vpFREE2 Forums

I will be a lurker due to Skip Hughes' Flames

#1

In a message dated 2/6/2003 10:08:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
skip@vphomepage.com (Skip Hughes) writes:

Brian;
Of course I didn't flame him. I did ask who he was and what was his
gripe. I could not get an answer to that question, despite several
tries. I thought I had had figured it out, but another person on this
group, who knows who he is and also knows I didn't "flame" him, says my
guess is incorrect. I still think I'm right, but it's neither here nor
there. This third party also knows what his complaint is, and says
it's "trivial".

The very idea that he would become a lurker because I "flamed" him in a
private note, does not make a lot of sense, even if it was true. Neither
did the notes he sent to myself and the other person.

It's really outrageous to find oneself attacked by a nameless person
who won't even have the decency to say who he is or what it is I am
supposed to have done to deserve this.

I am hesitant to start answering the false charges that have been made
against me because there could be no end to it. There have been a very
large number of misleading statements, half-truths, and flat-out lies
perpetrated on this thread. But I have realized that once I start
answering them, I will only be opening myself up to a further barrage of
attacks from the same little group and there will be no end to it. I
don't have the time or inclination to engage in this.

Besides, there are so many people on vpFREE that are members of
vp-mail, that most of them already recognize the falsehoods that have
been perpetrated anyway, but many have also felt it best to leave it
alone
and not egg these people on. They tell me they just "consider the
source."

But there are people on vpFREE who don't know better from personal
experience and while many of them no doubt recognize this attack for
what it is, some of them may believe some of it. And that's too bad.

I have always been an active participant and not just a moderator on
vp-mail and 99.9% of my subscribers would not have it any other way.
Over the last five years, I have sent over 19,000 email notes,
private and on forums. I have every one of them. Out of those 19,000
there may well have been a few that that contained a harsh word, but
"acerbic" is certainly not a valid characterization of my style. Those
that have participated in this mob attack have shown exactly the kind of
behavior that might have got them a warning on vp-mail. I can assure
you that I would never have allowed something like this to occur on
vp-mail and I never will. The fact that it has occurred on vpFREE, where
I am not able to directly defend myself, says more about the people
perpetrating it and the person allowing it, than I ever could.

I will not respond again, regardless of how outrageous it gets.
Thanks,
Skip

> This kind of thing can be damaging to your reputation, and might cost
> you customers. Would you care to reply? I would be happy to post
> whatever you say.
>
> Of course, I don't believe you "flamed" this person. At worst, you
> might have criticized/corrected him. "Flaming" is in the eye of the
> beholder!
>
> Brian
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [vpFREE] I will be a lurker due to Skip Hughes' Flames
> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 22:51:58 -0000
> From: "ten_seven_vp <ten_seven_vp@yahoo.com>" <ten_seven_vp@yahoo.com>

>
> Reply-To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
> To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
>
> Earlier I made a post about my experience with Skip's paid site. I
> left out the details because I wanted everyone to focus on "moving
> on" and not to accept the prior person's post of allowing Skip to
> be "abusive" (my term).
>
> Since that post, Skip Hughes sent an unsolicited flame to my e-mail
> account. I replied and in my reply I advised him to "move on" (again
> my words). Since then, I have received 3 more flames by Skip Hughes
> for a total of 4 flames. I think it is wrong for people like Skip
> Hughes to use the e-mail address from this board to flame people.
>
> Because of my time demands, I will be a lurker (thus refrain from
> posting) so it NOT would invite people like Skip to flame my e-mail
> account.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

BJayGold@aol.com wrote:

#2

Brian,
Thanks for posting this note from Skip that explains the unfair
situation he has been placed in.
Skip's list and site has been around a long time and provides a good
service. Paying a little for it for all the time he puts into it is
no crime in my book. Suppressing worthless threads is fine by me too.
No reason to waste time discussing an 'alternative view' that the
earth is flat when the facts show otherwise. Monitoring flame wars is
another bonus. But I guess some like flame wars, so they can get
their fix by reading some of the threads here.
We are on the brink of yet another war. Thousands are going to be
killed. And for what? The ego of one man. Very sad. I would be so
nice if indeed we could all find a way to get along. Good luck to
all. TomSki

In a message dated 2/6/2003 10:08:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
skip@v... (Skip Hughes) writes:

>
> Brian;
> Of course I didn't flame him. I did ask who he was and what was

his

> gripe. I could not get an answer to that question, despite several
> tries. I thought I had had figured it out, but another person on

this

> group, who knows who he is and also knows I didn't "flame" him,

says my

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, BJayGold@a... wrote:

> guess is incorrect.

