|
In Reply to: Re: There's no winning this one posted by Deb on May 18, 2006 at 15:02:27:
Since you promise not to respond to my posts, the following are rhetorical questions.
Why do you feel it necessary to judge my ability to read?
If you have admitted your error to certain people for offending them, why not to me?
When did I attack your family?
Is merely asking the question "Is Tim Peters connected to TF?" which is all I did, considered by you an attack on your family?
If you are completely aware of what this board is for, then why did you purposely taunt and criticize people here, people that have been harmed by TF, for merely trying to determine the truth about your father?
When did I say that I had PTSD? Can't you read?
When was I ever irrational in any of my posts to you? Can you point that out?
Do you really think I care that you won't be responding to my posts? And do you intend to keep that promise like the promise you made that you weren't going to post here anymore?
You say we've hashed and rehashed the whole messing with our heads things, but why is it only now that you make an apology, and a half-assed one at that since you're only sorry I'm upset, not sorry that you caused that?
You asked: "Why do I keep reading your posts if I don't like them?" What are you saying, that people should only read posts they agree with? How can they know they don't like them until they've read them? Besides, I read every post here, and if there is something I disagree I say so, regardless of who it is. I'm an equal opportunity critic. I've been specifically challenging you because you have tried to turn on its head the issue of your dad's connection to TF, condemning and criticizing us.
Will any of that logic and reasoning your lawyer colleagues practice daily ever rub off on you?
