Laws vs feels, facts vs rhetoric, real vs boogeyman (Page 2/5)
rinselberg JUL 14, 10:13 PM
There is not a (good) reason in the world for the first message in this thread from "randye."

I have no idea what's in his second message, which (unless someone gets in here ahead of me) is going to be the message immediately before this one.

I will have no idea of what's in his second message.

I expect it's something about me, or something that expresses his attitude about me, similar to his first message in this thread.

But, for all I (will) know, maybe it's not. Maybe he went in some other direction with his second message.

That's the way it goes. And it's all on him.

I'm using the large size font, just to ensure that his second message will be scrolled out of my sight when I select the Submit Reply function.

This image will also help create that functionality for me--and it's perfectly expressive of the attitude that I have towards him.
randye JUL 14, 11:32 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:


I have no idea what's in his second message....


I expect it's something about me,.....







You were already told THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT YOU

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 07-14-2021).]

2.5 JUL 15, 11:43 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

There is not a (good) reason in the world for the first message in this thread from "randye."

I have no idea what's in his second message, which (unless someone gets in here ahead of me) is going to be the message immediately before this one.

I will have no idea of what's in his second message.

I expect it's something about me, or something that expresses his attitude about me, similar to his first message in this thread.

But, for all I (will) know, maybe it's not. Maybe he went in some other direction with his second message.

That's the way it goes. And it's all on him.

I'm using the large size font, just to ensure that his second message will be scrolled out of my sight when I select the Submit Reply function.

This image will also help create that functionality for me--and it's perfectly expressive of the attitude that I have towards him.




Maybe this could have be addressed in Private messages.
rinselberg JUL 15, 12:14 PM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5:
Maybe this could have be addressed in Private messages.


Absolutely not. Unless you want to send one.

If he has a different reaction to this topic or has different thoughts about it--different than what I've said about it--he could certainly put himself forward in that way.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-16-2021).]

2.5 JUL 16, 11:16 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Absolutely not. Unless you want to send one.

..



I mean the posts that are you talking about other PFF users but not about the thread subjects.
rinselberg JUL 17, 10:06 AM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5:
I mean the posts that are you talking about other PFF users but not about the thread subjects.


The undisputed "champion" of talking about other PFF users is none other than forum member randye.

In fact, he seldom talks about anything else.

I want to revisit the first message in this thread from randye and deconstruct it in a more complete and systematic way.

Readers like "2.5" may want to open that message in a separate browser tab or window so they can more conveniently follow my deconstruction of it:
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/.../HTML/126684.html#p6

Forum member randye closes wtih this:

quote
Shall we tell you [rinselberg] what kind of person we think you are?


That should be remarked, disparagingly, as forum member randye lamely resorting to the "Royal We."

It's an obvious tell that he is a very boastful person who thinks he is more than he really is. He's a person who constantly thinks of himself as "hot sh*t" but in reality--as far as the boundaries of this online discussion forum are concerned--he's just "hot sh*t" without the "hot".

He imagines himself as some kind of "spokesperson" for the forum at large, or for some group of forum members within the forum.

Who does he speak for?

Only himself.

He starts his message by presenting some snippets of my previous remarks, using the quote box format, and following that with his put-down line "This thread is not about you [rinselberg]." He uses the large size type font and all capital letters and underscores the word "you" [rinselberg] for emphasis, in his typical "over the top" or "overheated" style of discourse. The snippets of my previous remarks which he presents are all instances where I was being self-referential, or making "I" statements.

Of course. I was talking about MY reaction to this topic, as it has been set up by "2.5".

Why wouldn't I be using "I" statements?

So he's trying to make something out of nothing (so to speak.) Readers may also remark that the message from myself, where these snippets that were taken by forum member randye originally reside, is not a particularly long or verbose message. There's no (good) reason for forum member randye to try, as he did, to disparage that rinselberg message. He just can't stop "hating" on me.

He can't stop "hating" on me, so much so, that there was an instance, not that long ago, when some other forum member was on here, talking about the Covid virus, and forum member randye stupidly quoted that forum member and went on an insolent little rant about it, going on about what "rinselberg" had just said about the Covid virus, because forum member randye stupidly mistook that other forum member's remarks as a message from me.

So with his first message in this thread, forum member randye did not address the topic of this thread in any way--he just "glommed" onto my reaction to this topic.

Did he go on after that, to address this forum topic in any way?

I don't know. I'm blissfully unaware. I read his first message in this thread--as I said, it took me by surprise--and have made it a point not to look at any subsequent message(s) he has created in this thread. Because that's how I roll when it comes to forum member randye.

If he wants me to read his messages on a regular or recurring basis, he needs to think about creating messages that I would actually want to read.

He's constantly trying to boast about himself in an indirect way, by denigrating anyone else who doesn't line up closely enough with his ideas, or even just what he perceives or does not perceive as humorous.

He is so utterly tiresome that I know with 100 percent certainty that I will never be second guessing myself on any of my decisions to NOT read his messages.

I don't quite understand why "2.5" has connected any of this with the idea of PMs or Private Messages.

Certainly, forum member randye didn't go "private" with his first message on this thread. Which is just as well, because if I ever see a PM from randye in my PMs inbox, I will open it, taking care not to read any of it--other than the subject line, which would be unavoidable--and use the forum functionality that would block any second PM from randye from getting to my PMs inbox. (As I understand it, a person would first have to receive a PM from another person and open it, before being able to activate the PM blocking protocol in that way. I don't see any other way to do it.)

There is one post or public message from forum member randye that I would be glad to see.

His last stupid message.

Whether it's his last stupid message, or his last message "period"--no difference to me.

It would be a small pleasure for me to witness that, although I certainly don't anticipate it.

Any further questions?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-17-2021).]

randye JUL 17, 08:13 PM


THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT YOU

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 07-17-2021).]

randye JUL 17, 08:18 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:


Any further questions?




Yes. Just one:
rinselberg JUL 18, 04:33 PM

quote
Originally posted by randye:
THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT YOU


Great point. And confirmed by the messages. This thread is about forum member randye.

I made it so.

Just as the YouTube segments that were posted here by forum member 2.5 expose other kinds of people that need to fall back, I exposed forum member randye as someone who obviously needs to fall back. In fact, forum member randye exposed himself.

"Fall back" is a colloquial way of referring to someone like forum member randye that is "out of line." It's an emphatic way of asserting that someone like forum member randye needs to calm down, back off, or STFU.

My messages expose the commonality between the YouTube segments posted here by 2.5 and what this forum is like.

It's in no small measure "on" forum member randye, because he has never fallen back at any moment during the last umpteen years in which he has continually exposed himself as someone who very clearly needs to fall back.

My messages on this thread--all of them--are very much on point with the framing of this topic as set up by 2.5.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-18-2021).]

rinselberg JUL 19, 01:17 AM
"Laws vs feels, facts vs rhetoric, real vs boogeyman"

That thread title . . . is that like "copping a feel"? Laws . . . police . . . "cops".

Maybe I just have a dirty mind.