Threatened by Dennis Fetter

Maxwell wrote:
"Dennis Fetters" wrote in message
...

Dan wrote:

Dennis Fetters wrote:

I'm sorry for this MONK clown posting his spewings here. He was banned
from the Rotary Forum for doing so. The only way I threatened him is
if a debate on the forum is a threat. After he was banned, someone
told me to do a google search on his name; "Bryan & Sue Chaisone" and
"Chaisone's bar", and I realized this was not a normal person, and no
amount of debating in the world would have lead to anything. Again,
sorry, and I'll leave you all to your little world here.



Dennis,

that was from a month ago.
How about letting it go?

Richard


Hey Richard. I just seen it, because I don't frequent here. That ok with
you now?


You didn't have to bring up anything after the second sentence.
Everything from that point on is petty.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Hey Dan, why don't I just start sending you everything before I post it,
so that way you can edit it to your satisfaction. Would that do it for
you?


What was your purpose in posting an apology, and telling your side of the
issue?

Well Maxwell, the same as yours would be. ??!!

Dennis Fetters wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dennis Fetters wrote:
I'm sorry for this MONK clown posting his spewings here. He was
banned from the Rotary Forum for doing so. The only way I
threatened him is if a debate on the forum is a threat. After he
was banned, someone told me to do a google search on his name;
"Bryan & Sue Chaisone" and "Chaisone's bar", and I realized this
was not a normal person, and no amount of debating in the world
would have lead to anything. Again, sorry, and I'll leave you all
to your little world here.



Dennis,

that was from a month ago.
How about letting it go?

Richard


Hey Richard. I just seen it, because I don't frequent here. That ok
with you now?


You didn't have to bring up anything after the second sentence.
Everything from that point on is petty.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Hey Dan, why don't I just start sending you everything before I post it,
so that way you can edit it to your satisfaction. Would that do it for you?

I guess maturity isn't exactly your strong point, is it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Dennis Fetters" wrote in message
...
Maxwell wrote:
"Dennis Fetters" wrote in message
...

Dan wrote:

Dennis Fetters wrote:

I'm sorry for this MONK clown posting his spewings here. He was
banned from the Rotary Forum for doing so. The only way I threatened
him is if a debate on the forum is a threat. After he was banned,
someone told me to do a google search on his name; "Bryan & Sue
Chaisone" and "Chaisone's bar", and I realized this was not a normal
person, and no amount of debating in the world would have lead to
anything. Again, sorry, and I'll leave you all to your little world
here.



Dennis,

that was from a month ago.
How about letting it go?

Richard


Hey Richard. I just seen it, because I don't frequent here. That ok
with you now?


You didn't have to bring up anything after the second sentence.
Everything from that point on is petty.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Hey Dan, why don't I just start sending you everything before I post it,
so that way you can edit it to your satisfaction. Would that do it for
you?


What was your purpose in posting an apology, and telling your side of the
issue?

Well Maxwell, the same as yours would be. ??!!

What would my reason be?

Dan wrote:
Dennis Fetters wrote:
Hey Dan, why don't I just start sending you everything before I post
it, so that way you can edit it to your satisfaction. Would that do it
for you?


I guess maturity isn't exactly your strong point, is it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Hey Dan, you're the one telling people what you want to see wrote around
here. I just apologized for what some other guy did in your little
world. You are the one childishly aggravating the matter. I even offered
to let you edit what I wrote to your satisfaction before I posted it,
just to make you happy, yet that is still not enough to keep you from
crying. Face it, you will never be happy, so why try?

Maxwell wrote:
Dan wrote:
What was your purpose in posting an apology, and telling your side of the
issue?

Well Maxwell, the same as yours would be. ??!!


What would my reason be?


Yea, I guess you couldn't understand at that.

Dennis Fetters wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dennis Fetters wrote:
Hey Dan, why don't I just start sending you everything before I post
it, so that way you can edit it to your satisfaction. Would that do
it for you?


