Here you go Lo...

All the shit that doesn't fit!
If it doesn't go into the other forums, stick it in here.
A general free for all
Post Reply
User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by Lord Jim »

Lord Jim wrote: I would rather have a colonoscopy, a spinal tap and root canal surgery simultaneously than get involved in this


Yeah but how about listening to "Death of a Ladies' Man"? Huh? How about that?
Au contraire, should I ever find myself in a situation where I am receiving a colonoscopy, a spinal tap and root canal surgery simultaneously, I will request the playing of Leonard Cohen's mumblings....

"Suzanne" alone would put me into such a catatonic condition, that I wouldn't feel a thing....

My only fear would be that I might be driven into such a deep state of somnolence that I might not be able to be revived...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21180
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

So that's what happened to Reagan in 1969 then? :D :D

(Photo's for you LJ)
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Miles
Posts: 960
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: Butler Pa, USA

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by Miles »

oldr_n_wsr wrote:Ouch
Even partial and in defending yourself, I consider it bad form (unless the author agreed to it).
But that's just me.
I have the utmost respect for both Strop and Hen but I have to agree with the above. Personal means personal. I also have to say the Cali and I have been online friends for years but lately she has seemed to be on a quest to make trouble where it seems that no trouble should exist.
I expect to go straight to hell...........at least I won't have to spend time making new friends.

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by loCAtek »

ThX Jim,.

Miles et al, maybe we can chat this weekend?

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17062
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by Scooter »

Miles wrote:I have the utmost respect for both Strop and Hen but I have to agree with the above. Personal means personal.
And I have to agree with Sean. If someone has misrepresented the substance of PMs in public forum, even without purporting to directly quote them, then he/she has forfeited the right to have those PMs kept private, because it is him/her that breached privacy in the first place.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose

User avatar
The Hen
Posts: 5941
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:56 am

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by The Hen »

Miles wrote:
oldr_n_wsr wrote:Ouch
Even partial and in defending yourself, I consider it bad form (unless the author agreed to it).
But that's just me.
I have the utmost respect for both Strop and Hen but I have to agree with the above.
It had nothing to do with Gob, Miles. It was entirely my decision. You may very well have the utmost respect for him, but he needn't be associated with my decision to release those initial ten words that revealed nothing of a private nature but supported my claim.

Attempting to obtain permission would have been a pointless case of head-banging.
I knew many people would be outraged and find it in poor form.

However, in those ten words I was able to show that a discussion and input had initially been wanted.

As I also said, there is nothing I can do about that any more.

If it means that your opinion of me will/has dropped, then there really is nothing I can do about that.




Oh well.
Bah!

Image

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by loCAtek »

Frankly if there was disagreement with interpretation of private emails, i should have been contacted privately first. I have not received private correspondence, to clarify or otherwise resolve any issues, other than to say cease personal communication. I did so for eight months, and then was indirectly criticized (not supported) publicly for my issues. It is the publication of a private matter, that I contest.

To say, the party was sorry is disputed by posts on CSB.

User avatar
Sean
Posts: 5826
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:17 am
Location: Gold Coast

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by Sean »

There was no 'disagreement with interpretation', that's a cop out. You claimed that you never asked Hen for advice, from what she has posted it appears that you did.
There is only one way to interpret a slanderous lie.
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by Gob »

The Hen wrote:
Lo wrote: Long story short, I'd like some input on relationships since .... [snip]

Hang about here?

If Lo is saying the above constitutes a breach of confidentiality*, then she is stating she did write that to Hen, and ipso facto she is admitting that she lied to the rest of the membership here, repeatedly, as she claimed never to have asked for such.

Or;

She is still claiming to have never asked for advice, in which case she is claiming the above is a lie, and therefore there was no breach of confidentiality.

Which ever way you look at it the Lonatic has shot herself in the foot again.


*Can anyone let me know what would be considered confidential in that sentence?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21180
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Image
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 19496
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by BoSoxGal »

I don't doubt that loCA is very likely dissembling about the content of her PMs/emails with Hen, because she's certainly being at very least disingenuous in many of her claims in this thread which are directly contradicted by off-board communications I've had with her.

I don't need to post them here and prove it to anybody else; I know, and loCA knows, what she's being dishonest about. She knows she is not far from losing my friendship entirely; should she not care about that, it's her loss, not mine.

