hawaiideborah,
Stating that John doesn't hide behind a screen name is in no way an attack that you don't. My statement was nothing more than that. It was simply a statement of fact. You took it as an attack and it was not meant nor intended to be an attack in any way shape form or manner. My statement was VERY simplistic. I just stated that John doesn't hide behind a screen name. How you can take it that I accused YOU of hiding behind a screen is beyond me. I never said you did nor did I accuse of doing so. Your mistaken accusations of an attack justifies my statement to you that you are too sensitive to what people say to you on Internet forums.
It's weird that you would accuse me of attacking you when I just made a simple statement that John doesn't hide behind an Internet alias. Perhaps maybe YOU should have been the one to ask rather than accuse? Especially when it is quite clear you didn't understand what I said. Unless of course you purposely are accusing me of saying something I didn't? But I am assuming you wouldn't do anything like that.
Then you posted:
"Yes, John Rabi posts a lot and often and they are often jokes or off the topic. Only reason I bring this up is because he attacked me on doing what he is famous for. I was just pointing out that he sure likes to point at others when that is what he does."
Not that it is up to me, but I really don't see how he attacked you in that thread? When you read the whole thread then the one thing you posted here that he said takes on a whole different meaning. This is what I mean about purposely posting only a small bit of the entire conversation. It can easily be taken out of context and if one does not read the whole thread then it is apparent you mean for it to be taken out of context. I guess if you are really sensitive to what people say to you, you can certainly misinterpret what people say to you like you did to me in your previous post.
Perhaps if you took the first post in this thread and posted it in the Kama'aina thread instead things would be completely different. If you had done that it would look like you are doing nothing more than defending yourself. Against what, I am not sure. But to me it really makes more sense for you to have posted your first post there in that other thread. But the fact that you purposely started a whole new post and said what you did appears to be a well thought out and purposeful attack! Again, this applies to the racist thread as well. I believe if Mauka had posted his first post in the thread where the joke was told the meaning of his post would have been taken in a different light. But when you start something with the full intent of pointing out something out of context it smells of attack to me. And personally I don't think you can disagree with this.
If you even try a little to look at this whole thing from my point of view, it appears quite clear that this post was meant to do nothing more than attack John. So even if you disagree, to call me mean spirited and accuse me of attacking you when I am trying to do no more than defend John against your attacks is just ridiculous. All I did was point out some facts about your behavior. I am sorry if you have a hard time accepting and looking at your own faults but that is hardly my fault.
Let's face it, you posted for one reason and one reason only and that is to try and elicit support for attacking John. Did you really think you wouldn't hear something is his defense? And did you really think you wouldn't hear something about how you are acting? Come on Deb, think about, don't start a controversial post by posting negative things about other people if you are quite sensitive to what other people say in response. JMHO
The Ka'u Web
http://www.kauweb.com
The Kona Forum
http://www.konaforum.com
Da Kine Web Hosting
http://www.DaKineHosting.com