I think I'll lurk

You can't lurk if you post that you are lurking..... lurking means that
you read but don't tell anyone you're there. Now we know you're there.... so
no one can talk about you behind your back.


--
"I'm not pompous and agrogant, I'm SNARKY"
JK Sinrod
Sinrod Stained Glass Studios
www.sinrodstudios.com
Coney Island Memories
www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories

Sorry you feel that way. I just killfile the ones I'd rather not see.

i thought it was funny,,,who are you to speak for others?????

You thought what was funny? Obviously YOU can't speak for others, since
nobody would even know what you're talking about.

--
Cheri


Bonnie O wrote in message
...
i thought it was funny,,,who are you to speak for others?????

Cheri wrote:
You thought what was funny? Obviously YOU can't speak for others, since
nobody would even know what you're talking about.

She can speak for me in this instance.

I thought that it was mildly amusing, more so than the OPs post.

You cannot dictate to others what they should regard as humorous,
something you appear to be attempting to do. Black humour may not appeal
to all but then what does?

I guess that a Monty Python movie would shock you into coma?

Regards

David


--

To email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line.

All other mail is automatically deleted.

Cheri wrote:

You thought what was funny? Obviously YOU can't speak for others, since
nobody would even know what you're talking about.

--
Cheri


Bonnie O wrote in message
...
i thought it was funny,,,who are you to speak for others?????

Cheri,

People handle situations in different
ways. I thought it was humorous. I
often chuckle nervously when it's not
considered appropriate.

Marsha/Ohio

Who cares. First you would have to know what she's talking about before
you would know if it's funny or not. Same goes for you. She can speak
for you about what?

--
Cheri


J. David Anderson wrote in message ...
Cheri wrote:
You thought what was funny? Obviously YOU can't speak for others,
since
nobody would even know what you're talking about.

She can speak for me in this instance.

I thought that it was mildly amusing, more so than the OPs post.

You cannot dictate to others what they should regard as humorous,
something you appear to be attempting to do. Black humour may not
appeal
to all but then what does?

I guess that a Monty Python movie would shock you into coma?

Regards

David


--

To email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject
line.

All other mail is automatically deleted.

I still don't know what she thought was funny. What did you think was
humorous? Who was she even responding to? Who was the "you"? People
aren't mindreaders so she should at least quote a little of what she's
responding to.

--
Cheri


Marsha wrote in message ...
Cheri wrote:

You thought what was funny? Obviously YOU can't speak for others,
since
nobody would even know what you're talking about.

--
Cheri


Bonnie O wrote in message
...
i thought it was funny,,,who are you to speak for others?????

Cheri,

People handle situations in different
ways. I thought it was humorous. I
often chuckle nervously when it's not
considered appropriate.

Marsha/Ohio

Cheri wrote:
Who cares.

You apparently, as you have taken time to respond.

First you would have to know what she's talking about before
you would know if it's funny or not.

Why?

What was funny had nothing to do with what she said, it had to do with
the response and the reference to CSI.

Same goes for you. She can speak
for you about what?

About whether the response was humorous.


Cheri it wouldn't hurt to lighten up a little.

The OP expressed a number of opinions about a person and a situation
that has no relevance to me, and I imagine, to many who read it. The
post seemed extremely biased, and although I certainly wouldn't take the
original post (or the response) at face value (without much more
data...) the response was at least as valid as the original post from
the viewpoint of an uninvolved third party. Plus it was a humorous dig
at the bias in the post.

If I was pressed to express empathy for any one person of those
involved, it would be for the guy who saw his only option as suicide.

The op admits that she has no idea if he was physically abusive but
still denigrates him and has empathy only for the woman - who at least
is still living and has a future. It is referred to as speaking ill of
the dead; something that many people do not regard with approval.

Regards

David


--

To email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line.

All other mail is automatically deleted.

"J. David Anderson" jdavidanderson_@hotmail wrote in message
...
Cheri wrote:
Who cares.

You apparently, as you have taken time to respond.

First you would have to know what she's talking about before
you would know if it's funny or not.

Why?

What was funny had nothing to do with what she said, it had to do with the
response and the reference to CSI.

Same goes for you. She can speak
for you about what?

About whether the response was humorous.


Cheri it wouldn't hurt to lighten up a little.

The OP expressed a number of opinions about a person and a situation that
has no relevance to me, and I imagine, to many who read it. The post
seemed extremely biased, and although I certainly wouldn't take the
original post (or the response) at face value (without much more data...)
the response was at least as valid as the original post from the viewpoint
of an uninvolved third party. Plus it was a humorous dig at the bias in
the post.

If I was pressed to express empathy for any one person of those involved,
it would be for the guy who saw his only option as suicide.

The op admits that she has no idea if he was physically abusive but still
denigrates him and has empathy only for the woman - who at least is still
living and has a future. It is referred to as speaking ill of the dead;
something that many people do not regard with approval.

One of the last times I saw him he kept telling his wife, my friend, look
how beautiful Lori is! that is how a woman is supposed to look, not like
you. what an ass.
She never admitted that he beat her but I saw her weekly and she often had
bruises, a cut lip, other signs. he constantly accused her of cheating,
called her a whore when he was drunk. all kinds of things. she admitted it
to another friend of ours last year and briefly left him. her catholic roots
are deep and she went back to her husband and that other friend wouldn't
talk to her anymore, Infact, she was so disgusted that A went back to J that
K did not have A in her wedding as she had planned. I also was friends with
his first wife back in the 80s. they had 4 kids. she left him because he
beat her and was a verbally abusive alcoholic. Wow! so many people defending
a man they wouldn't even have dinner with if they knew him. unreal, I guess
I didn't know I had to go into such dirty detail or i would have.








eted.