It's me again Heathcliff ~

[lizzytysh]

In your world, I am always wrong.

Please leave me out of it.

~ Lizzy

[Heathcliffe]

This is my last post.
Compassionate, spiritual, honest, faithful, gentle, kind, caring, loving – those qualities are no longer treasured in this world. I think it is just some inbred thing inside some humans. That they prefer the negative.
I have known only one woman, and together we shared some things that some people only dream about. It is a poor man who cannot account for his life. It is a truly poor man who doesn't have any dreams, and has touched no-one else's life.
I feel sorry for you Laurie, You call me an imaginary fool and yes, maybe I am a Fool, but your arrogance is real and is plain for all to see.
Thank you to the posters that did respond, and especially to
Lizzy, thank you for posting all your kind words.

[lizzytysh]

In case you read this, Laurie ~ and, for posterity, in case you don't:

No thanks. Your 'chill pills' are more than enough for me. However, it seems to me you're the one in need of one [in the sense that you're referring] ~ I'm not the one at the wailing wall.

The Big Lie remains in my system ~ but, then, it's in yours, too ~ and that's where it will do the most damage.

~ Lizzy [read or non-read, doesn't matter]

[lizzytysh]

Hi Heathcliffe ~

Compassionate, spiritual, honest, faithful, gentle, kind, caring, loving

Among other things, our automated, fast-food, electronic-communication, isolated, nuclear-[vs. extended]-families world has diminished the value of these things. Our 'sound byte' world has also diminished appreciation for real conversations. Quips are much preferred. There are people whom I've seen ~ and others, too, as I've read some accounts and listened to reports ~ sit with an elderly relative, or with their child for a meal, or in a laundromat, and have a cell-phone conversation with someone else the entire time. No 'in the moment' taking in or appreciation of the world or people in their immediate environment. I saw a college-age couple walking together in a university town nearby, each on their individual cellphones, having their separate conversations with someone else. I watched them for two blocks. Not a word exchanged between them. This is ~ by no means ~ unusual, and seems to be becoming even more prevalent. They can't even keep their eyes on the road, anymore, much less each other [or reverse the order of that, and it'll still hold true].

Yes, I believe you're real, and that your concerns are real, and were as real in March as they are now. I see now that you wanted someone to respond to you, even if it was those wanting to 'teach you a lesson' ~ sometimes any response is better than none. I don't believe for a minute, it was a put-up. If I'M a "Fool," then so be it. To believe another human being, where it's possible, is a preferred for me. You happen to maybe 'lack' the 'appropriate' ~ more detached ~ ability to express yourself. Hence, you're discounted and scoffed at. I don't know what my writing abilities were at your age, but they did not compare to what they are decades later.

In belief,
Lizzy

[LaurieAK]

As is fitting, I'll be imaginarily crushed
L

[tom.d.stiller]

Also, if you really don't care tom d. stiller why have you bothered getting involved at all?

Well, Tom, it would seem you've done some research. However, as Heathcliff has pointed out, if you don't care, why are you here?

Well, folks, reading helps, at least sometimes it does. I never said I don't care for anything at all, but I named exactly two things I don't care about. Look:

I'm not sure about who started the whole enmity that's pouring off of every page of this incredible, inedible thread. And I really don't care. [...] It seems to be a trap laid out. Dunno by whom. Don't even care.

So "Heathcliffe" incorrectly quoted me, and Elizabeth agreed with him/her/it without even checking into the correctness of his/her/its assumption.

But why did I bother getting involved? The more I looked at this thread the less I liked the way it proceeded. I don't care who got it started, but I believe I have a right to speak up, whether you like it or not.

And: Why am I here? I admit the wording you chose, Elizabeth, adds something to "Heathcliffe's". There are several reasons.

First off I am here because I believe I have a right to be here, the same as you, Elizabeth. (Did I ask you why you are here?)

Then I am here because I've come to consider myself a part of this board. As much a part of it as you, Elizabeth, are, as much as Laurie is, as much as is Linda, and as is bee.

It is your right to be here, and to say that you believe in "Heathcliffe"; it is my right to be here, and to say I don't.

