Re: virus: getting back to kristee 4 months later..

Sebastian Kinsey (drsebby@hotmail.com)
Mon, 31 Aug 1998 00:55:37 PDT

>From owner-virus@lucifer.com Sun Aug 30 03:58:32 1998
>Received: (from majordom@localhost)
> by maxwell.kumo.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA14238
> for virus-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 04:56:30 -0600
>Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980830054344.00b05d34@students.wisc.edu>
>X-Sender: kjseelna@students.wisc.edu (Unverified)
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32)
>Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 05:43:44 -0500
>To: virus@lucifer.com
>From: Zloduska <kjseelna@students.wisc.edu>
>Subject: Re: virus: getting back to kristee 4 months later...my defense
>In-Reply-To: <19980825192655.11175.qmail@hotmail.com>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
>
> Excuse me, I'm replying at my leisure. Acutally, I've been rather
busy
>lately. After first reading this recent onslaught of rubbish, I was a
bit
>aggravated, but I've since realized that I am much too mature and
apathetic
>to get involved in a pathetic flame-war with you. It would be foolish
to
>do so. The resulting farce would only irritate us all. Then, for the
next
>couple weeks, the other readers must tolerate trashing multiple subject
>headers like "kristee sux!" and rolling their eyes in annoyance or else
>participating in the fiasco until it finally grows stale enough to
abandon.
> A wholly unproductive event. This way, the readers will be happy and
CoV
>will be a much more hospitable place.
>
> See, when others on the list, such as Bill, Tim, or 'FallAwake' write
to
>me, I take pleasure in typing a full and well thought-out reply because
>they deserve one. However, why should I bother to sit here for an
>eternity, get upset and muster enough creative energy to keep insulting
you
>in return? Should I respond to a hypocritical person who makes
laughable
>attempts at psychoanalyzing me "in a nutshell" to gloss over their
blatant
>racist remarks which generalize and condemn entire foreign cultures, in
>order to make amends with their ego? On second thought, I think you're
>right about pointing the finger at another's flaws in order to escape
blame
>for your own behavior...as in, "If I prove that she is a simple-minded
>twit, no one (including myself) will seriously believe that I'm wrong."
It
>puzzles me when complete strangers, fancying themselves the
over-confident
>dectective, tell me outright my 'true, evil nature' which after careful
>consideration, they have extracted from the profound depths of an
email.
>(deja vu!) So, should I try to VALIDATE MYSELF to someone who knows
>*nothing* about me?
>Would that make much sense? I think not. I mean, that's not
>communication, that's petty nonsense which is beneath me.
>
> The fact that you spent two hours trying to unearth evidence as to
what an
>awful person I am using only a virus post, and that you were so upset
that
>it took you months to reply to me is ridiculous. And so I've decided
to
>throw a bucket of ice water on the flame you've ignited once again.
>Instead of writing a line-by-line rebuttal to your post, I chose to
'rise
>above' and refrain from any cheap shots or bitter name-calling. Maybe
I'm
>getting too introspective, but I'm going to halt this here card game
and
>exclaim, "Bullshit!" Basically, I think you're making a fool of
yourself
>and the defense should have rested indefinitely. Also, my advice is
that
>if you are planning on typing a long document, you should close it and
save
>it every other paragraph or so, as I do, and prevent losing all your
work.
>Hope that helps.
>
> I'm a bit confused about your mention of the television sitcoms; my
>knowledge of '90210' and 'Melrose Pl.' proves to be painfully
inadequate
>since I never watch television, including those shows. Maybe you
should
>lay off the boob tube a little. As for visiting LA, well I'd rather go
to
>Prague actually.
>
>~kjs
>
>ps: "Sebastian is Brett L. Robertson and I claim my ten quid.!"
>
>Today's Advice: 'DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS'
>

Strange how one so 'above this' should fall into a predictable
pattern of renewed insults....just like your initial response so many
moons ago.
It would seem (as i expected) that laced within your diatribe of
self-proclaimed aristocracy you have made special efforts to repeatedly
mention various 'tokens' of sophistication. This, combined with your
original expose on myself tends to suggest that subtlety is an art lost
on you.......This would also explain your complete misunderstanding of
everything I've yet said....don't let yourself fall into the habit of
just reading along, try to 'think' along as you read.....thereby
enabling yourself to perhaps 'see' the actual intent of a given
document. In addition, self-eulogizing is the equivalent of some wanker
'name-dropping'...nobody does it here that I've yet seen, and it would
wear you well to stop.....I'm sure we all assume that you are of
substantial character without your having to make note of it ----have
some faith; )

p.s. I (Sebastian) am not this afore-mentioned "Brett Robertson"; nor
is it a pen-name for anyone else...get your paranoia gland checked !

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com