[PLUG-TALK] Scot Craighead's mailer

Jeremy Miller jmlizard1 at attbi.com
Fri Jun 21 05:27:45 UTC 2002


>I only responded atall because it was in a new thread,  and I felt it
>proper to let folks know why I give up;

OK

>You are all letting him poop in the pool.

I'm looking around my pool, and see no poop.  Either no-one pooped, or
my filter already took care of it.  I'll toss in a little chlorine to
make sure it's safe, and call it a day.  Shit happens, ya know. :P


>He has made irrational statements as others have-
>"the only thing that matters is whether there are more insane people
>than people like you; the belief that something is true suffices, and
>we the insane outnumber you"

Yeah, that sounds a little goofy.  And funny.  Maybe even irrational. 
(I don't know, because I don't remember it and don't see the context.) 
But it isn't poop.  (For one, poop isn't irrational, else I wouldn't
need disposal facilities for it in my home.)

And I do believe I've worn out that metaphor for you.  I hope.  :)


>Now why are you not supporting calling a spade a spade?

I believe I have, at least the spades that I have seen.  (The amount of
text in that other thread is amazingly huge.  I freely admit that I
haven't seen it all.)

However, I do sometimes call a spade an edger, because it works quite
well as one.  And my wife knows that's what I mean.  (In conversation
with someone who wouldn't... I will return to the more commonly used
"spade".)

And if I ask someone for a hammer and all they can give me is a
screwdriver... I'll still find a way to drive nails with it if I have
to.


>If he has already admitted the he is Lucifer's playtoy,  no less,  and


I saw no such admission, and that is the sort of accusation that I take
no other's word for but my own.  (Sorry, but for serious ones I must see
them myself.)  Till I do, I have no problem.  Again, sorry.

Actually, I might continue even if he did.  I see no reason to fear or
withold debating "lucifer's playtoys".  I like conversation with those
that hold viewpoints other than my own, whether I'd ever accept them as
my own or not.  Maybe they'd accept mine.  Maybe not.  (I'm in this for
the game, not a trophy.  To play and hear the music, not to sell
records. Others may do that, and I'm fine with it.)

> has
>nothing positive to contribute except lies,

I could offer evidence of conversation I've had with him that contain
things that are not lies.  So this statement is false.

And if lies are contributed, that gives me something worthy of arguing
with.


>  and you accept his BS without a
>problem,


I most certainly do not, and never said I did.  I may very well believe
some of the things that he's said are BS.  Or I may not.  You don't know
because I haven't told you.  And you haven't asked.  I can also separate
BS from non-BS with no problems. (I do have more difficulty separating
other things.)  Also... I haven't responded to many of his posts, or his
points either.  (Not for any particular reason, however.)

If at some point we both agree that something he said is BS, and I tell
you that I accept it... you may announce to every one that I accept his
BS.  OK, I'll go a step further.  Even if ONLY you believe something he
says is BS, and I tell you I accept it... go ahead.  Though you may want
to double-check to make sure that I do accept it, and that you haven't
simply misunderstood something.


>go ahead and let him piss in your Oasis;

Well, we've all gotta piss somewhere.  If I live in an Oasis, I'd 
probably piss there somewhere too. :)


> I will move along now to
>where there are other rational folks who do not let a swine run free of
>his pen.

Of course, this assumes he is swine, and that he has a pen.  But if both
are true and he is loose, how can you be sure he won't follow you? :)


>Is this why you say I am slinging mud,  because I use a metaphor >
>straight from the Bible?

No, and I think I've already made it clear that I have no problem with
biblical metaphors.  I in fact use them myself, when the occassion
arises.

Honestly, I haven't read your post fully yet.  Neither have I had time
to respond properly.  (I do believe I mentioned something to that effect
to you earlier.)

I thought it got muddy (as in ugly words) pretty quickly.  Combine that
with the fact that the formatting was all squashed together (making it
exponentially more difficult to read quickly), I simply scanned it to
compare such noise to signal.  (I believe we've gone over that, as
well.)  Lots of inflammatory words popped out at me. (Perhaps out of
context I admit) So I decided it wasn't worth the time at that given
moment, and I'd go over it more closely later.  Apologies if I
misunderstood... it's certainly possible.  As I said, I will peruse it
in full later, to see if I did.

However, I did see the biblical metaphor at the very end.  Using it to
justify what I interpreted as an outburst of anger just might have been
why I chose to reply.

(Nothing wrong with loosing your temper.  But keep it in check, and
don't take it out on others.  Either let it out in private, or put it to
constructive use.  Pounding nails is good.  Then you can explain
precisely why you gave up, minus the verbal frustration.)


>This alone shows me thaat the swine has gottten me dirty,  so he wins
>because he likes being covered in mud.


LOL.  OK, good one.  I don't agree, but point for humor.


>I don't.
>I am done with this thread as well.
>I will shake the dust off and move along now.

Fair enough.

>Peace,
>Brother!

Likewise.







More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list