@ghost-of-a-duke saidI haven't bothered to interact with Very Rusty since the banter about my wife and children happened and he's lying about it now, so I still can't be bothered.
Irrespective of what you think about Rusty, accusing him 'indirectly' of something and ignoring his reply is just plain cowardly. If the shoe were on the other foot you would be crying blue murder.
If you believe him and don't believe me, I am fine with that.
If you say you think I'm lying when I say that he mocked me about the death of a close relative for 30+ pages, I am fine with that.
If you say you think I am lying when I say that, earlier on this thread, he tried to mock me about me supposedly being sexually abused as a child, then I am fine with that.
He's your friend and clubmate, not mine.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSuzianne accused you directly, that's the difference.
Suzianne accused you directly, that's the difference. You prefer to make your accusations indirectly so you don't have to deal with the response.
She's made the accusation innumerable times in posts addressed to other people. Water off a duck's back, as I say.
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou prefer to make your accusations indirectly so you don't have to deal with the response.
Suzianne accused you directly, that's the difference. You prefer to make your accusations indirectly so you don't have to deal with the response.
Well, I can't be bothered to interact with him or answer his posts, given the malicious nature of his banter. As you well know, spouses and children are off-limits.
I read his response. He's lying.
@fmf said....And directly.
Suzianne accused you directly, that's the difference.
She's made the accusation innumerable times in posts addressed to other people. Water off a duck's back, as I say.
You prefer to make your accusations indirectly. It empowers you to say whatever you want without the need to deal with the denial.
@fmf saidBut 'you' are the one accusing him of something. You initiated the interaction and yet were too cowardly to deal with his denial.
You prefer to make your accusations indirectly so you don't have to deal with the response.
Well, I can't be bothered to interact with him or answer his posts, given the malicious nature of his banter. As you well know, spouses and children are off-limits.
I read his response. He's lying.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidjust plain cowardly
Irrespective of what you think about Rusty, accusing him 'indirectly' of something and ignoring his reply is just plain cowardly.
You weren't accused of being "cowardly" when you decided not to interact with Romans1009 and posted "indirectly" instead.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidHe's lying. I said so, for everyone to see. His response is that he is not lying and/or I am lying, for everyone to see. Nothing has changed. He's still lying. I have "dealt with it" by saying so. Being "cowardly" doesn't come into it.
But 'you' are the one accusing him of something. You initiated the interaction and yet were too cowardly to deal with his denial.
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI am ignoring Very Rusty because he is a troll. When you decided to ignore Romans1009, you continued to post things about him.
I ignored Romans because he was a troll. I didn't accuse him of something and then ignore his reply.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI think he knows. But, alas, he incorporated my wife and children into his malicious banter, so I won't be interacting with him anymore.
Tell him that, not me.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidHe can deny it all he wants.
He denies that. Perhaps you should tell him directly.
When Romans1009 made the first of his many malicious comments about my wife and children, I stopped chatting with him online.
When Kevin Eleven made the first of his many malicious comments about my wife and children, I stopped chatting with him online too.
The same goes for Very Rusty.
You can chat with Very Rusty online if you want to.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidHe denies that.
He denies that. Perhaps you should tell him directly.
If you believe him and disbelieve me, that's OK.