I agree with Scooter that when somebody asserts on-board an entirely different truth about off-board communications than what the record supports, they have effectively given the accused permission to introduce that record into the evidence. Otherwise, anybody could lie and say anything they wanted and the accused would have no recourse; otherwise, if I've had communication with you off-board, I've put myself in a position where you can in future characterize that communication any way you like. How could that possibly be fair?

Does anybody recall how my handful of very brief communications with Steve, by PM, email & telephone (which were about his desire for free legal advice on his custody issues) turned into his and editec's claims that I was lovelorn over him?

An honest person would have no qualms about standing by the written record. If they're being honest, any confidences they've shared would never need to come into the public realm in the first place. It's only be being dishonest that the record comes to be at issue. Obviously we would all outright SHUN anybody who just suddenly started revealing another person's off-board confidences for NO REASON WHATSOEVER.

Hen's revealed none of loCA's confidences, and it makes me literally sick to see loCA jump on that small quote and LJ's post to now call herself a VICTIM, again, in all this. loCA really doesn't need more reasons to excuse her behavior as victimology, LJ. loCA needs to search her heart and decide if she's going to rise about the ICK she's been wallowing in and preserve these friendships by taking appropriate action, or if she's going to see them utterly destroyed. I note that over on CSB I she's suddenly found reason to forgive Gwen for a long past wrong; I fear that is only evidence of her further alignment with the dishonest trolls, but only time will tell.

loCA, at present you are very much reminding me of a junior high school girl on a vendetta. I know that the addicted are often 'stuck' at early levels of emotional development, and I have a lot of compassion for you in that regard. However, with everything purportedly going so well in your life at present, there is no excuse for the loCAdrama you've been perpetuating on this board and CSB I/II of late, other than a simple addiction to dysfunction.

As I've already said, I care for you and Gob and Hen and don't wish to be pulled in competing directions in all this. I still think the situation is reconciliable, but I think you will need to, at least off-board, eat a little crow and be honest about what you've been doing here. If you don't want to do that, fine. But this needs to STOP. Because the only place you have to go with it, if you persist in the vendetta, is to ratchet up the dissembling and dishonesty and if that happens, you can be sure I will side with honesty over compassion for addiction.

loCA, I KNOW THE SCORE. You KNOW I know the score, for Pete's sake! If you keep this up, you are telling me in no uncertain terms that my friendship with you and my good opinion of you matter for nothing to you. That IS your choice, but know this: I am not likely to ever reconsider the decision to cut you off if your actions continue and rise to such a level that I cannot trust you. I simply have no time at this point in my life for friends who cannot be trusted.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by Lord Jim »

BSG, when I wrote that post, I was completely unaware of that PM "snipet"...(To be honest, I haven't followed this exchange with rigorous scrutiny) I wasn't aware of it till Hen brought it to my attention...It was not my intent to give anyone cover to play the victim...I was intending to talk about what I saw as potential future actions....
Does anybody recall how my handful of very brief communications with Steve, by PM, email & telephone (which were about his desire for free legal advice on his custody issues) turned into his and editec's claims that I was lovelorn over him?
Well I remember that BSG, and if you recall I backed you to the hilt on that.

For the record, since there seems to be some confusion about the intent of my comments, let me say that if a person misrepresents publicly what was said to them in a private communication then they most certainly would be guilty of breaking the trust and confidence of that communication...

In fact, it's even worse...

To state publicly what took place in a private conversation is bad....To state falsely what was said, especially with the intent of making the person who you were having private exchanges with look bad, is even worse...

I hope I cleared that up...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 3875
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:12 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by Rick »

I don't save PMs.

Not that I would have very many if I did...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by loCAtek »

Quite BSG, there are some things you, Hen and others have told me in confidence that add more dimensions to your online disputes. No, I will not publicize them, I do see they make you more well-rounded people; dealing with much more in real private life, than we care to talk about publicly.

If someone's chooses to disclose something, then it's fair to discuss, but to use private info as means to "hurt me" was wrong. The rational that she was defending her husband is odd, since he has also repeatedly asked her not to engage me at all. I see she's also betrayed me offline, since she assured me she wouldn't share the emails with Gob, and now he's revealed that she has. She doesn't listen and can't be trusted.

