(Man with camera at fusion fest today)

[Ted Max]

That looks like a sensible post, Rosie.

But before I express agreement, does anyone who has met Rosie in real life have any proof she is in fact a blithering loon? I wouldn't like to jump to conclusions.

[SeanMacGabhann]

people are obsessed with other people being paedophiles - if you want to see them everywhere you will

You will even get weirdos saying things like "thats why there are more in this country than anywhere else"

crazy talk

[missus]

"But I have met plenty of people before who like to boast about how they or their other half like to resolve situations by giving someone a good slap and, invariably, they have been t****ers"

One presumes, having read some of your earlier contumelious posts, that you too fall into said vulgarly-titled category having previously deemed strangulation a fit punishment for young women who chew gum with their mouths open.... (Was there clear evidence for that being tongue-in-cheek?!)

I do believe that one could construe an equally unsavory impression of yourself, Domitianus. But, having said that, I know as little about you as I do about Steph and as such, not wishing to defame someone else's character on this forum (as you have already succeeded), will keep my judgments to myself.

[Loz]

Rosie is spot on. Internet forums, like email, is a form of communication where the words you choose to use mean everything. You can't, in most cases, know more about the person behind the keyboard.

I've re-read Steph's post and I've re-read my post. Steph came across very badly from the words she used and missus, for whatever reason, has misread and misquoted what Steph said. What Steph wrote was appalling and my response to her still holds.

[HAL9000]

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Taking what Steph said at anything other than face

> value would be jumping to conclusions.

Did you miss the bit about seeking further clarification before jumping to conclusions?

What Steph said doesn't quite make sense - it seems illogical: for example, why call the police before acting unilaterally? Without giving her the opportunity to rebut or clarify the inferred allegations, any conclusions drawn therefrom are based on assumptions. It's a matter of fairness - that's all.

[Loz]

HAL9000 - this is an open, public internet forum. Steph has the right to reply and clarify any time she wants to.

Rosie is correct: taking what Steph said at anything other than face value is jumping to conclusions. Taking Steph at her word is not, and posters are entitled to reply to something Steph (or anyone) wrote. It is then up to Steph to clarify, should she feel she has been misconstrued.

I mean, do you seek further clarification before replying to anyone here?

[Steph]

OK thought I should respond...I said the first thing that sprang to mind without thinking, it's was what came into my head after reading the thread. A knee jerk reaction. It was silly of me not to think about what I was saying...I apologise for offending everyone.

In my mind, I would like get my husband (who doesn't realise he was volunteered to take out the cameraman)to put the camera over the cameraman's head though in reality he certainly wouldn't do so and I would never encourage to do so either.

Had I said this earlier it would of saved a lot of trouble I know.

One thing to come out of it is the confirmation that DOMO is a pretty aggressive TOSSER!!!

[SeanMacGabhann]

aaaaaand exhale

Good post Steph!

[TillieTrotter]

*Sniggers*

[Domitianus]

Steph Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> OK thought I should respond...I said the first

> thing that sprang to mind without thinking, it's

> was what came into my head after reading the

> thread. A knee jerk reaction. It was silly of me

> not to think about what I was saying...I apologise

> for offending everyone.

>

> In my mind, I would like get my husband (who

> doesn't realise he was volunteered to take out the

> cameraman)to put the camera over the cameraman's

> head though in reality he certainly wouldn't do so

> and I would never encourage to do so either.

> Had I said this earlier it would of saved a lot of

> trouble I know.

>

> One thing to come out of it is the confirmation

> that DOMO is a pretty aggressive TOSSER!!!

Or perhaps someone who is of the view that it is not smart making irresponsible comments about engaging in violent assaults on others. Your apology was doing quite well there Steph until you just had to go and blow it by trying to wriggle out of responsibility for you own comments. And in the process of calling me an "aggressive TOSSER!!" you engaged in exactly the same behaviour you just accused me off. Show me aggression in my posts. I would love to see it. On the contrary your original post and this 'clarification' have both been characterised by aggressive tendencies.

Pot - kettle - black. Put your own house in order and take responsibility for your own comments before deflecting blame onto others.

[Domitianus]

missus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "But I have met plenty of people before who like

> to boast about how they or their other half like

> to resolve situations by giving someone a good

> slap and, invariably, they have been t****ers"

>

> One presumes, having read some of your earlier

> contumelious posts, that you too fall into said

> vulgarly-titled category having previously deemed

> strangulation a fit punishment for young women who

> chew gum with their mouths open.... (Was there

> clear evidence for that being tongue-in-cheek?!)

>

> I do believe that one could construe an equally

> unsavory impression of yourself, Domitianus. But,

> having said that, I know as little about you as I

> do about Steph and as such, not wishing to defame

> someone else's character on this forum (as you

> have already succeeded), will keep my judgments to

> myself.

Frankly, this is just such a silly post I am tempted not to even grace it with a reply but I can't resist.

1. I am just so gutted, missus, that you think the word t***ers is "vulgar". (For the purposes of clarity the preceding sentence is weighed to breaking point with sarcasm). T***ers must be one of the least "vulgar" insults I can imagine. If I had said "f**k", "S**t" or "c**t" you might have some sort of a point but "t***ers"? Come of it!

