With the Bushster's appearance igniting protests and riots all over Europe, we haven't heard a peep outta' Ain't. Funny thing, eh?

-- LOL (LOL@LOL.com), June 15, 2001

Answers

We also haven't heard a peep out of Franklin Delanor Roosevelt. So what is your point.

-- The REAL LOL (L@O.L), June 15, 2001.

Ay, carumba! Do I have to 'splain EVERYTHING to you, LUCY?

-- Ricky (Ricardo@Desilu.com), June 15, 2001.

Peep.

-- (Ain't@home.now), June 16, 2001.

The less the Euros like Bush the better I do. These clowns have a several hundred years lead on us civilization wise and what do they have to show for it? France just fell behind California in GNP and while their socialist healthcare system crumbles they're about to force 2 weeks paid paternity leave on employers. When they get around to their next war we shouldn't bother with another Marshall Plan. Let 'em stew.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), June 16, 2001.

Just goes to show what an idiot you are Carlos.

-- (pull head @ out. of ass), June 16, 2001.

Or not.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), June 16, 2001.

A better term for Carlos would be "Bigot". And the truly sad part is, he's *proud* of it!

-- HeEven (Hates@Himself.com), June 16, 2001.

Carlos,

Actually, you are right on when it comes to the socialists of Europe. How quickly they forget that they would all be speaking German if it weren't for the U.S. of A. I second your notion that since they can't seem to show a little gratitude, we shouldn't bail their butts out the next time that someone decides to unite the continent - forcibly.

As for anonymous cowards, they rank down near European socialists. Always whining, and not good for much.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 16, 2001.

I agree with Carlos and if I may be so blunt, Europe can't find its collective ass from a hole in the ground! They bitch and whine incessantly about the USA, but come a runnin' when there's trouble and they need an issue fixed. They are a living example on the failures of socialism. 10 weeks vacation and you wonder why France cannot out produce just one of our states (California). We worry about consumer's, they worry about competitor's. They say *we* are soley resposible for dirtying up the planet, but yet, not one (save Romania) of them has approved the Kyoto treaty. They can kiss my white american butt!! I'll spend my vacation money in Australia, Chile, and Costa Rica.

-- Rob (celtic64@mindspring.com), June 16, 2001.

Ah....but to live in a perfect world!

-- ThereAin'tNo (Utopia@Whiners.com), June 16, 2001.

"10 weeks vacation and you wonder why France cannot out produce just one of our states (California)."

Perhaps they prefer to enjoy their lives, rather than pursue a meaningless goal such as outproducing California. If they have figured out how to have 10 weeks of vacation a year and still have a comfortably high standard of living, then it sounds to me like they are on to something pretty good.

If that's a "failure", where do I sign up to fail? (Oh - damn - that's right. This attitude is unAmerican. I'll be keelhauled for this. C'est la vie.)

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 16, 2001.

J:

How quickly they forget that they would all be speaking German if it weren't for the U.S. of A.

You are so correct. The U.S. liberated all of eastern europe even though they lost millions of men [oops, that was the capitalist Soviet Union]. It is ok to be proud of what we did but revisionism is not all that attractive.

LN; I will sign up with you.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 16, 2001.

Z,

I believe that you are incorrect.

I believe that if we Americans not helped Great Britain stop the Germans from conquering all of western Europe, then the Soviet Union would never have been able to liberate anything, and that the Germans would have controlled all of Eastern Europe, as well.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 16, 2001.

LN and Z,

The downside to getting ten weeks of vacation a year would mean that you have to work 42 weeks a year. ;-) LOL!

-- jammy (jammin@with.jammy), June 17, 2001.

Perhaps they prefer to enjoy their lives, rather than pursue a meaningless goal such as outproducing California. If they have figured out how to have 10 weeks of vacation a year and still have a comfortably high standard of living, then it sounds to me like they are on to something pretty good.

If that's a "failure", where do I sign up to fail? (Oh - damn - that's right. This attitude is unAmerican. I'll be keelhauled for this. C'est la vie.)

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 16, 2001.

I hear nobody other than you complaining about American vacation time.... why's that??? Last time I was in California, they all sure seemed to be enjoying life to the max and yet still out-performed the world, imagine that!?! Oh, ever hear of the term leave of absense? You can take as much time as your particular company offers then, so your argument is pretty weak to say the least....

-- Rob (celtic64@mindspring.com), June 17, 2001.

Rob, last I looked, the U.S. of A., self-proclaimed "seat of civilization", was the ONLY (got that? ONLY) first-world industrialized nation on the planet (the ENTIRE planet) whose workers averaged LESS THAN one month per year vacation.

Oddly enough (and I'm not saying there's a direct correlation here), we are also the most VIOLENT society.

Take it for what it's worth. But if YOU don't hear anyone else complaining, you're either The Boss or you live in the middle of nowhere.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 17, 2001.

J:

Historical facts don't agree with your assessment. Now I am not taking anything away from what US, British, Canadian, etc forces did.

When I was growing up, my neighbor was one of those rangers who scaled the cliffs on D-day and survived. He was 15 at that time and lied to get into the service. He had a CMH.

Still the records tell us how many German divisions were held down by the Soviets. It made D-day possible. The Soviets should get credit where credit is due. This wasn't a socialism against capitalism event.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 17, 2001.

Gawd, I love thread-drift! (I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically.)

-- So (Where's@Ain'tsBigMouth.com), June 17, 2001.

J said:

"I believe that if we Americans not helped Great Britain stop the Germans from conquering all of western Europe..."

As I never tire of pointing out, it took the good ole US of A two and a quarter years to come to Britain's aid. (Canada, meanwhile, jumped in after 2 days.) I will grant you that Britain and Canada would not have been able to defeat the Axis without Yankee men, money and materiel, but Americans shouldn't be too proud of the isolationist tendencies that governed their thinking from 1939-late 1941. Look up some of the things Joe Kennedy said.....

Also, just a small correction to something Patricia said: Canadian workers, like their US counterparts, average less than a month's holiday per year. Up here the standard vacation allotment is 2 weeks. After 5 years of service (with the same company) you get 3 weeks and after 10 years you get 4 weeks. In Britain, where I worked in the early-mid nineties, a rookie gets 4 weeks and it is not uncommon for people in their 30s to be at 6-7 weeks per year. Much more civilised than North America, which Europeans think is populated by puritanical workaholics.

