JLA, I just came upon haqi's post answering the question I put to Neocon.
Neocon and I were right. There were two possible interpretations.
Neo was wrong in his (declared) belief that the intimidation was unintended by haqi.
Because Haqi has now, frankly and honestly, acknowledged the entirely obvious. He was trying to intimidate me.
It is not easy to intimidate me. The attempt to do so angers me, and, most of all, I distinctly did not like the specter of being followed to "other threads" as his "enemy," with "swift retribution" exacted if I failed to do as he wished.
And so I made the threat of this disappear by forcing its denial. (Once he had denied any such implication, he could hardly "stalk" or harass me on other threads, I realized.)
Haqi alone had to deny it to make the threat go away; as it happened, you and Neocon and e-Bill and PROLIFE and others decided to join in the denial. Which was shameful of you all, IMHO.
I had only read the posts linked to mine, so had no idea until just now how much abuse and ridicule had been heaped upon me here, and by how many posters, over this issue that haqi has now so nicely resolved. Quite remarkable, really, given that I was only pointing out the obvious.
Thank you for your honesty, haqihana. I will always remember it.
To: E who wrote (18103)
From: Neocon
Thursday, May 4, 2000 1:27 PM
ET
Respond to Post # 18109 of
18169
It couldn't be that in the heat of anger he expressed himself
poorly, but must be that he was intending to intimidate. Why call me
shameless for advancing the more benign interpretation unless you
consider it obvious that somehow he meant it in the worse light?
Yes, Neocon, it was obvious. |