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by loCAtek »

I do however have folks I wrote to on the board, with whom I've shared intimate matters, that I do trust, and I believe Gob and Hen trust them to.


I'd to respectfully request the good Genr' MajGenl.Meade to mediate on this. If you could PM me, sir? Perhaps we could chat? Of course, if Hen agrees perhaps we could all chat, or she and you could do so; or some such others arrangements could be made, where I'd be open to discussing this matter more fully.

By your leave, sir.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21180
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Meade-iation:

Image

Yours sincerely

Image
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

quaddriver
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 4:40 am
Location: Wherever the man sends me
Contact:

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by quaddriver »

Scooter wrote:
Miles wrote:I have the utmost respect for both Strop and Hen but I have to agree with the above. Personal means personal.
And I have to agree with Sean. If someone has misrepresented the substance of PMs in public forum, even without purporting to directly quote them, then he/she has forfeited the right to have those PMs kept private, because it is him/her that breached privacy in the first place.
And this is how we justify outing classified documents on wiki...

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by rubato »

Leonard Cohen's voice belongs in a pathology course on the effects of smoking and his near-total lack of musicianship ought to have barred him forever from the airwaves but, holy crap, he did write a few very good songs and does get them over even with some really profound disabilities.


Neil Young's voice is something to write home about only if the folks at home are leading lives deprived of anguish and horror but, goddamn, hes a great musician and even singer just the same. His version of "imagine" for the 9-11 benefit is shocking in its nakedness and power because of the way his voice cracks and fails. Wow.


Both of these are examples of what was really good about the 1960s. People believed that they could and followed through on it. Courage leads.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by loCAtek »

Very well, sir. Thank you and good day :)

if everyone else is, I'm fine with that. If not, may I make the same request to Reality Bytes?

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 19496
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Here you go Lo...

Post by BoSoxGal »

loCAtek wrote:Frankly if there was disagreement with interpretation of private emails, i should have been contacted privately first. I have not received private correspondence, to clarify or otherwise resolve any issues, other than to say cease personal communication. I did so for eight months, and then was indirectly criticized (not supported) publicly for my issues. It is the publication of a private matter, that I contest.

To say, the party was sorry is disputed by posts on CSB.

But it's you who have brought the private communication on board as a matter of public discussion, loCA. It's you who entered into oldr's thread to make accusations that you had been brushed off by your friends when you asked for help.

That is why it's entirely disingenuous for you to now say that you were 'over' all of it, that Hen is the one who dragged the issue to the forefront, that you had no issues whatsoever - a claim that is entirely contradicted by the months-long baiting of Hen and Gob in which you have been engaged and even by your posts in this thread and oldr's.

You know, you referenced our off-board communications and I would just touch on that to say that there is not one single thing that I shared with you in those communications that I would be concerned about sharing here. I chose not to belabor the minute details of a bad situation I was in personally to the entire membership of the board at that time; primarily that was because at the time I was quite sensitive about the issues, and we were all posting at CSB I where I knew that I would be brutally attacked by editec and Steve and Gwen on any vulnerable point. Now that the issues are aged, I couldn't care less what the troll trio had to say - and I know I can trust everyone who posts on Plan B to be appropriate in their responses about any sensitive issue.

For the record, folks, a few years ago I found myself involved in a relationship with an abusive addict (of course he started out charming and wonderful, and it took time to realize the addiction) and I had some difficulty extricating myself - largely due to my love for his teenaged daughter and the emotional rollercoaster I rode for some time following the 2nd trimester miscarriage of an unplanned, but then embraced, pregnancy I experienced.

I believe this whole loCAdrama about private off-board communication is just a further red herring to the real issue. loCA, you are no longer a victim. Not of your mother, nor of a lover. But you still have the mentality of victimhood. Until you address this, you will continue to seek out reasons to paint yourself a victim and excuse your addiction. You get pissed off at me, Hen and Gob because we offer proactive solutions for you to explore - and you don't want those; you want to wallow in your victimology and to have others say, "Oh, poor, poor loCA!"

That's quite simply the core of the matter, as I see it. And I simply won't enable you by validating your victim perspective. That conviction is motivated out of caring for you, whether you choose to accept that or not. It's a virtual hug. It's virtual encouragement. If I lived in San Jose, you'd get it in person - but it's no less real.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

Post Reply