Gotta run...have to finish a report for work tomorrow........

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), June 18, 2001.

Oops. Thanks for the correction, Johnny. I've always been amazed that anyone thinks two weeks' vacation per year is sufficient.

Of course, I've noticed that those who set those policies are in the six-to-eight week vacation category.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 18, 2001.

Gotta run...have to finish a report for work tomorrow........ ;-)

Sounds like you Canadians have their fair share of puritanical workaholics as well. LOL!

-- jammy (jammin@with.jammy), June 18, 2001.

Having lived and worked in England in my younger years, I know that Brit's work a six day work week. Only part of the day saturday but, still six days with Sunday's off. They don't find that unusual or a hardship and take frequent "holidays" to Majorica or France. Long weekends break up the times in between scheduled holidays. Work hard play hard......

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), June 18, 2001.

Marg, I don't think anyone is decrying anyone else's "work ethic". My point is that U.S. (and apparently Canadian) employers work their employees (figuratively) to death and then wonder such things as, "Gee, why has the work quality gone down?" or "Gee, why is so-and-so taking so many sick days?" (which many employers have chosen to no longer offer as a "benefit") and "Gee, why does so-and- so have such a bad attitude?". Now I'm not saying that ALL these things are a direct result of the less-than-stellar vacation policies of U.S. corporations, but it's probably a safe bet that a good many are.

You can't have it all, though U.S. employers are certainly trying.

The U.S. may enjoy a "higher standard of living" (whose "standards" are they, BTW? anyone know?), but (IMO) the Europeans, on the whole, have quite a relaxed and comfortable lifestyle; a damn sight more relaxed than we are here.

But check again what I wrote above: We are, in the category noted, the most VIOLENT society. There would appear to be a correlation, though I don't have any studies as reference.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 18, 2001.

Sounds like you Canadians have their fair share of puritanical workaholics as well. LOL!

Sounds TO ME like you didn't realize Canada was part of North America.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 18, 2001.

Historically, the European press has been hard on ALL incoming U.S. presidents. After a visit or two, they soften their stance and take a more real world look at the man and his stated goals. I am led to believe that this is already happening with GWB in many major media centers throughout his just completed tour.

Can you imagine the good time they would have had with Al Gore?

As regards the pathetic country known as France, who should care what these proven losers have to say about real achievers? The next time they are occupied we should let them fend for themselves. After all, these lazy fools are incapable of properly running an amusement park, let alone their own country.

-- More (whine@please.com), June 18, 2001.

Patricia, Today on Drudge, read the following. France has edged US out.I don't think they have had their vacation time cut back.

Monday, June 18 7:17 PM SGT

More crime in France than in US - report

PARIS, June 18 (AFP) -

France has become a more crime-ridden society than the United States, according to a new report which draws on official statistics from the FBI and French ministry of interior.

Examining figures for a range of offenses since 1995, the study found that France overtook the US for the first time last year, as zero tolerance policies in America coincided with the steady growth in crime in French cities and suburbs.

Per 100,000 inhabitants, there were 4,244 crimes in France compared with 4,135 in the US. "It was bound to happen one day that the curves converge then cross over," said security consultant Alain Bauer, the report's co-author.

Sector by sector, Bauer discovered that while figures for murder and rape remained much higher in the United States, in other types of violent crime France was approaching or had surpassed American levels.

Thus the number of physical assaults in 2000 was put at 327 per 100,000 people by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and at 299 by the French police. Five years before the numbers were more than 400 in the US, and just over 200 in France.

For theft with violence, France was well in advance of the US, with 185 compared to 145.

The figures for crimes on property were even more stark, with the US statistics declining dramatically over the past five years, while France registered a steady increase.

For simple theft, France hit 2,588 per 100,000 inhabitants while the US fell to 2,475. Car-theft was markedly more pronounced in France, with 507 reported compared to 420 in the US for the same head of population.

The authors, who included in the report only those crimes they said were directly comparable, warned that any study of this nature was "necessarily relative and partical," but they insisted the overall picture was unmistakeable.

"We can confirm, without serious risk of contradiction, that France has just overtaken the USA in levels of criminality," Bauer told Le Figaro newspaper.

He called on the French government to follow the example of the American authorities, who he said had succeeded in a spectacular reduction in crime -- notably in New York -- via a mix of strict enforcement and the "pragmatic" application of local initiatives.

"What's essentially changed in criminality in France is the return of physical violence," Bauer said. "There exists here a real sense of impunity which makes the victims all the more dejected and the criminals all the more determined.

"It is a terrifying spiral of violence that we have to break," he said.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), June 18, 2001.

Z,

From a strategical standpoint, Hitler made a large mistake by turning on the Soviets before he had control of all of western Europe. It forced him to deal with the complexities of a two front war.

While I acknowledge that the Soviets were tying up some of the German military might, and this preoccupation in the East allowed for D-Day to succeed, my point is that had the Americans not came to the aid of Great Britain (albeit late by Johnny Canuck's estimation), D-Day never would have succeeded. In fact, it most likely never would have even occurred.

With no D-Day to stop the German push to control all of western Europe, then eastern Europe would have also stayed and/or come under German control.

I am not discounting the role that the Soviets played in the actual outcome of WW II events. I am, however, saying that if there had been no U.S. involvement, all of Europe would have fallen under German control.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 18, 2001.

"The U.S. may enjoy a "higher standard of living" (whose "standards" are they, BTW? anyone know?)" Take a look at this, Patricia.

If Earth's population was shrunk into a village of just 100 people --- with all the human ratios existing in the world still remaining --- what would this tiny, diverse village look like?

That's exactly what Philip M. Harter, a medical doctor at the Stanford University School of Medicine, attempted to figure out. This is what he found

57 would be Asian 21 would be European 14 would be from the Western Hemisphere 8 would be African

52 would be female 48 would be male

70 would be nonwhite 30 would be white

70 would be non-Christian 30 would be Christian

89 would be heterosexual 11 would be homosexual

6 people would possess 59 percent of the entire world's wealth, and all 6 would be from the United States.

