The Best (Unintentional) Anti-Drug Public Service Ad. Ever.

[Angiekay]

I see that happened (my bad - oops!) in another thread, but did that happen in this one?

Time for me to say my bad. It was the other thread. I sincerely apologize for mixing threads here.

I am assuming here you mean me and I just want to mention that despite all the shit I have thrown here and have had thrown at me, I rather take offense at being called a troll. Music is very important to me and despite the circumtances in which I was invited here, I've tried(aside from the Journey threads)to take part mostly in musical conversations in a positive light. Sadie, I'm sorry you overlook those. When I am called to the carpet, I reply back in the same tone it is presented to me.

[The_Noble_Cause]

It is as condescending as LAWoman's question to you about the stoners.

There's no comparison.
LAWoman's question was deliberately patronizing, I am just speaking the way I was brought up. If this offends you in any way, it's strictly in your head .

[sadie65]

Pretty sad. LA's comment was not condescending. The first response by NC was really smarmy and mean spirited. And from there it's gone downhill. And so it goes.

Banging my head into my keyboard here.

[NealIsGod]

Pretty sad. LA's comment was not condescending. The first response by NC was really smarmy and mean spirited. And from there it's gone downhill. And so it goes.

Banging my head into my keyboard here.

Uh, oh... better duck! That grenade's about to land...

[The_Noble_Cause]

Pretty sad. LA's comment was not condescending.

Oh no?
Then I'll ask you the same question I've asked everyone else who has adopted this same dunder-headed position.

If it wasn't meant to be patronizing or subversive, then why else would she have asked that?
You truly believe that LAWoman was earnestly interested in hearing of my exploits with stoners and junkies back from the day?
Has the whole world gone mad?
Sweeeet jesus.

[NealIsGod]

I think she disagreed that Journey seemed stoned, which your first post and title more than implied, and so did I. I think it was her way of trying to gauge your experience with "stoners". Of course, only she knows her intent, but it seems most people don't see the condescension that you do. I hear drugs can make you paranoid, too.

[Angiekay]

Pretty sad. LA's comment was not condescending.

Oh no?
Then I'll ask you the same question I've asked everyone else who has adopted this same dunder-headed position.

If it wasn't meant to be patronizing or subversive, then why else would she have asked that?
You truly believe that LAWoman was earnestly interested in hearing of my exploits with stoners and junkies from the day?
Has the whole world gone mad?
Sweeeet jesus.

Ok, God KNOWS I shouldn't be even thinking about sticking my head in here, but I also don't see the condescention in her post. It seemed to me she was asking you a sincere question. Emotions are hard to read in type. *wincing* Maybe you should have ASKED her what she meant before going off on her, Noble.

[sadie65]

I see that happened (my bad - oops!) in another thread, but did that happen in this one?

Time for me to say my bad. It was the other thread. I sincerely apologize for mixing threads here.

I am assuming here you mean me and I just want to mention that despite all the shit I have thrown here and have had thrown at me, I rather take offense at being called a troll. Music is very important to me and despite the circumtances in which I was invited here, I've tried(aside from the Journey threads)to take part mostly in musical conversations in a positive light. Sadie, I'm sorry you overlook those. When I am called to the carpet, I reply back in the same tone it is presented to me.

You assume incorrectly. I have no issue with you. My comments were directed at other people who do not move on from the past and who seem to only post something inflammatory and then duck and run when challenged.

I have not overlooked your comments here, nor have I misunderstood your posts or passion about music. Again, my comments were not directed at you. Unfortunately, there seems to be a great number of trolls here. And no, I am not calling you a troll at all.

[Angiekay]

I see that happened (my bad - oops!) in another thread, but did that happen in this one?

Time for me to say my bad. It was the other thread. I sincerely apologize for mixing threads here.

I am assuming here you mean me and I just want to mention that despite all the shit I have thrown here and have had thrown at me, I rather take offense at being called a troll. Music is very important to me and despite the circumtances in which I was invited here, I've tried(aside from the Journey threads)to take part mostly in musical conversations in a positive light. Sadie, I'm sorry you overlook those. When I am called to the carpet, I reply back in the same tone it is presented to me.

You assume incorrectly. I have no issue with you. My comments were directed at other people who do not move on from the past and who seem to only post something inflammatory and then duck and run when challenged.

I have not overlooked your comments here, nor have I misunderstood your posts or passion about music. Again, my comments were not directed at you. Unfortunately, there seems to be a great number of trolls here. And no, I am not calling you a troll at all.

Okeydoke! I'm sick and under heavy medication myself, so I guess this might be the right thread to be in.



<---although, I DO like the little pink headed ones...

[sadie65]

Pretty sad. LA's comment was not condescending.