#3

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tomskilv <tomskilv@y...>"
<tomskilv@y...> wrote:

We are on the brink of yet another war. Thousands are going to be
killed. And for what? The ego of one man.

What man would that be? George Bush? Come on now! Just because your
politics are Democrat/liberal doesn't mean his and the nation's
concerns aren't legitimate. Is this something you feel you HAVE to
say, a posture you feel you are compelled to adopt?

Thousands may indeed be killed. Why? So that you or I, or our
children or parents, or friends, or simply fellow citizens, are not
senselessly killed by the random acts of an insane man who has far
too much power at his disposal. The threat of the murder of millions
by this lunatic Hussein is so obvious, and so imminent, that it is a
vast disservice to our country to let the posturing of party
politics interfere with what should be done. It's a pity that
Democrats feel it's their sacred duty to oppose every single thing
the President wants, without considering the actual value thereof.
It's a knee-jerk reaction, unworthy of lawmakers.

And yes, I would rather see hundreds of thousands of those bug-eyed
lunatic fanatics die than one single American burn to death, die in
an explosion, be poisoned, suffocated, etc. because one of them
escaped the loony bin that is his native country.

Very sad. I would be so

nice if indeed we could all find a way to get along.

It would also be very nice if we could afford to stand around and do
nothing while the rest of the planet came around to this enlightened
philosophy. Unfortunately, someone saying, "I'm going to kill you".
while loading a gun with bullets, is probably impervious to reasoned
dialogue. In any case, if I had a loaded gun, I would shoot him
first rather than rely on an appeal to his humanity. And if you feel
you are an enlightened soul who would at least TRY an appeal to
reason, substitute "your family" for "you" in the above sentence and
see how liberal you feel.

I personally intend to do the bop in the street in front of my
house, the way the Palestinians did after 9/11, when CNN broadcasts
the pictures of the hospitals, orphanages, and schools in flames
from Baghdad.

Just MHO.

#4

mkl54321 buddy,
Thanks for the good laugh. The "ego of one man" I was referring to
was Saddam Hussein. If he would just step down, all this could be
avoided. Good luck. TomSki

ps. Those that know me would hardly call me a liberal. LOL. Cheers.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mkl54321 <mkl54321@y...>"
<mkl54321@y...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tomskilv <tomskilv@y...>"
<tomskilv@y...> wrote:

> We are on the brink of yet another war. Thousands are going to

be

> killed. And for what? The ego of one man.

What man would that be? George Bush? Come on now! Just because your
politics are Democrat/liberal doesn't mean his and the nation's
concerns aren't legitimate. Is this something you feel you HAVE to
say, a posture you feel you are compelled to adopt?

Thousands may indeed be killed. Why? So that you or I, or our
children or parents, or friends, or simply fellow citizens, are not
senselessly killed by the random acts of an insane man who has far
too much power at his disposal. The threat of the murder of

millions

by this lunatic Hussein is so obvious, and so imminent, that it is

a

···

vast disservice to our country to let the posturing of party
politics interfere with what should be done. It's a pity that
Democrats feel it's their sacred duty to oppose every single thing
the President wants, without considering the actual value thereof.
It's a knee-jerk reaction, unworthy of lawmakers.

#5

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tomskilv <tomskilv@y...>"
<tomskilv@y...> wrote:

mkl54321 buddy,
Thanks for the good laugh. The "ego of one man" I was referring

to

was Saddam Hussein. If he would just step down, all this could be
avoided. Good luck. TomSki

ps. Those that know me would hardly call me a liberal. LOL.

Cheers.