80 would live in substandard housing 70 would be unable to re! ad 50 would suffer from malnutrition 1 would be near death 1 would be pregnant

1 would have a college education 1 would own a computer

Why should we care what the Europeans think of Bush?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 18, 2001.

At the risk of inserting "logic" into this discussion, where did I even MENTION Bush, Maria? You copied and pasted my question, yet didn't answer it.

Huh?

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 18, 2001.

Patricia, you sound like Hardliner. You didn't mention Bush, yet the topic of this thread is Bush's trip to Europe. Get it. My question was on topic, sorry you didn't follow.

I posted the stats to your question on standards of living. If you own a computer, you are among only 1% of the world's population who owns a computer. 6% of the worlds poplutaion owns 59% of the worlds wealth and they are Americans. Does this come close to answering your question about standard of living? Sorry I didn't mean to confuse you.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 18, 2001.

Maria posted THE STATS folks. Move-on nothing else to see here.

We do however need a volunteer to alert Dubya to the fact he should not give a flying hoot what some pussyass Frenchman thinks of him. Might also want to suggest he "vacation" elsewhere next time.

Ya he should already know all this, but apparently he doesn't have the STATS or the sense most here do. He actually is under some delusion Europe matters.

-- (dummieswillbuy@nything.gov), June 18, 2001.

Sorry, but it appeared that you addressed the question to me because the rest of your answer was addressed to me, although it did not answer my question.

What is "you sound like Hardliner" supposed to mean? Do you have an answer to my question or not? Does anyone?

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 18, 2001.

Clarification:

My question was, "When someone says that the U.S. has the highest standard of living in the world, whose "standards" are they?"

No, those stats did not answer the question. All those stats show is that we have the bulk of the world's wealth. Well, "wealth" does not equate to "standards" in everyone's world. At what price "wealth"?

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 18, 2001.

"Well, "wealth" does not equate to "standards" in everyone's world."

Think of it this way... If you live in a good home, have plenty to eat and can read, you are a member of a very select group. And if you have a good house, food, can read and have a computer, you are among the very elite.

If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof overhead and a place to sleep ... you are richer than 75% of this world.

Certainly not in YOUR world, wealth doesn't equate to standards, Patricia. But do you think those who don't even have a computer to project their opinions might have a different view?

All I said was take a look. Fine, you don't think these stats mean anything to you. Sad.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 18, 2001.

Jeez, Maria, are you one of those phone psychics in another existence? I didn't SAY (or IMPLY) that those stats meant nothing to me. All I said was that they DIDN'T answer my question, because they DIDN'T.

Again, at what price "wealth"? You could have ALL those things and MORE, but if you don't have your sanity or your health, then WTF is the point?

And that's the point I'm making here. Most people I know would like to be "wealthy" in the material sense and I'm no exception. Duh. But if U.S. corporations work their employees to "death", what's the point? The workers aren't being rewarded, only the management (and sometimes the stockholders). WTF is anyone supposed to do with two weeks' worth of vacation? And then they take away sick days, and wonder why people are sick. Duh (again).

The only thing "sad" around here is that you don't (or can't or won't) see this point.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 18, 2001.

"Again, at what price "wealth"? You could have ALL those things and MORE, but if you don't have your sanity or your health, then WTF is the point?" You define "standard of living" as sanity and health? Wealth buys health, especially in sanitary conditions. How much "health" do those living below the poverty line see?

Are you going to define sanity? I certainly won't on this forum. Maybe you're thinking of happiness? I can't read your mind Patricia, all I know is that you don't equate wealth to standard of living. And I do. Wealth is NOT billions, just minimum wage as compared to the rest of the world.

You don't like the working conditions in this country? Find yourself a new job. Compare the working conditions here with the child sweat shops in Taiwan. Give me a fucking break! Standard of living here is well above other countries, no matter how the fuck you define it Patricia.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 18, 2001.

Maria, the problem with trying to have a conversation with you is that you not only "divine" what the other poster is saying, you then go on to change the subject and respond to whatever you've changed it to.

No mas. Believe what you want to believe; read into my posts what you want to read into them.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 18, 2001.

Patricia, reading your mind is easy. I get your point. You believe that business is bad and (to paraphrase from above), they (all of them since you provided no caveat) work their employees to death and further correlate this to increased violence. Geez, no "broad brushing" with that comment!

All I said was "take a look". You conclude whatever the hell you like from it. I conclude that living in the US means I am pretty damn well blessed. I am part of a small percentage with a HIGH standard of living. Even the janitors at Harvard have a higher standard of living than most Europeans. Did you know that they could attend any Harvard class, they wish? Please name one other country where a janitor, as a benefit from its employer, can receive an Ivy League College education for free. Patricia, no mind reading necessary to infer what you implied by your stated opinions.

And speaking of changing subjects... How did you get to "big business is bad" from the topic of Bush's visit to Europe? Sheesh and I'M accused of changing subjects.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 18, 2001.

How did you get to "big business is bad" from the topic of Bush's visit to Europe?

She didn't. You did.

:-)

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 18, 2001.

Rob, last I looked, the U.S. of A., self-proclaimed "seat of civilization", was the ONLY (got that? ONLY) first-world industrialized nation on the planet (the ENTIRE planet) whose workers averaged LESS THAN one month per year vacation. Later corrected by Canadian poster.

Oddly enough (and I'm not saying there's a direct correlation here), we are also the most VIOLENT society. not a direct but an indirect.

Of course, I've noticed that those who set those policies are in the six-to-eight week vacation category. Those who set policy are the big bad employers, who else would be setting policies?

My point is that U.S. (and apparently Canadian) employers work their employees (figuratively) to death and then wonder such things as, "Gee, why has the work quality gone down?" or "Gee, why is so-and-so taking so many sick days?" (which many employers have chosen to no longer offer as a "benefit") and "Gee, why does so-and- so have such a bad attitude?". Now I'm not saying that ALL these things are a direct result of the less-than-stellar vacation policies of U.S. corporations, but it's probably a safe bet that a good many are.

Just a part of the normal whine from Patricia on how bad big businesses are. You need more of a reading lesson Tar?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 18, 2001.

Oh no. Where's my pillow? It's gonna be a l-o-n-g night.

-- helen :) (here@we.go), June 18, 2001.

Gee whiz golly, Maria. Why on earth do you waste so much of your valuable time on this forum when you could be making so much money reading into people's posts? There's an entire industry that's been created around that particular "gift".

