Postings

[Robin Hufford]

David I,
    I realized it after it had gone out.  Your suggestion seems to have rectified my
careless very well. Thanks,
Regards, Robin Hufford

David Ilvedson wrote:

> >Sanctified Prophet of Equality/Inequality Expressiveness(SPEW)  - a holy eminence and
> >greatness destined to bring all to the light.
>
> Robin, doesn't that actually come out to SPEE?  I would try:
> "Self-Sanctified Prophet of Equality/Inequality Whininess"
>
> ..need a W word...
>
> David I.
>
> No matter how much we
> >protest that we don't care to know his particular view of unequality
> >brimming as it is, with is associated  meanness,  and that there are
> >others other who do not contaminate this particular subject and list
> >with their trembling, venomous "specialness",   SPEW insists on bringing
> >to the discussion, for our own sake, his unique, incomprehensibly, at
> >least to others,  advanced but unequal view - this he must do for our
> >own enlightenment.
> >      Either way, the greatness of SPEW is confirmed in the reactions of
> >the poor, ignorant, misunderstanding masses of the list as these
> >reactions  confirm to himself what he believes, not withstanding his
> >babbling , half-spoken claims otherwise,  - he is the greatest genius of
> >all time and must be recognized or else must suffer the cleansing,
> >sanctifying distinction and  martrydom  of the misunderstood, unreceived
> >and unrecognized prophet -  either way the pettiness of his vile conceit
> >is complete.  His greatness is confirmed.
> >       New readers of this list will be seduced by the momentary
> >rational and well stated cases to be made for his unequal view, and
> >think they were participating in a discussion of an interesting, worthy
> >subject, which it is,  and that with a lucid, well-expressed advocate,
> >and which, at the moment may well be, and who may be, at that moment,
> >brimming with useful facts.  .    Ah, but such is not the case.  An
> >illusion has been created.  Participants are merely the sacrificial
> >lambs of the greatness of SPEW and will, indeed, come to such painful
> >realization as time passes.   Were they warned away by older readers of
> >the list such warnings would be, pridefully, ignored as not consistent
> >with their true spirit of reasonableness and understandably so, and for
> >this reason I think this list should have a mechanism put in place to
> >eliminate a contributor whose purposes are like those of SPEW.
> >      These purposes are not what they should be, which is the
> >discussion of differing and, perhaps controversial, professional points
> >of view, in an attempt to improve professional understanding, and, or at
> >least should be, in a spirit of collegiality,  but rather personal
> >objectives of  a mind which needs, I am sure, but sadly, disdains
> >help.    Such disorder then is brought to the list for its own
> >purposes.
> >        Long time readers will know what both the  forthcoming and
> >numerous apologies of the past mean and have meant:  SPEW is afraid of
> >inattention and his unequal temperament will wax sweet and rational in
> >this fear to calm the antagonism he has raised against him, for he must
> >have the confused, misunderstanding and imperfect views shown in the
> >posts we make to use as a canvas on which to paint his greatness for all
> >to see.  The best solution for this is a complete lack of response to
> >any post, however informative and well expressed,  as they are simply
> >hooks in the water trolling to catch another victim, which will then be
> >used to perpetuate the, forthcoming, vain, obsessive meanness of SPEW
> >when disagreement is encountered.
> >     Unlike my view of the obsessive postings of SPEW, which must be
> >stoically endured,  I appreciate very much the original, lucid and
> >rational views expressed by Ed Foote whether I agree with him or not,
> >and, in general, I do,  and want to express my thanks to him for setting
> >the record straight and for his courage for doing so,  notwithstanding
> >the fact, as I am sure knew, that he would then become the target of the
> >viscious abuse seen on this list lately.
> >      Once the storm of  SPEW's abuse has ended, as it will,  we should
> >not be seduced by the upcoming, sincere, heart-felt apology into
> >thinking, ah, now things will change with SPEW, something  which, I am
> >sure, we all would like.  The cycle, if perpetuated by responses, will
> >continue.
> >Regards, Robin Hufford