2. Was my comment on strangling people for chewing gum with their mouth open clearly tongue-in-cheek? I can scarcely remember the thread but I strongly suspect it was, yes. I certainly can't recall any comment on gum chewing made by me causing the number of people to take offence as Steph's post has done. Perhaps you can point us in the direction of the thread since (unless you have an utterly staggeringly encyclopaedic memory) you have obviously spent a good bit of time trawling through my historic posts to find something to throw at me. Nice to know my posts on THIS thread have bugged you that much.

3. Defaming someone's character? What twaddle. If someone doesn't want to have their comments taken to task then they shouldn't make provocative statements on public sites that effectively condone or incite criminal behaviour. If Steph's reputation has suffered due to her fooliosh comments it is no-one's fault but her own. A well-known defence to charges of defamation is "fair comment" and "opinion" and I think based upon Steph's original post my comments were both. Interesting that at least a couple of other posters seemed to take the same position.

Oh, by the way, Steph just defamed my character by calling me an "aggressive TOSSER!!". Doubtless you will be making similar complaints of defamation about her post? No? Didn't think so somehow. Hypocrite.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Dom

You are almost lenk-like in your aggression ruining some very good points (sometimes)

You disappeared for ages and have come back all guns blazing - why?

You clearly don't like any of the regular posters on here and your tone means you will never convince anyone of the merit of your argument so.. again.. why?

[Domitianus]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dom

>

> You are almost lenk-like in your aggression

> ruining some very good points (sometimes)

>

> You disappeared for ages and have come back all

> guns blazing - why?

>

> You clearly don't like any of the regular posters

> on here and your tone means you will never

> convince anyone of the merit of your argument so..

> again.. why?

Why what? Clarify your qustion. And why are you not asking the same questions of missus and Steph who hav engaged in blatantly personal and offensive comments in their posts? Is it stick up for the girls time?

[Domitianus]

I think you will find that people often respond directly when they are subject to personal attacks.

[missus]

My staggering encyclopedic memory is second only in greatness to your comic indignation!

Job done.

Missus has left the building......

[SeanMacGabhann]

No Dom

It's because generally speaking, when they post they don't display wild, misanthropic tendancies. Steph's original post was out-of-character and she has responded like... well, a grown-up

Clarify my question?

"You disappeared for ages and have come back all

> guns blazing - why? "

surely a man of your intellect can decipher such a sphinx-like riddle?

[Steph]

It's all Steph this and Steph that for you Domo...I take total responsibility and feel foolish - can you stop using my name so much now please?

[Ted Max]

It is a matter of not inconsiderable inconvenience to me to have to deal with the trifling inadequacies I see here before me but it would, conversely, be remiss and amiss not to genuflect to the Spirit of Truth and bat your sordid objections away into the undergrowth, whence they came.

Painful as it is to summon up the Howitzers of my rhetorical artillery to deal with such piffling small arms fire, it behoves me not to allow such cretinous buffoonery to pass undisputed....*

(*Continues for another 4 paragraphs....)

[Moos]

TedMax, the Robert Browning of prose.

[Jeremy]

I dunno what's got into you recently Domi... it's all rant rant rant.

SMG compares you with Lenk, but at least he shows flashes of humour at times through his "grumpy cynic" persona.

[SeanMacGabhann]

@ Ted

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_k961WjbdlbA/SPdLdRxq-dI/AAAAAAAACOk/ygI14alVBks/s400/standing-ovation-0907-lg.jpg

[Domitianus]

Steph Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's all Steph this and Steph that for you

> Domo...I take total responsibility and feel

> foolish - can you stop using my name so much now

> please?

Of course. Fact is since I was reponding to your post it was tough not using your name. Don't believe I have ever mentioned you before.

[Domitianus]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No Dom

>

> It's because generally speaking, when they post

> they don't display wild, misanthropic tendancies.

> Steph's original post was out-of-character and she

> has responded like... well, a grown-up

>

> Clarify my question?

>

> "You disappeared for ages and have come back all

> > guns blazing - why? "

>

> surely a man of your intellect can decipher such a

> sphinx-like riddle?

Misanthropic? Nonsense. Evidence please. Disagreeing with someone of the female gender does not make one a misnathrope any more than dsagreeng with someone who is Jewish makes one anti-semitic.

And a "grown-up" response???????? Calling me an "aggressive TOSSER!!"? Most mature. If there have been hot heads here they have been on all sides and ifthe thread has escalated it has been a folie a trois/quatre/whaever, so kindly don't make me a scapegoat. I have been personally insulted for objectng to a call for public violence yet you have not seen fit to challenge anyone on that. Odd.

[HAL9000]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I mean, do you seek further clarification before

> replying to anyone here?

I don't think the occasion as arisen since I've been on the ED Forum (until now, that is) but I have done so in the past.

The post in question looked (to me) like a hastily typed, knee-jerk reaction from a protective mother in response to an emotive subject ? personally, I wouldn?t have launched a proactive attack under those circumstances.

[LuLu Too]

This thread is all rather interesting.

But Domitianus - I fear you're getting your misanthrope mixed up with your misogynist?

Or maybe not.

I seek further clarification!