I sure as hell thought I put a bunch of "caveats" in there, but I guess it wasn't enough for you. Seemed to be enough for everyone else, though.

BTW, your posts read like they're from one of those Big Bad Employers. Did I win? Huh? Did I? Did I?

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 18, 2001.

Oops -- forgot to answer your question. I never STARTED talking about Bush in Europe, nor did I RESPOND to anything about Bush in Europe (and, FYI, the thread was about Ain't, not Bush). I responded to one poster about vacations.

Reading comprehension isn't your forte, is it?

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 18, 2001.

Even the janitors at Harvard have a higher standard of living than most Europeans. Did you know that they could attend any Harvard class, they wish? Please name one other country where a janitor, as a benefit from its employer, can receive an Ivy League College education for free.

Actually, all higher education is free in most European countries, Maria, provided that one can pass the admittance requirements. This is even true of Americans who wish to study abroad. There's a little glitch on North Americans, however, in that they must have one year of University study before starting the program.

I know that you resent my personal stories being included in threads, but I have family members living in Norway, Sweden, Germany, and a few other European countries. They all enjoy life, never bitch about the taxes they pay, and [damn them] are most times off on holiday somewhere else when I come to visit them. They DO complain about socialized medicine.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 18, 2001.

Yes, I would appreciate it if you would teach me how to read words others haven't actually written. Did you learn that in the remedial reading course you took at the local jc?

;-)

Sorry, Maria, but once again you are guilty of responding to what you wish another poster had written rather than what they actually wrote. While many people who think big business is bad feel that Americans spend too much time at work and too little time recreating, many more people feel that big business is good and that Americans are spending too much time at work and too little time recreating. For example, National Review recently did a story on the massive number of hours Americans work and the effect its having on our health and our families. Would it be fair to say that the editors of National Review think big business is bad?

As an aside to Patricia, did you ever think you would find yourself on the same side of an issue as National Review?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 18, 2001.

A l-o-o-o-n-g night.

-- helen (not@gain.momma), June 18, 2001.

Heh. Go to bed, Helen. Maria only posts on company time, and she hasn't worked nights in a while.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 18, 2001.

Tarzan, the obvious answer would be "no", but (contrary to the popular "belief" of some), I'm actually more of a moderate than anything else.

(Heh, I'll admit my left-leaning tendencies (!!) have come to the forefront since the (s)election. No question about that.)

I'm wondering if the more appropriate question would have been, "did National Review ever think it would find itself on the same side of an issue as me". LOL.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 18, 2001.

LOL!

Actually, some companies are beginning to really address this situation. For instance, a big trend lately is to go from the two weeks vacation plus company holidays plus personal time to just giving employees twenty plus days off a year. This way, employees can take time off when they want rather than when the company wants them to. Don't want to take an extra day off for Thanksgiving? Fine, take it in July for your family reunion. Want to spend Yom Kippur in meditation and prayer? Great, work Christmas instead. Or How about taking eight three day weekends in a row instead of a two- week vacation? I could get behind that.

One of our clients has gone to a system of unlimited sick time. Their theory is, treat everyone like adults and they'll behave like adults. So far this year, abuse hasn't been a problem and their payroll person estimates she's saved several hours by no longer tracking sick time.

I know of a number of companies here in the South who work four-and-a- half day weeks from Memorial Day to Labor Day. And another client of ours has a program that allows new parents to come to work part-time, sharing their duties with another new parent. Anyone who's taken at least four weeks of FMLA is eligible for the program, but so far it's just been new parents.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 18, 2001.

At least Maria has a job.

-- (hard@core.unemployed), June 18, 2001.

The problem isn't people's dislike for big business, the problem people have is with the corruption involved in a lot of big businesses. If they are so great on their own, why do some have to turn to corrupt methods?

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), June 18, 2001.

So do I, "hardcore".

Tarzan, the company I worked for back in NYC had gone to "paid time off". Due to my length of service there, I ended up losing about three days from what I would have had if they kept the original policy. I wouldn't have moved to the next "level" for two years under the new policy. But I had an excellent VP who was very flexible with "comp time" (I normally worked 10-hour days). The company I work for here does the "paid time off" thing. I lost even MORE time when I took this job. Groan. I'm back to where I was five years ago.

I'm negotiating the vacation/PTO with my next company ;-)

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 18, 2001.

Patricia: I think Hardcore was addressing ME with the line about how Maria has a job. She sure does, and has made it clear that she's NEVER been without a job, even when her children were little.

I follow more in the footsteps of my European family. I've never sucked at the government teat, but I enjoy time off from employment to pursue other things, like child-rearing, finding my mom a new place to live, and allowing a broken bone in my foot to heal unattended. I don't think I'll get a job in July because my son will be home from Germany and I understand he plans a visit. My second daughter has also indicated that she may visit in July. SO's contract has been extended until end of August, so we won't be visiting in July, Patricia. He DOES desire a vacation after this contract, however, so I may not even pursue work until late in September.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 18, 2001.

Patricia-

To be sure, a PTO system can easily be tweaked to give less time than the old system. That would a huge morale blow, IMHO, and any company that does that deserves to have a high turnover rate.

Be sure to stick to your guns in your next negotiations. Remember, almost everything is negotiable.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 19, 2001.

There's an entire industry that's been created around that particular "gift".

Patricia, believe me no one needs a "gift" to know where you're coming from.

BTW, your posts read like they're from one of those Big Bad Employers. Did I win? Huh? Did I? Did I? Trying to be cute, nice try but no cigar for you.

I responded to one poster about vacations. yes you did. My apologies.

Actually, all higher education is free in most European countries, Maria, provided that one can pass the admittance requirements. Not true, Anita. Not ALL is free. I know; I've been there.

I know that you resent my personal stories being included in threads. . . I don't resent it at all Anita, I couldn't give a shit. Knock yourself out.

The problem isn't people's dislike for big business, the problem people have is with the corruption . . . I agree with you Cherri

I'm negotiating the vacation/PTO with my next company ;-)

Does that mean Patricia, that you're not figuratively worked to death? So you're able to possibly "work out" things with your employer. That's great news. FWIW, I used to have six (count 'em six! Plus holidays) weeks of vacation from two of my previous employers. Not ALL companies start you off with only two weeks vacation. Just more data for you Patricia, so your generalizations about the "ONLY" country on the "ENTIRE" planet aren't so sweeping.