I guess maturity isn't exactly your strong point, is it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Hey Dan, you're the one telling people what you want to see wrote around
here. I just apologized for what some other guy did in your little
world. You are the one childishly aggravating the matter. I even offered
to let you edit what I wrote to your satisfaction before I posted it,
just to make you happy, yet that is still not enough to keep you from
crying. Face it, you will never be happy, so why try?

Try again. It's not my "little world," you didn't need to apologize
for the actions of another and your suggestion you'd let me "edit" your
responses was just ludicrous. All I said in the first place was a
portion of your response was petty. In my opinion what you said about
the OP was purely out of spite. You could have agreed or disagreed with
me in a mature manner. You didn't do so. I was respectful to you and you
were petulant in return.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dennis Fetters wrote:
[ Some stuff. ]

Dan wrote:
[ Some other stuff, and then wrote: ]
I was respectful to you [...]

Ah - so describing someone's action as being "petty" is a sign of respect.
The things I learn on Usenet! Well Dan, everything you write from this
point on is a sign of pettiness. There - if that isn't respectful I don't
know what is! And I learned it all on Usenet - thanks to your benevolent
tutelage!

"Dennis Fetters" wrote in message
...
Maxwell wrote:
Dan wrote:
What was your purpose in posting an apology, and telling your side of
the issue?

Well Maxwell, the same as yours would be. ??!!

What would my reason be?

Yea, I guess you couldn't understand at that.

No, actually I don't.

It would appear you were attempting to redeem yourself from his comments.
Something that was completely unnecessary, because he had done such a poor
job of presenting his case.

Now you show up acting like an asshole, and it makes you appearing to have
no more motive than outing his identity to even the score.

Jim Logajan wrote:
Dennis Fetters wrote:
[ Some stuff. ]

Dan wrote:
[ Some other stuff, and then wrote: ]
I was respectful to you [...]

Ah - so describing someone's action as being "petty" is a sign of respect.
The things I learn on Usenet! Well Dan, everything you write from this
point on is a sign of pettiness. There - if that isn't respectful I don't
know what is! And I learned it all on Usenet - thanks to your benevolent
tutelage!

If you hadn't noticed Fetters made cheap comments not related to his
"apology" and without merit. I pointed out such actions are petty. That
wasn't disrespectful.

On the other hand your snide comments can be taken as disrespectful
by many people. I will leave it to the reader to come to his own conclusion.

Believe it if you will, but it is possible to disagree without being
disagreeable.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote:
If you hadn't noticed Fetters made cheap comments not related to
his "apology" and without merit.

His "apology" was obviously rhetorical and one would have to have been
"born yesterday" not to notice. The "cheap comments," on the other hand,
appeared to me to be reasonably merited on the simple fact that the OP
was potentially libelous. Perhaps if someone falsely claimed on a public
forum that you had threatened them you'd want to reply with some choice
"cheap comments" of your own when you found out about them. Or not.

I pointed out such actions are petty. That wasn't disrespectful.

Hey - that's what I was going to claim about my comments about your post!

On the other hand your snide comments can be taken as disrespectful
by many people. I will leave it to the reader to come to his own
conclusion.

Thank god for small favors! At least my snide remarks aren't totally
lost. So there is no need to "leave it to the reader to come to his own
conclusion," the post was intended to be snide. But I can be snide
without being disrepectful. In fact I haven't given any thought to
whether I should respect you or not. Certainly wouldn't want to make that
decision based on just one post!

But unlike you, I definitely don't want to leave readers to come their
own conclusions - if Usenet can't give me complete control over their
thinking then what use is this dang thing!? Curse the readers and the
horses they rode in on!

Believe it if you will, but it is possible to disagree without
being disagreeable.

Actually I do believe that. But on rare occasions it is more effective to
be disagreeable - as you may know. Depends on the context and the
intended audience and message to be delivered, right? My snide post was
my disagreeable way of pointing out that you managed to write your post
in such a way as to make this otherwise uninvolved party think you were
being disingenuous. Consider my original post, then, my own comment on
your composition of that one particular post. Or you can feel free to
point out your original post was not itself petty, so I must have a
reading comprehension problem.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Jim, U.S. Taxpayer, not yet retired (alas).