Oh no?
Then I'll ask you the same question I've asked everyone else who has adopted this same dunder-headed position.

If it wasn't meant to be patronizing or subversive, then why else would she have asked that?
You truly believe that LAWoman was earnestly interested in hearing of my exploits with stoners and junkies back from the day?
Has the whole world gone mad?
Sweeeet jesus.

No I didn't see any condescension on her part. I took the post at face value. And it was a valid question after seeing the clip. I took her question to be one of trying to figure out where you got the stoner inference out of that clip. Why is it impossible to believe someone could actually mean what they type? Why is there always an assumption of subversiveness here?

And while i don't think the whole world has gone mad, I do think perhaps you've possibly lost some objectivity here.

[NealIsGod]

Seems you are outnumbered, TNC. As you wrote to me:

I'll promptly await your sincerest apology along with your obligatory concilliatroy offering of sexual services.

Gee, that doesn't sound to "homo", does it, Frasier?

[The_Noble_Cause]

it seems most people don't see the condescension that you do.

It's not just me, cyber predator.
One poster on here likewise recognized her unwarranted condescening tone, congratulating me upon having "Skewered LA Woman,.....one of the worst beatings in board history!"
Dave also recognized the very same patronizing demeanor as I did, saying (and I quote)

It is as condescending as LAWoman's question to you about the stoners.

[Red13JoePa]

I am assuming here you mean me and I just want to mention that despite all the shit I have thrown here and have had thrown at me, I rather take offense at being called a troll.

[/color][/size] [/b]

You assume incorrectly. I have no issue with you. My comments were directed at other people who do not move on from the past and who seem to only post something inflammatory and then duck and run when challenged. ""

: I am stunned. Gotta lie down. Someone who COULD resist talking about Ange in her absence. Something that was NOT (to her chagrin) about her.

[NealIsGod]

Dave also recognized the very same patronizing demeanor as I did, saying (and I quote)

It is as condescending as LAWoman's question to you about the stoners.

Wow, your a truth spinner. Dave was using sarcasm in that post, calling you a hypocrite. You get mad if you perceive someone as being condescending, yet you are the most condescending person on the board. Gee, that Cambridge education isn't serving you too well...

[jrnyman28]

Bull.
I've seen you post to people like that all the time.
It's just easier to read that way.
I can't believe you would try to condemn me for something I blatantly cribbed from you.

Not to the same person...

[The_Noble_Cause]

Gee, that doesn't sound to "homo", does it, Frasier?

No it doesn't, my chauvinistic unwanted advances were made to a woman.
Since when is copulation between a man and a woman in any ways "homo"?

Seems you are outnumbered, TNC.

You get mad if you perceive someone as being condescending, yet you are the most condescending person on the board. Gee, that Cambridge education isn't serving you too well...

I thought u just said you were done? You wanna go again?
I'll gladly administer another cyber ass plundering, if ur up for it.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Bull.
I've seen you post to people like that all the time.
It's just easier to read that way.
I can't believe you would try to condemn me for something I blatantly cribbed from you.

Not to the same person...

You're a liar.
On countless occasions, you have used separate posts to respond to people when each post could've been accumulated onto one page.
I did the same thing.

[jrnyman28]

It is as condescending as LAWoman's question to you about the stoners.

There's no comparison.
LAWoman's question was deliberately patronizing, I am just speaking the way I was brought up. If this offends you in any way, it's strictly in your head .

Do you not see this?! It is as much in MY head as her offense was in YOURS!!!! If you didn't take everything so personal you would see that! Which was the same point as my post...it lies in how YOU take it, not how the person wrote it. Why? Because you cannot see facial expressions and you cannot hear tone of voice.

[Angiekay]

: I am stunned. Gotta lie down. Someone who COULD resist talking about Ange in her absence. Something that was NOT (to her chagrin) about her.

Awww, poor Red is feeling left out. The sooner you realize the world does indeed revolve around me, the better off you'll be! lol!

[NealIsGod]

Gee, that doesn't sound to "homo", does it, Frasier?

No it doesn't, my chauvinistic unwanted advances were made to a woman.
Since when is copulation between a man and a woman in any ways "homo"?

Uh, no liar. I copied that from a PM that YOU sent ME, well before you used the same line in this thread (guess you only have so many lines).

Serves you right for posting info from my PM, which, by the way, only made me look good and you, bad.

[jrnyman28]

Dave also recognized the very same patronizing demeanor as I did, saying (and I quote)

It is as condescending as LAWoman's question to you about the stoners.

If you are going to use that, then you must be saying that your form of speech is also condescending. That was my point: that the two are equal, if you find one condescending then you should find the other condescending.