I follow more in the footsteps of my European family. I've never sucked at the government teat, but I enjoy time off from employment to pursue other things. . .

Good for you, Anita. Isn't it nice how you can do the things you enjoy in life? Isn't it nice that you can decide what's best for you and how you can get the most out of life? I too have no regrets and enjoy life. I too pursue the things I want to get the most out of life. I guess we have something in common.

Right on Tar, giving Patricia advice... "stick to your guns"!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 19, 2001.

Maria, ROTFLMAO! Seems that "reading comprehension" comment hit the nail on the head.

Uh, perhaps you'd like to try again. Re-read and see if you can spot the plethora of caveats in the post of mine that seems to bug you so. While you're at it, re-read what Anita wrote about higher education in Europe. Read slowly and see if you can spot the caveat.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 19, 2001.

Patricia, What made you decide to come back to this forum? I see you got over that beating you took a couple of months ago. I'm glad you got back your good natured humor.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 19, 2001.

Patricia, What made you decide to come back to this forum? I see you got over that beating you took a couple of months ago.

Translation: I just re-read the posts I responded to and realized that I missed a couple of major points. Shoot. I hate when that happens. Instead of owning up to hitting the submit button prematurely, I'm going to needle you on a different topic.

;-)

;-)

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 19, 2001.

Thanks; didn't quite know how to respond to that one. I was just going to let it hang there, but I like the translation.

What do you think the chances are that Maria will now come back and tell us that's NOT what she meant?

You know, Maria, we've had our differences. We've gone a few rounds (and then some) here and at Poole's. But I honestly never thought you'd stoop to something like that.

Shame on me for being so naive.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 19, 2001.

Thanks Tar, I knew you'd be the one who would keep this thread "ON TOPIC". Nah, not worth my time, there's only so much "I know you are but what am I" rhetoric that can go back and forth.

LOL "stick to your guns" struck me as such a good choice of words coming from you. Have you found out the difference between pink and lilac yet?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 19, 2001.

Well, I know you've taken some time off the board, so I thought your Maria-speak might be a little rusty.

If I were a betting man, I'd have put my money on her pulling her now classic flounce-and-slash routine, you know the one, where she makes a big noise about how superior she is (the flouncing), then turns around and makes a couple of more cutting remarks (the slashing). I'm pleased that I was dead-on about her behavior (or should that be misbehavior?) but I would have thought even she would have waited more than ten or fiften minutes from your last post, in an effort to preserve some semblance of dignity. I should have known.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 19, 2001.

No "stoop", Patricia, I've read this thread and found some of your rhetoric. I decided not to engage you anymore.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 19, 2001.

Uh, WTF does something I wrote to Stephen Poole and/or Dr. Pibb over two months ago have to do with what YOU wrote on THIS thread on which I commented?

Can you please post a damn scorecard; I can't keep up here.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 19, 2001.

No "stoop", Patricia, I've read this thread and found some of your rhetoric. I decided not to engage you anymore.

Please, Patricia, allow me to translate.

I have absolutely no problem hurling invective and ad hominem attacks. However, when people who have a different political viewpoint than myself begin to flirt with using my favorite debating tactics, it makes my head hurt. I simply can't abide a liberal who gets upset.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingignthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 19, 2001.

Tarzan that's just too funny! This coming from the guy who can't stop with the "hurling invective and ad hominem attacks" (for example, I agree with you and you say I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer) Priceless, absolutely priceless.

Patricia, that's the last time you posted on this forum. Just thought I'd read through to see how you behaved back then. Your "hurling invective and ad hominem attacks" speak volumes; I thought if I continued to engage along the "reading comprehension" lines that you began in this thread and also threw around in that thread, we'd end up in the same place - a no win situation. Are you taking this as an insult, just curious? No insult intended.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 19, 2001.

Tarzan that's just too funny! This coming from the guy who can't stop with the "hurling invective and ad hominem attacks"

:-)

Looks like I got a little too close to home with that one. Still, it's nice to see that you are maintaining a consistant message, which is: The only people who are ever justified in flaming anyone else are me and people who share my opinions. Anyone else who ever flames is by automatically wrong.

Just thought I'd read through to see how you behaved back then. Your "hurling invective and ad hominem attacks" speak volumes;

See, Patricia, Dr. Pibb wasn't wrong for his vague threats, YOU are wrong for getting upset. But don't let this get you down. In Maria's world, no response on your part could possibly have been the right one. If you had written "Please don't shoot me Dr. Pibb" Maria would have accused you of being anit-gun. If you had written, "I'll thank you to stop threatening me," Maria would have accused you of being anti-free speech.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 19, 2001.

Whoops, that should be Truth, and not Dr. Pibb.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 19, 2001.

Not an insult, but a definite dig. Every now and again you do this. You get in a little dig somehow, some way. Heh. I suppose I should be grateful you didn't start an entire damn thread this time. Enough. I have no desire to go there.

FWIW, I didn't post anything about "hurling invective and ad hominem attacks". You DO have a problem with reading comprehension. If you don't, then it must be that you intentionally misread what people write. Or do you just respond to what you WANTED the poster to write so you'll have an appropriate comeback? I know for me, it sucks when people don't fit into my "preconceived molds". It must drive you nuts.

There is one thing I find kind of funny in all this. You know to the date and the thread when the last time I posted was.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 19, 2001.

The "hurling invective..." is mine. She's trying to twist my words into accusing you of "hurling invective..." on the thread where Truth threatened you. I did think you got a little hot under the collar on that thread, but I also think you were provoked. Ultimately the joke's on Maria because I wasn't pointing out that she or anyone else uses invective and ad hominems but that she's a hypocrite, only crying foul when someone who holds a different POV uses them. As you have noted, Maria seems to prefer the oblique and deniable attack to the direct insult unless she's near spitting hysterical.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 19, 2001.

Does anyone have an aspirin?

-- helen (head@che.s), June 19, 2001.

Tarzan giving Patricia a reading comprehension lesson. :)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 19, 2001.

And another perfect example of the oblique slam.

It's not as clever, nor as subtle, as you might like to think, sweetie.