TomSki,

My apologies for misconstruing your reference. I actually considered
that the one man you were referring to WAS S.H., but I discounted
that because it isn't his EGO that is causing this problem, it's his
homicidal paranoia. After all, his ego is assuaged daily by the
thousands who chant "Hail, O Supreme Exalted One" daily at gunpoint
and the many mandatory spontaneous demonstrations in the streets
showing the people's love for him.
I am appalled by the level of opposition to George Bush and the plan
to eliminate the Iraqi threat, and am saddened by the fact that so
many politicians--and ordinary citizens--oppose this action solely
because its successful execution would accrue political capital to
him.
Anyway, there's no fullpay VP in Baghdad, so blow it up for all I
care.

#6

Actually, the egos of TWO men: Dubya and Saddam. Instead of going to war and risking innocent lives, civilian and military, why don't we just put the two of them in a boxing ring and let them go at each other? Maybe no rules or ref, just all-out fight to the finish. We can charge admission and do it on pay-per-view, and pay back some of the federal deficit with the proceeds. :slight_smile:
   This kind of stuff has been going on since Day One, and none of us are going to change it. Just open the Bible and read passages like Numbers Chapter 31 or I Samuel Chapter 15 to realize that civilians were killed in war way back then.
   NOW- Let's get back to VP.

Elaine
"tomskilv <tomskilv@yahoo.com>" <tomskilv@yahoo.com> wrote:mkl54321 buddy,
Thanks for the good laugh. The "ego of one man" I was referring to
was Saddam Hussein. If he would just step down, all this could be
avoided. Good luck. TomSki

ps. Those that know me would hardly call me a liberal. LOL. Cheers.

···

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#7

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tomskilv <tomskilv@y...>"
<tomskilv@y...> wrote:

> We are on the brink of yet another war. Thousands are going to be
> killed. And for what? The ego of one man.

What man would that be? George Bush? Come on now! Just because your
politics are Democrat/liberal doesn't mean his and the nation's
concerns aren't legitimate. Is this something you feel you HAVE to
say, a posture you feel you are compelled to adopt?

Thousands may indeed be killed. Why? So that you or I, or our
children or parents, or friends, or simply fellow citizens, are not
senselessly killed by the random acts of an insane man who has far
too much power at his disposal. The threat of the murder of millions
by this lunatic Hussein is so obvious, and so imminent, that it is a
vast disservice to our country to let the posturing of party
politics interfere with what should be done. It's a pity that

     Well first, many of the people in the Bush Administration thought Mr.
Hussein's murdering was just fine, and only objected when he began
murdering the wrong people. This was why many of those folks worked so
hard to provide him with military intelligence, weapons, diplomatic
assistance, etc. I'd suggest looking the other way if you should ever
come across that unfortunate picture of Donald Rumsfeld grinning widely as
he shakes Hussein's hand in the early 80s. Interestingly, this was just
before the administration at the time was preparing to sell anti-aircraft
missiles to a country it was publically calling "terrorist."

Democrats feel it's their sacred duty to oppose every single thing
the President wants, without considering the actual value thereof.
It's a knee-jerk reaction, unworthy of lawmakers.

     Oh, I'd submit there is far more knee-jerk support on the part of
Republicans and some others, who would rather let others do their thinking
for them. If you don't like this assertion well too bad, it's just as
valid as the one given above.

And yes, I would rather see hundreds of thousands of those bug-eyed
lunatic fanatics die than one single American burn to death, die in
an explosion, be poisoned, suffocated, etc. because one of them
escaped the loony bin that is his native country.

     You didn't waste much time illustrating my point. A recent survey
asked whether some or all of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi, and a large
percentage of Americans, around 40% as I recall, thought the answer was
yes. Of course in fact none of the hijackers were Iraqi, though several
(most in fact) were from Saudi Arabia. That the Bush Administration has
close ties to Saudi Arabia is an unfortunate fact; perhaps we should
nevertheless bomb them since several loonies did in fact leave there and
attack us. On the other hand, Iraq, long one of the most secular
countries in the middle east, hasn't ever attacked the US and in fact most
of the rest of the world, not beholden to local propaganda, think the idea
is laughable...Saddam, a hedonist, would be liquidated instantly at the
merest hint of an attack on the States. The only real risk to Americans
is those who will inevitably die when we attack them, and those who will
suffer from terrorist attacks instigated by those who resent our
hypocrisy. We do not, typically, attack countries that violate UN
resolutions, after all.

