 |
 |
I am putting my side of the verbal abuse I have received in public from Steve Duffy. I tell you that now so that you can skip it if you wish. Immediately below is a summary... F I received Mr Duffy's posting (A - header only, as it is largely repeated below) a few minutes before he published it, but as a back-channel posting. I had signed off britpo by then and did not know he had published it. I replied (B), almost immediately and constructively I thought, and I was disappointed by his reply (C). I replied to that (D) and have received *no reply. On receipt today of the digest for yesterday, I found that he had published. What had been an oddity is now seen as active defamation, for whatever reason. I have tried to deal with this b-c, at Mr Duffy's apparent instigation; and that hasn't worked: he dismisses my attempt as a game. It may be that Mr Duffy is more busy as Mr O'Brien and therefore completely unable to explain his attack upon me. If so, perhaps he should work less hard. With a lighter work load, he might come to see that I have no interest in him; and, if he desists from calling me nasty etc, I shall revert to neither thinking nor speaking of him - personally, at a guess, I would prefer that to the explanation I have requested. If he does not mention me here, I shall reciprocate. If it could be reduced to back-channel abuse then I could filter him out or take it up with his ISP. L --------------------------------- (A) From: "steve duffy" <[log in to unmask]> To: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: 07 August 2000 13:39 Subject: Re: unsubscribe --------------------------------- (B) From: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]> To: "steve duffy" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: 07 August 2000 13:46 Subject: Re: unsubscribe Dear Steve, Please tell me what you mean by my continuing with my nastiness. To you? I haven't even thought about you for some time. I feel no animosity towards you. | [i'm _still_ waiting for a reply to the last message i sent as part of | a three-way back-channel discussion with a listowner and yourself - a | message in which i pointed out the unfairness of this situation. i can | only presume you have that listowner's support ...] I have no one's support. Please put a date to it, or give me some help, and I will try to find and try to answer you. | >> I don't think there was anything in what I said to justify | >> "constable"; but that's not the point is it? | | my use of the term is *completely justified*. Fine. It looks like a non sequitur to me. | and you continue to twist the truth. of what? you continue to characterise me | and others in such a manner as to make participation impossible. I don't think I have referred to you for some time. i have just referred to you because you came in with that inexplicable remark about list-constable. i certainly am not doing anything that i am aware of to make *your participation impossible. tell me what i am doing and i'll try to stop if it seems reasonable to me to do so certainly i have been fairly quiet and i intend being extremely quiet L ________________________ (C) From: "steve duffy" <[log in to unmask]> To: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: 07 August 2000 16:34 Subject: Re: unsubscribe | sorry. i did not intend to send my message back-channel - to hark back | to your last b-c message to me, it is not a game i wish to play | back-channel. --------------------- (D) From: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]> To: "steve duffy" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: 07 August 2000 16:57 Subject: Re: unsubscribe No apology is needed especially as I thought you were showing consideration to the others. It may be a game to you. It's serious to me. I don't know what I said in my last back-channel to you. I can't find one. As I keep trying to get through to you; I have no strong feelings about you. I can imagine the sort of thing I might have said; but I see no problem in using back-channel to sort out [what] the hell you are talking about. I followed *you in using back-channel; but I doubt the others would be interested in your argument with me. I have none with you. You have attacked me twice in the last 24 hours and I have asked [you] to explain: I replied to your last in good faith. Please answer me. I think it would be fairer to the others to do so back-channel; but I can't stop you using front-channel. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%