;-)

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 19, 2001.

And a classic example of "evading the points made directly to you" Maria.

I give up.

Again.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 19, 2001.

Oops. I lied. I just went back and re-read that thread you so conveniently linked to. Was this what you meant by "rhetoric", Maria?

Each and every one of "us" has had our personal lives aired on these boards for all to see, all pretense at "confidence" and banter amongst "friends" completely betrayed.

ROTFLMAO. Surely upon reading that, something clicked in your mind, didn't it? Do you think it could have been because it was mostly written with YOU in mind? IIRC (and I do), you had recently started a brand-spanking-new thread dedicated solely to ME and my PERSONAL LIFE.

Or was it the part where I pointed out "Truth"s" very own reading comprehension problem? Funny how "he" did exactly the same thing YOU do -- read into what people write in order to form a more "perfect" response.

Rhetoric indeed. LMAO.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 19, 2001.

This is great!

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), June 20, 2001.

Voyeur.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 20, 2001.

BTW, check your email.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 20, 2001.

Patricia, I still believe that it's true (taken from the thread that was "dedicated solely to ME and my PERSONAL LIFE"):

Pat, I should have kept my opinion to myself. As I stated in the other thread, I'm sorry I made it public but I still have that opinion. I would tell my friend the same thing, if I thought she was making a mistake. Too bad your so called friends, Peg and Anita, didn't tell you. But I had noticed that this very kind and generous person has becoming more and more bitter in her posts. I concluded that this man of your "dreams" was influencing this type of behavior in you. Take it as you like, the gum under your shoe.

And that the source of that thread was this one .

You continue to beat up anyone who doesn't answer your question to your satisfaction. You continue to claim that the opponent twists your words or can't read. Ever consider your writing isn't clear? Ever consider that a particular statement (any statement) can be interpreted by 10 people in 10 different ways. No of course not. You (and similarly Tarzan) jump with both feet into a slander frenzy. (Tar's "not the sharpest knife in the drawer" as a response to an agreement is a perfect example of this frenzy). The link shows you starting off with the "hard of understanding" comment to an innocent attempt to answer your question. Why do you do that? No need to answer, just a rhetorical question. I just wonder about the amount of nails you need to consume to become this way.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 20, 2001.

Maria, I HAVE considered (many a time) that it was my writing. But if MORE people understand what I'm saying than MISUNDERSTAND (or, more specifically, misinterpret), then whose fault is it? Sorry, but it isn't mine. If you don't understand something, ask about it. Don't assume.

And speaking of "hard of understanding", is there something here you're missing? Did I NOT tell you I wasn't going to go there on my personal life? Was it at all possible you MISUNDERSTOOD that remark as well?

I'm going to ask you one more time to please not raise my personal life on this or any other public forum. If you have something to say to me in that respect, use my damn email address.

My personal life is just that -- MY PERSONAL LIFE. I don't discuss yours and I expect nothing less in return; especially from someone who is supposed to be so "concerned" about me.

I'll just bet you actually wondered why I stopped posting. Ciao.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 20, 2001.

You (and similarly Tarzan) jump with both feet into a slander frenzy.

Looks like your remedial English class hasn't gotten to the letter "s" in your vocabulary studies yet.

;-)

Patricia, you have a right to a personal life and you have a right to privacy. Maria trampled all over both and while she was doing it, she smiled and claimed to be doing it out of concern for you. Everyone who read that thread knows what a lousy, treacherous person Maria is. She knows that you have a weakness in this area and she will exploit it whenever and however she chooses. The only control you now have over this situation is how you yourself respond. Prepare yourself as much as possible for this kind of attack and remember that Maria isn't fooling anyone.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 20, 2001.

Tarzan, I tried to send you an email, but it was kicked back.

All it said was, "Thanks for your kind words".

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 20, 2001.

Patricia, "But if MORE people understand what I'm saying than MISUNDERSTAND (or, more specifically, misinterpret), then whose fault is it?" It's your fault for jumping into 'slander frenzy'. No one but you can take the blame for the way you respond to a comment. You have the opportunity to correct the misunderstanding. The choice is yours.

According to your remaining statement, you place the blame on me, as this post suggests, "You OD have a problem... respond to what you WANTED the poster to write so you'll have an appropriate comeback" leaving no room for the two alternatives I wrote. Just continuing the insults and extending it to ALL my posts, not just yours.

I wasn't going into your personal life. You brought up that thread (twice) and I re-read it.

And one last thing that I'd like to comment on, "You know to the date and the thread when the last time I posted was."

I get out of this statement (again, my interpretation) that you find pleasure with the possibility that I think enough about your posting on this forum to actually note and have ready your last post. Don't flatter yourself. I don't read every thread or even every post of every thread. I click a few and sometimes respond, sometimes not; my choice, my right to free speech, which I understand you will defend while questioning my reading comprehension.

It took me all of 30 seconds to find Richard's Patricia bashing thread; it had your name in the title. I clicked, scanned down a few posts, found a link that I hadn't read on my previous visits (my choice), and decided to click (again my choice). Spent some time scanning and found it wasn't long before you (as Tar notes above) got hot under the collar. I looked on the dates and noticed they were around the same date as Richard's post. I only GUESSED that this was your last post. You confirmed with your "gloating" comment. I didn't know for sure, just used some deductive reasoning based on your posting behavior.

Tar, feel free to translate the above. It would be most helpful for the "hard of understanding" and of great fun for me.

Even tho Pat wrote she didn't want to go there, Tar, nothing "private" about her choice for a mate. She, not me, made it rather public.

And lastly all-knowing one, "She knows that you have a weakness in this area." Pat have a weakness, news to me.

-- (anon@ymous.com), June 20, 2001.

Jeez, Maria. Can you EVER take the damn blame for something YOU did?

Telling certain of my so-called friends about my relationship was obviously a MISTAKE. And I've regretted that (with the help of YOU and several dickless cowards) since that time (which, BTW, was over a year and a half ago). Time to let go, don't you think? I never bring it up -- INTENTIONALLY. It's only you and a handful of others (or one with many names) who bring it up.

And again -- I never discuss YOUR relationship. Why is it so f*+king hard for you to NOT discuss mine?

