XPost: can.general, can.politics, ott.general
From: Canuck57@nospam.com
On 11/07/2011 11:24 PM, merlin! wrote:
> John Fleming wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:39:04 -0700, while chained to a desk
>> in the scriptorium "merlin!" wrote:
>>> $John Fleming wrote:
>>> $> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:40:50 -0700, while chained to a desk
>>> $> in the scriptorium "merlin!" wrote:
>>> $>> $John Fleming wrote:
>>> $>> $> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 21:59:55 -0700, while chained to a desk
>>> $>> $> in the scriptorium "merlin!" wrote:
>>
>>> $>> $>> $So, you have absolutely no comprehension of what it's like
>>> to $>> $>> suddenly be $plunged into unmanageable debt, having done
>>> nothing $>> $>> wrong. But you insist $that this only happens to
>>> welshers, $>> losers, $>> irresponsible deadbeats etc. $You are a
>>> clueless twit, $>> badly in need $>> of an education.
>>> $>> $>
>>> $>> $> I'm sure your ex would disagree on the "done nothing wrong"
>>> $>> $> part. If you hadn't done something wrong, she wouldn't have
>>> $>> $> divorced you, right?
>>> $>> $
>>> $>> $She didn't mention anything like that.
>>> $>
>>> $> Oh, I'm sure she didn't. But I'm sure she didn't divorce
>>> $> you on a lark either. No, there were serious problems
>>> $> festering in your relationship, and you were as guitly as
>>> $> sin as far as she was concerned.
>>> $
>>> $In later years, she admitted that she had been "a real bitch". I am
>>> not $suggesting that I was a perfect husband, nobody is. However, I
>>> certainly $did not deserve what the lawyers and judges dish out. I
>>> suspect that only $1 in 1000 men do deserve that, but they get it
>>> anyhow.
>>
>> What she admitted she was is immaterial. It's what she
>> thought you were that counts.
>
> She thought I was married to "a real bitch".
>
>
>> If she dumped you, she came to the conclusion you weren't as
>> hot a catch as she originally thought.
>
> I guess you are right. You have amazing insight into the female psyche!
>
>
>>> $>> $>> $>>> Nope. Just have my eyes open and a good grip of
>>> reality. $>> $>> $>>
>>> $>> $>> $>> From what you have written here, it is clear to me that
>>> your $>> $>> $>> conception of reality is extremely narrow and
>>> limited. $>> $>> $>
>>> $>> $>> $> Reality and truth are often very limited and exact.
>>> $>> $>> $
>>> $>> $>> $And your ignorance knows no bounds.
>>> $>> $>> $
>>> $>> $>> $
>>> $>> $>> $>>> Funny, of all the friends I knew as kids that smoked
>>> dope, $>> not $>> a one $>>> amounted to anything. Not a one. But
>>> the ones $>> that $>> didn't toke $>>> most became something. Go
>>> figure. $>> $>> $>>
>>> $>> $>> $>> Corelation is not causation.
>>> $>> $>> $>
>>> $>> $>> $> True. But can be. My experience suggests in this case
>>> it is. $>> $>> $
>>> $>> $>> $You said you have no experience of such matters. You deny
>>> the $>> $>> existence of $such things. You might be wise to admit
>>> ignorance, $>> $>> rather than dispensing $judgment.
>>> $>> $>
>>> $>> $> Face it merlin. It costs money to support a drug habit. How
>>> $>> $> long does it take a man to drain his bank account to feed a
>>> $>> $> cocaine addiction? And if you are spending your money on
>>> $>> $> drugs, you aren't spending it improving your education and
>>> $>> $> training. Nor are you spending it on keeping your patner
>>> $>> $> happy.
>>> $>> $>
>>> $>> $> And you you spend half your life in a drug induced haze,
>>> $>> $> you're not giving your girl the attention she wants and
>>> $>> $> needs either. Nor are you giving your job the attention and
>>> $>> $> due dilligence your boss expects you to give it.
>>> $>> $>
>>> $>> $> OK, you can argue a drug habit doesn't turn you into a
>>> $>> $> failure. Heck, lots of rock and pop musicians pop pills by
>>> $>> $> the handful and still sell lots of records. But, on the
>>> $>> $> balance, if a drug problem doesn't cause failure, it sure
>>> $>> $> indicative of a deeper problem that does cause failure.
>>> $>> $
>>> $>> $It's none of my business if someone wants to take drugs, or
>>> spend $>> every $dime they have on drugs, or whatever it is that
>>> turns their $>> crank. I'm $pretty sure that it's none of your damn
>>> business either. $>
>>> $> It is everybody's business when they are breaking into homes
>>> $> to steal money to support a drug habit.
>>> $
>>> $Stealing is my business. Taking drugs is not. See the difference?
>>> $
>>> $> It's everybody's
>>> $> business if they use hospital services to treat an overdoes.
>>> $
>>> $It is, but that is easily remedied by reforming the idiotic
>>> tax-funded $hospital system. Harming drug addicts (more they they
>>> already harm $themselves) because people like you have their
>>> "universal healthcare" $heads up their asses, really does not seem
>>> rasonable or fair. $
>>> $> It is everybody's business if they get behind the wheel of a
>>> $> car while high on drugs.
>>> $
>>> $Public saftey issues are my business. Using drugs is not. See the
>>> $difference?
>>
>> You are tyring to tell me that operating a motor vehicle
>> while high on drugs isn't a public saftey issue? Give your
>> head a shake man.
>
> I said exactly the opposite. Give your glasses a good cleaning and cut
> down on the booze.
So you drove her to drink.... ahhaha....
--
Now the real war is on Obama-debt, to save America's future.
And do it for your kids sake....and ignore the selfish fleabags...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