Very sad. I would be so
> nice if indeed we could all find a way to get along.

It would also be very nice if we could afford to stand around and do
nothing while the rest of the planet came around to this enlightened
philosophy. Unfortunately, someone saying, "I'm going to kill you".

     Unfortunately, it our president, who has said this in effect to both
North Korea and Saddam. Hopefully North Korea will not implement our new
strategy of attacking someone based on some hypothetical threat of weak
likelihood, but they might watch our actions in Iraq and conclude they
have no choice. So there are still more scary consequences from this
attack on our former friend, Mr. Hussein.

while loading a gun with bullets, is probably impervious to reasoned
dialogue. In any case, if I had a loaded gun, I would shoot him
first rather than rely on an appeal to his humanity. And if you feel
you are an enlightened soul who would at least TRY an appeal to
reason, substitute "your family" for "you" in the above sentence and
see how liberal you feel.

     Oh, I'd happily murder Mr. Bin Laden and his associates, and I'm very
disappointed that they were allowed, for what strike me as political
reasons (specifically the lack of willingness on the part of the
administration to risk ground casualties in Afghanistan) that band of
thugs to escape to Pakistan...a country that happens to have nuclear bombs
unlike Iraq. So perhaps ignoring Bin Laden at the expense of attacking
Iraq has increased the long term chance of fanatics getting hold of
nuclear tech.

I personally intend to do the bop in the street in front of my
house, the way the Palestinians did after 9/11, when CNN broadcasts
the pictures of the hospitals, orphanages, and schools in flames
from Baghdad.

Just MHO.

     It's fascinating that there is a long thread concerning rude comments
about Native Americans, yet someone expressing his raucuous enthusiasm at
the impending murder of innocent children didn't draw a single comment.
Perhaps this says a lot about why some people resent us.

gj

···

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, mkl54321 <mkl54321@yahoo.com> wrote:

#8

     It's fascinating that there is a long thread concerning rude

comments

about Native Americans, yet someone expressing his raucuous

enthusiasm at

the impending murder of innocent children didn't draw a single

comment.

Perhaps this says a lot about why some people resent us.

Boy, talk about irony-proof! The fact is, CNN, and Iraqi media, will
broadcast the most sensationalist images possible from the upcoming
war. Saddam will no doubt claim that all 33,500 bombs dropped on
Baghdad missed military targets and hit only orphanages and
hospitals, the way he did last time. CNN will collaborate with him
on this because a photo of a flattened grocery store is more
interesting than a photo of a flattened barracks.
The fact is, we make war in an almost ridiculously sanitary fashion,
with our video-guided bombs and "smart" munitions. If civilians are
nonetheless killed, it's the fault of the Iraqi government, which
has had literally hundreds of opportunities to avoid war.
The reason why "some people resent us" is that we don't brook
fanaticism in the guise of religion, and that we think the women of
the world should no longer be treated like cattle, even if the
Koran, or the Ayatollah, or whomever, says that they should.

I also think Baghdad should be bombed because the best game there is
6/5 Bonus Poker, the slot club doesn't offer cashback, and anyone
who hits a royal is beheaded.

#9

>
> It's fascinating that there is a long thread concerning rude
comments
> about Native Americans, yet someone expressing his raucuous
enthusiasm at
> the impending murder of innocent children didn't draw a single
comment.
> Perhaps this says a lot about why some people resent us.
>
Boy, talk about irony-proof! The fact is, CNN, and Iraqi media, will
broadcast the most sensationalist images possible from the upcoming
war. Saddam will no doubt claim that all 33,500 bombs dropped on
Baghdad missed military targets and hit only orphanages and
hospitals, the way he did last time. CNN will collaborate with him
on this because a photo of a flattened grocery store is more
interesting than a photo of a flattened barracks.

     It is an unfortunate fact that a bomb destroyed a shelter and
killed over 400 people, said fact of which was at first denied by our
government. Of course, this was not intentional, but the result of faulty
intelligence. Now there were several pictures of flattened barracks etc.,
given in Pentagon briefings, but it later turned out that these photo-ops
were themselves giving an inaccurate picture of events. For example, the
Patriot missiles completely failed in their SCUD intercept mission, but
the generals giving their briefings chose to favor bigger funding over
truth and implied otherwise. For just one example.