How on earth is it MY problem if you or some anonymous poster misunderstands what I write? Most other people do understand; you're in the minority. Deal with it or ASK about it instead of assuming. "Slander frenzy"? WTF does that have to do with a rant or two of mine? You've never gone off on anyone? Puhleeze.

You snip and snipe every goddamn chance you get; always getting your little digs in; throwing my words back at me in the most sarcastic "tone" imaginable. Give it up already.

"Flatter [my]self"? "Gloating"? I don't HAVE an ego that big; sure as hell wish I did sometimes. **I** don't even know what my last post was. YOU were the one who "guessed", and only God knows why you'd even say something like that. Now you're blaming me for RESPONDING?

What the hell is wrong here?

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 20, 2001.

Hi Patricia-

Amazingly enough, I did get your e-mail even though you got an error message. Did you get my response?

Maria-

It's time to grow up and take responsibility for what you have done. Patricia placed her trust in you and you used it as a weapon on her. You perverted her trust and spit on the friendship Patricia extended to you. Whether or not Patricia had told others that she was involved with Doc Paulie is irrelevent; friends don't use personal information to attack one another under the guise of concern.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 21, 2001.

Tar, "irrelevent" I see your lessons didn't teach you "a" yet.

WTF (to use Patricia's words) are you talking about? Extend friendship, when? Spit, when? Please give details. On second thought, just forget about it.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 21, 2001.

No, I didn't get the response. That's weird.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 21, 2001.

Patricia, "Can you EVER take the damn blame for something YOU did?"

When I wrote in the first line of the thread, "I should have kept my opinion to myself. As I stated in the other thread, I'm sorry I made it public" What more would you like me to do? I can only apologize for it so many times. It falls on you to let it rest. As I stated above, you're the one who brought it up here, twice. What are YOU going to do about it? My guess is that you need to work through your issues on this. I'm sorry I didn't know you were having such a tough time with it. Ya know, we all make our choices and we all suffer the consequences of those choices, the good as well as the bad. I assumed you were happy with your choice but it seems by your post (and I'm only "reading between the lines") that you have some questions. I can't help that. But if you "don't want to go there" on a public forum, then let me suggest that you don't bring it up.

-- Maria (maria947@hotmail.com), June 21, 2001.

I can only apologize for it so many times. It falls on you to let it rest. As I stated above, you're the one who brought it up here, twice. What are YOU going to do about it? My guess is that you need to work through your issues on this. I'm sorry I didn't know you were having such a tough time with it. Ya know, we all make our choices and we all suffer the consequences of those choices, the good as well as the bad. I assumed you were happy with your choice but it seems by your post (and I'm only "reading between the lines") that you have some questions. I can't help that. But if you "don't want to go there" on a public forum, then let me suggest that you don't bring it up.

Damn Maria. That's a new low, even for you.

Sure, I betrayed your confidence and your trust, insulted you publicly and hurt you. I'm over it, so why aren't you? See, the problem isn't that I hurt your feelings, the problem is that your feelings are still hurt. And to prove that I still care about you, I'm going to obliquely attack your personal life again. If you take exception to this, just remember that it's not my actions that are the problem, but you, your relationship, and your feelings.

Patricia, you should consider yourself lucky that you found out about Maria when you did, before she had the chance to do any more damage. Just chalk this one up to the consequences of a bad choice.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 21, 2001.

Maria and Patricia in a big fight. I wonder what the Kink Of Spain (KOS) would suggest?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), June 21, 2001.

ummmm, i remember Patricia saying she was going just to lurk because she doesn't like this place because it reminds her of some other forum. she keeps saying it but she lies.

-- (an@impartial.observation), June 21, 2001.

Maria, YOU are the only "issue" I have here, but I realize that you know what you know, the facts be damned. Whatever.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 21, 2001.

see? she lied again.

-- (an@impartial.observation), June 21, 2001.

LOL. Yes, well, "impartial", I WOULD have written you to ask for permission to rescind what I had said over two months ago, but you post under several handles, and never use a valid email address, so I didn't know where to send the request.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 21, 2001.

Sure, I betrayed your confidence and your trust,

Now where are those details? What confidence and what trust? Please give actual posts, which define this confidence and trust Patricia has bestowed upon me, personally. Please let me in on the inner workings of that great and wonderful mind of yours.

insulted you publicly and hurt you. I'm over it, so why aren't you?

Good question. But it seems that you want to belabor the point. Thanks Tar for continuing a "fight" which Patricia may not want to continue. What's that about the heat in the kitchen?

See, the problem isn't that I hurt your feelings, the problem is that your feelings are still hurt.

That IS a problem. If Patricia has hurt feelings she has to deal with it. Not much I can do about it. I already apologized; I didn't bring it up. If she wants to suppress it then she shouldn't mention it, ever. But she does mention it, again and again. This undercover, letting it slip, then covering it back up with "don't want to go there", then ranting if I push it, doesn't resolve anything. I assumed she wasn't playing that game. My comment is "shit or get off the pot". Get the sob out into the open, discuss it and resolve it once and for all. Get over it. And I don't mean to imply that she should do this over the net. She needs to work through this in her way.

If her rants directed towards me are a result of her hurt feelings, then why didn't she say so? Instead of telling me I can't read, she should have said, "I'll continue to insult you Maria because you 'betrayed' my trust." As good as I am at reading minds, some things seem to slip by. I will however put this into my memory banks.

And to prove that I still care about you, I'm going to obliquely attack your personal life again.

You call this an attack. 'We all make our choices. . . and suffer the consequences.' That's an attack? Wow! Thanks for teaching me Tar. I would have never known this.

If you take exception to this, just remember that it's not my actions that are the problem, but you, your relationship, and your feelings.

Yeah that's true. She is free to take "exception" to this. And I can't help how she'll react. BUT, how she reacts IS her problem. She can ignore it, she can chalk it up to simply words on the screen, she can view me as a non-entity or any other negative, or she can be hurt by it. If she IS hurt by it, she (and only she, not you or I) must deal with it. Obviously she has accepted her life as it is, as we all do. I accept my life, the good with the bad. I enjoy every moment of the good and try to minimize the bad. That includes people hurting me. If I can't deal with the hurt, I force myself to confront it head on and get over it. So there's nothing I can do about her hurt; she most definitely must deal with it herself, in her own way.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 21, 2001.