[Red13JoePa]

: I am stunned. Gotta lie down. Someone who COULD resist talking about Ange in her absence. Something that was NOT (to her chagrin) about her.

Awww, poor Red is feeling left out. The sooner you realize the world does indeed revolve around me, the better off you'll be! lol!

Oh, I realize it. When you're absent from the Journey board my heart is as empty as your head.
My world does my world does revolved around you.

[jrnyman28]

You're a liar.
On countless occasions, you have used separate posts to respond to people when each post could've been accumulated onto one page.
I did the same thing.

Show me.
You love to research the board, or do you just save everything for future use?
I may have done it once or twice over the course of my 4 years on this board...but when I make multiple posts in a row, they are to multiple people, or they are quoting multiple posts. And I do not go back to a post I have already replied to and reply again, and again...

[The_Noble_Cause]

Do you not see this?! It is as much in MY head as her offense was in YOURS!!!! If you didn't take everything so personal you would see that! Which was the same point as my post...it lies in how YOU take it, not how the person wrote it. Why? Because you cannot see facial expressions and you cannot hear tone of voice.

Cut the shit, Dave.
She called into question my purview (or my range of experience, for u ignorant dimbulbs) on drugs, as if to insinuate that I didn't know what I was talking about. It was condescending and therefore, my response was even more condescending. That's really the end of the story.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I may have done it once or twice over the course of my 4 years on this board...but when I make multiple posts in a row, they are to multiple people, or they are quoting multiple posts.

What's the difference?
Instead of accumulating all of my responses on one page, I made them as individual pages. What of it? This is a red herring issue. You're criticizing me for my posting etiquette now?

And I do not go back to a post I have already replied to and reply again, and again...

Neither did I. I did that once. Big whoop.

[Angiekay]

[quote="Red13JoePa]My world does my world does revolved around you.[/quote]

LOL! Stop, please! You're making me and my english teacher dizzy.

[jrnyman28]

It was condescending and therefore, my response was even more condescending. That's really the end of the story.

And I guess THAT is the root of the problem. Your need to one-up everyone! You felt she was condescending to you so you had to respond "even more condescending". So tell me where it ends? I guess it ends where and when YOU say...

She called into question my purview (or my range of experience, for u ignorant dimbulbs)

And how is THAT necessary?? You have to call people "ignorant dimbulbs" just because they feel you are condescending by your use of an extended vocabulary? You appear to feel that your extensive vocabulary makes you far superior than the rest of "us" on this board. Guess what, I couldn't care less what language you se...I understand it all. I just don't feel the need to throw it in anyone's face.

[Red13JoePa]

AngieKay wrote: quote="Red13JoePa]My world does my world does revolved around you.[/quote]

LOL! Stop, please! You're making me and my english teacher dizzy. "






Sorry sweetie.
My edit button seamz tu hav beetraied mie.

Yu noe wut Ie ment.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Uh, no liar. I copied that from a PM that YOU sent ME, well before you used the same line in this thread (guess you only have so many lines).
Serves you right for posting info from my PM, which, by the way, only made me look good and you, bad.

So what? That's nowhere near as gay as the PM u sent me on Monday:

Hey man, have you ever wondered what it'd be like to be ridden in stirrups butt naked in a leather club in the red light district of NYC? I mean old NYC, before Gulliani Disney-fied the place. Damn. For some odd reason, I'm horny as a three balled tomcat today. Don't let this get out, man. K? NIG

[jrnyman28]

Let's go back to the beginning TNC!

You said she asked a condescending question. If you choose to feel that way, fine. Others don't but it really all lies in how someone takes what is written.

Odd comment. Have you ever actually seen/been around druggies?

Umm, yeah I have.
In fact, out of all of them, you are probably the biggest one I've ever met.
Judging by your unrelentingly dour posts here, it's apparent that over the years you have fried even the most basic functions of the human brain, including the one known as a "sense of humor".

Lighten up you perennial sour puss!

You have also said that you replied in an even more condescending manner. However, I personally do NOT think calling someone a druggie for merely asking a question (condescending or not) is an appropriate response. And it in NO WAY falls under the category of condescending. I believe it falls more closely under the category of 'libel' or maybe even 'defamation of character'. But LAWoman is the lawyer, I guess I can leave that to her to clarify for me.

Furthermore, given LAWoman's history of posting, I fail to see how you can call her posts "unrelenting" and "dour". Her posts have always consisted of support of Neal. Nothing more. She does not post often enough be considered 'unrelenting'.

Then you call her a sour puss. Again, not condescending, flat out rude and unneccesary!

So, can you honestly say that the deterioration of this thread is NOT directly related to YOUR posting habits??