Calm down, Elizabeth, no one doubted your right to be here.

tom

[lizzytysh]

"Calm down"? That's a hyperbolic suggestion of the state of affairs. I wasn't in a non-calm state to begin with, Tom. It was an offhanded question, that was looking more for specifics, related to expansion on interest and what you did care about, rather than justification for being here, at all. The latter was only minimally, edgily, incorporated in it, and that's what tagged onto Heathcliffe's ~ though, in that regard, an answer is certainly not necessary. You have every freedom that I and anyone else does to be here. Now, does your statement mean that my "2 cents" qualifies for a free pass ~ or do I need to first clear with Laurie, as to where it's okay to speak, and where not? I believe she has the only copy of our Local Operating Procedures manual, which clearly states the criteria for what is my business or concern and what is not ~ but I'll be danged if she'll get up off it . Maybe you can wrest it from her, cuz I haven't had any luck. If I could even get xeroxes of the pages that have to do with me, it would help. [Be careful when you answer, as depending on your reply, this could turn out to be considered a 'trick question,' as interpreted through the eyes of some others.]

As for me, I simply show up and express my own feelings and views on things. I don't determine or dictate those of others, about anything or anyone. How anyone would presume that I, somehow, do is a real conundrum.

It's fine with me if you're here, and [in reverse order] if bee's here, Linda's here, and Laurie's here. In fact, on the latter, I said a few words [that went unacknowledged ~ imagine that ].

You're right that I should have checked the wording Heathcliffe was referring to prior to posing the question myself. Sorry about that.

~ Elizabeth

[Byron]

Elizabeth. Back in March, Heathcliffe arrived with a sob story.
Two people posted answers to him and obviously took the piss out of the character calling themself Heathcliffe. Laurie was NOT one of the two people who took the piss out of him. One was June and the other was Spirit Friend. You know who they are!!!!!!!

Heathcliffe arrived back here recently with the same sob story. The two postings from March, which took the piss out of him, were repeated here again. June, copied and pasted her original piss-taking post from March. She also quoted the original posting from Spirit Friend. Both posts are in this thread for March and the recent repeats.

Why was this repeated in response to Heathcliff(e)? Because 'Heathcliffe' asked for June and Laurie to come back again. He had not got a response from anybody with the repeat of the sob story.

He was on a fishing trip and looking to catch whoever he/she could. He/she was using exactly the same ploy as last time.

Please allow the scales to fall from your eyes. It is looking as though all the world is mad except you.

I have sat and watched the twists and turns created by a very devious person. It got so bad that 'Heathcliffe' had to brazen it out, but has now jumped 'overboard' PUN well and truly meant.

We don't know who the person is behind the names Heathcliff(e) but the fact that he/she arrived on this board and played the same game, with the same words and using the same device, TWICE, shouts out to me and several others that he/she is a fraud.

I believe he/she is a fraud.

I believe he/she is a fraud.


As far as this thread is concerned, I've had my say.

Enough is enough.

[June]

Byron is spot on.

[Spirit Friend]

I agree with Byron and June.

[Byron]

Thank you both very much. I appreciate a little help from my friends.

[Spirit Friend]

No thanks necessary.

[John K.]

I REALLY don't want to get in the middle of this, but am I the only reader who finds the timing of the following postings strange:

Byron (frequent and long time poster): 4:30 p.m.
June (15 posts in 3 years): 4:46 p.m.
Spirit Friend (8 posts in 1 year): 4:48 p.m.
Byron: 4:53 p.m.
Spirit Friend: 5:08 p.m.

Kind of reminds me of the C2/paints back and forth some time ago.

[June]

John, I thought it was strange as well.

[John K.]

Two people posted answers to him and obviously took the piss out of the character calling themself Heathcliffe. Laurie was NOT one of the two people who took the piss out of him. One was June and the other was Spirit Friend. You know who they are!!!!!!!

Saving it in another message in case it gets lost.

Do we "know who they are"? Who are they? For that matter, who am I?

Oh yeah, I forgot, I don't use troll names.