     The real fact is, there are many Americans who will celebrate with
you when innocent Iraqi civilians (you specifically expressed enthusiasm
for killing kids in orphanages) die in the upcoming festivities...not a
majority by any means, but too many.

     This reminds me of something I recently read (I gather from someone
you would hold out to be a hero):

President Nixon: How many did we kill in Laos?

Ziegler: Maybe ten thousand--fifteen?

Kissinger: In the Laotian thing, we killed about ten, fifteen...

President Nixon: See, the attack in the North that we have in mind...power
plants, whatever's left--POL [petroleum], the docks...And, I still think
we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?

Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.

President Nixon: No, no, no...I'd rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you
got that, Henry?

Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.

President Nixon: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you? I just want you
to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.

     In a later exchange Nixon observed to Kissinger: "The only place you
and I disagree...is with regard to the bombing. You're so goddamned
concerned about the civilians and I don't give a damn. I don't care."

     Kissinger responded: "I'm concerned about the civilians because I
don't want the world to be mobilized against you as a butcher."

     This was from official White House tapes, sad to say.

The fact is, we make war in an almost ridiculously sanitary fashion,
with our video-guided bombs and "smart" munitions. If civilians are

     I think the families of those Canadian soldiers killed, in a rather
casual fashion, would disagree. Not to mention several of the other
erroneous bombing events in the recent war. Of course it's much better
today than even 30 years ago.

nonetheless killed, it's the fault of the Iraqi government, which
has had literally hundreds of opportunities to avoid war.

     Nah, we are going to have a war because we have fanatics of our own,
though we don't like to think in those terms. You might want to recall
that some of those fanatics thought it was a good idea to arm and train
muslim lunatics back in the 80s, give them weapons that can shoot down
airliners, etc.. Then again, you might not.

The reason why "some people resent us" is that we don't brook
fanaticism in the guise of religion, and that we think the women of
the world should no longer be treated like cattle, even if the
Koran, or the Ayatollah, or whomever, says that they should.

     Oh sure we do. As I mentioned, the President, Dick Cheney et al are
big buddies with Saudi Arabia, one of the most fanatically religious
regimes in the world. Several of their teenage females recently died
being herded back into a flaming building by the religious police, on the
grounds that they were improperly dressed. So we like some fanatics if
they have oil I guess. Similarly we support Israeli fanatics in their
fight with Palestinian fanatics, to no good end as far as the US is
concerned.

I also think Baghdad should be bombed because the best game there is
6/5 Bonus Poker, the slot club doesn't offer cashback, and anyone
who hits a royal is beheaded.

     I think these are by far the best reasons I've heard to date.

gj

···

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, mkl54321 <mkl54321@yahoo.com> wrote:

#10

You almost had the key point why it is impossible to believe this Administration. No one has ever said that Saddam was a fool. Yet he is a secular leader of an intentionally secular country. Islamist fundamentalists like Bin Laden find that objectionable in the same way that the Inquisition would immediately stamp out heresy. Bin Laden is on record wanting to overthrow and destroy regimes like Saddam's. If Saddam was to give chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda they would be as likely to use them against Saddam as the West.

For an analogy, imagine if Great Britain and the IRA had a common enemy. Would Tony Blair arm the IRA in the hope that they would use these weapons against the enemy rather than London but it would be foolish to do so.

Which brings us to Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al who during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan did arm and train the people who went on to form Al Qaeda. Iraq is not led by fools but are we?

And, by the way, I am an independent who voted for Reagan and Clinton (twice each).

Bill

···

At 01:34 PM 02/11/2003 -0800, you wrote:

On the other hand, Iraq, long one of the most secular countries in the middle east, hasn't ever attacked the US and in fact most of the rest of the world, not beholden to local propaganda, think the idea is laughable...Saddam, a hedonist, would be liquidated instantly at the merest hint of an attack on the States. The only real risk to Americans is those who will inevitably die when we attack them, and those who will
suffer from terrorist attacks instigated by those who resent our
hypocrisy. We do not, typically, attack countries that violate UN
resolutions, after all.