Now where are those details? What confidence and what trust? Please give actual posts, which define this confidence and trust Patricia has bestowed upon me, personally. Please let me in on the inner workings of that great and wonderful mind of yours.

When I wrote in the first line of the thread, "I should have kept my opinion to myself. As I stated in the other thread, I'm sorry I made it public" What more would you like me to do?

When someone tells you something personal and private that they want to stay that way, they are placing trust and confidence that you will keep their private words private. When you publish the private, personal matters that someone has told you in confidence, you are breaking that trust.

Thanks Tar for continuing a "fight" which Patricia may not want to continue. What's that about the heat in the kitchen?

Apparently, I have more faith in Patricia's ability to express herself on this topic than you.

:-)

That IS a problem. If Patricia has hurt feelings she has to deal with it. Not much I can do about it. I already apologized; I didn't bring it up.

In adult society, Maria, when one has done something they must apologize for, they usually start by saying, "I'm sorry, I was wrong..." and continue without insulting the person they must apologize to. Welcome to the planet Maturia, Maria. We have much to teach you.

:-)

And in reality, you did bring up the situation in yet another oblique attack.

I see you got over that beating you took a couple of months ago.

And here, in a not so oblique attack:

Pat, I should have kept my opinion to myself. As I stated in the other thread, I'm sorry I made it public but I still have that opinion. I would tell my friend the same thing, if I thought she was making a mistake. Too bad your so called friends, Peg and Anita, didn't tell you. But I had noticed that this very kind and generous person has becoming more and more bitter in her posts. I concluded that this man of your "dreams" was influencing this type of behavior in you. Take it as you like, the gum under your shoe.

And, of course, you also brought it up in the thread you referenced.

So that's three times now you've brought it up. So not only are you a lousy friend, Maria, and completely untrustworthy, you are also a liar.

Surprise, surprise.

If she wants to suppress it then she shouldn't mention it, ever. But she does mention it, again and again. This undercover, letting it slip, then covering it back up with "don't want to go there", then ranting if I push it, doesn't resolve anything.

Maria, the only reason she mentions it at all is because you can't seem to stop talking about it.

I assumed she wasn't playing that game. My comment is "shit or get off the pot".

The more you stir shit, the more it stinks, Maria. And the only one stirring shit on this thread is you.

Get the sob out into the open, discuss it and resolve it once and for all. Get over it. And I don't mean to imply that she should do this over the net. She needs to work through this in her way.

Still trying to do dime store analysis Maria? Still trying to blame all this on the victim? What a cheap, transparent tactic.

If Patricia does not wish to discuss her personal life, she is under no obligation to do so. If you still insist on questioning her personal life despite her express wishes, then don't be surprised if someone calls you on the carpet.

'We all make our choices. . . and suffer the consequences.' That's an attack? Wow! Thanks for teaching me Tar. I would have never known this.

Oh, sorry, I forgot to whom I was speaking. Yes, it's an attack, and a damn poor one at that. Not only are you questioning her personal life, but you're attempting to engage in armchair psychology, painting her as unhappy because of the choices she's made in her personal life. Do you need me to explain why this is insulting, Maria?

If I can't deal with the hurt, I force myself to confront it head on and get over it. So there's nothing I can do about her hurt; she most definitely must deal with it herself, in her own way.

But there is something you can do about the hurt, Maria. You could start by, oh, I don't know, not continuing to rub salt in the wound by constantly bringing it up.

No, no, that's too adult an expectation to have of you.

How about this, Maria: your homework assignment is to learn the definition of the words "private" "trust" "empathy" "personal" and "friendship". You must sit in the corner and not talk to another human being until you learn to not only spell these words but apply them in a sentence, and in your life.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 21, 2001.

When someone tells you something personal and private . . . you are breaking that trust.

Tar, now listen to me carefully. Patricia did not say ANYTHING to me in private that I spouted on this forum. SHE wrote those personal things about her life on this forum. I won't repeat them now because she wouldn't want me to repeat them, but please pay attention. She noted above that she regretted stating those things on the net. She told us in a public forum, nothing private about it. If she wanted to keep it private she shouldn't have put it out there. I know it's hard for the mentally challenged, such as you, but try to keep up.

In adult society. . . We have much to teach you.

Now this is funny. Tar acting as the instructor on ADULT behavior. :-)

And in reality, you did bring up the situation in yet another oblique attack.

I see you got over that beating you took a couple of months ago.

Just so you understand, the above comment was NOT about her personal life situation but Richard's thread back in April. Again for the mentally challenged, such as you, NOT my thread.

Maria, the only reason she mentions it at all is because you can't seem to stop talking about it.

She mentions it first with this, "I suppose I should be grateful you didn't start an entire damn thread this time. Enough. I have no desire to go there." And then a second time with this, "Do you think it could have been because it was mostly written with YOU in mind? IIRC (and I do), you had recently started a brand-spanking-new thread dedicated solely to ME and my PERSONAL LIFE." Both of these are dated 6/19. Prior to the second comment, I linked to a totally different thread (a link in Richard's thread). I responded on 6/20 to this second comment with the words taken out of my thread (you copied above). I didn't talk at all about her personal life, just the first paragraph and a link to the thread that started it all. I know it's hard Tar but try to keep up.

. . . don't be surprised if someone calls you on the carpet. Knock yourself ape boy.

You could start by, oh, I don't know, not continuing to rub salt in the wound by constantly bringing it up. The only "constantly" bringing it Tar is you. Please see above. She mentioned it twice; I copied some of the post. Your making it into a bigger deal by your strong desire to try to beat me down with it. Like I said, Tar, knock yourself out and I'll continue to "rub salt" (as you view this), if you like. Or, you could stop. But I know you won't, because of that HUGE ego of yours.

How 'bout this Tar, learn how to shut your mouth when you don't know WTF, to use Patricia's term (WHAT THE FUCK, spelled out in its entirety for Tarzan's sensitivity to the "hallmark of the less intelligent") you're talking about.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 21, 2001.

Patricia: I must warn you that I'm becoming much of a "seer" myself. In fact, my neighbors are now predicting a storm approaching whenever they see me turn on the sprinkler. I stopped myself from turning on the sprinkler this morning, although I had a TREMENDOUS urge to do so. The rain storm just moved in.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 21, 2001.