting his own sincere vehemence (and for the entertainmen ...[text shortened]... all that kind of stuff - names, insults, epithets - it's all meaningless and ineffectual to me.
Insults, name calling and epithets are meaningless and ineffectual period.
But there are other ways to derail meaningful and effectual debate as well.
Originally posted by josephwWell Ghost of a Duke was confused by what sonhouse claimed was the content of the message without any intervention from me, and sonhouse also asked me to send him 'my' version because he suspected that the version he had was 'real'. So I don't think the confusion can be said to have been "solely" my fault at all. I think you are mistaken.
The reason I said anything about generating confusion was because it was you solely that had suggested there was possibly a counterfeit in circulation.
Originally posted by josephwI have been constant and clear throughout this debate and have mostly succeeded in avoiding attempts by others to derail it ~ the insults and name-calling being the most obvious of those attempts.
But there are other ways to derail meaningful and effectual debate as well.
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwWell let me see. Could such shenanigans really occur? I think yes. robbie carrobie, for example, lied in public about an abusive and threatening message galveston75 had sent me [in which he threatened to get me banned for life being a homosexual predator stalking him... he even claimed he'd got people banned for that before!].
That idea is somewhat obtuse in my opinion because I don't think anyone here is so vested in it to go to such lengths. Except maybe you, since it was you that first suggested it. But I don't really believe you'd do that, but stranger things have happened.
Without any ethical qualms whatsoever, I sent that message to various people too. This was all several years ago.
And so those people knew that robbie lied in public about it when he claimed [1] to have read it and [2] that it contained no sexual content or references. Now, that was either robbie simply lying about the content of a message on his own bat out of loyalty for his hapless, stumbling friend, or galveston75 had tried to manipulate robbie into defending him that way. So, yes, as you say, stranger things have happened.
Originally posted by Executioner BrandI'm still reeling answer-less from your well it isn't to act like you ~ that is weak double whammy on the other thread, so maybe I'll get back to you later regarding this latest absolute zinger.
Ignorance is bliss among abusers, however they look to justify it.