Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou queen. Thou foot land-raker.
Ye squeaked:

> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in messageTy
> news:r6cva.kg4.17.1@news.alt.net
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou rotting snipt-taffeta
>> fellow. Thou befuddled my lord's knave. Thou mad-cap ruffian. Thou
>> base-court, low-life fools on both sides. Ye advised:
>>
>>> The idea of atonement and restitution is lost on some, maybe even
>>> most, people. They think they can walk away from their bad acts
>>> unscathed without making any effort to repair the damage done.
>>
>> That idea has an undeserved air of respectability about it that ought
>> to be torn away and discarded so that the idea is exposed for what it
>> really is.
>>
>> Firstly, and less importantly, it both completely dispenses with the
>> idea of unconditional forgiveness and it denies any and all
>> involvement whatsoever on the part of the person who believes that
>> atonement and restitution is due to them. Thus the sentiment is
>> exposed as a self-serving lie that affords the claimant to feel
>> righteous and justified, and to continue to remain oblivious to their
>> own part in anything for which there might be blame.
>>
>> Secondly, and vitally, atonement and restitution is not possible in
>> cases where, for example, the person who believes that atonement and
>> restitution is due employs an extreme form of psychological abuse to
>> continually checkmate all the attempts of the atoner to make the
>> claimed restitution.
>>
>> Consider, for example, the conjectural situation where the one who
>> believes they are owed a debt of atonement and restitution merrily
>> goes off creating scenarios. These scenarios have a basis in fact
>> only in the distant past, and have no basis in fact whatsoever in the
>> present. These secenarios then have only the mere appearance of
>> analogy to the present, such as 'My ex-husband behaved in that
>> manner...' or 'My father behaved in that manner...', 'therefore you
>> are no different to my ex-husband or to my father.'
>>
>> The implication is that the atoner is made to appear as abusive as
>> those in the scenarios solely on the basis of mere analogy and
>> conjecture; this is done by the claimant who plays themselves off as
>> the victim against those scenatios with the result that the one who
>> wants to atone is made to look exceedingly bad solely on the basis of
>> things that never happened in the present.
>>
>> That is to say, the one who feels a debt is owed is actually holding
>> the alleged debtor responsible for a debt that was never incurred by
>> the debtor because the scenarios never actually happened in the
>> present; the only relationship to the present was the surreptitous
>> change of analogy to fact. In other words, the debts were projected
>> by the claimant and this is something easily overlooked by the
>> alleged debtor during the distressing moments of trying to come to
>> terms with, and dealing with the aftermath of, the lies of the
>> claimant who has been presenting projected analogy as if it were
>> actual truth.
>>
>> What has happened in the above conjecture is that, in the eyes of the
>> claimant, the debtor is changed by the projection and has been seen
>> by the projector to be behaving as though he or she was in fact
>> actually characterised by those projections. The result is not
>> checkmate, but stalemate, and the alleged debt can never be repaid,
>> not because the debt never existed but because the claimant is an
>> emotional abuser.
>>
>> HTH
>
> Rick,
>
> You ended our relationship on February 1, in email.

Well, seeing as you've decided to wave almost every single pair of your
dirty knickers in the public face, not just in the private face of "Michael
Cranston" attorney, whereupon he published it for all to see, and with your
sancrion too, you may as well go telling everyone the reason I gave for
ending it. And don't forget to include your statements, which precipitated
it and set the context for my statements. We wouldn't want people to think
you had some truth to hide, would we now?

Better yet, why not include information about the first time I terminated
the relationship, and not just the second time? Would that be because the
reason for the second termination is the very same reason as the first, oh
great and wonderful pattern identifier?

Of course, you can't go alluding to, let alone quoting, any of it, can you?
No, you can't. I mean, what would Dustin Cook have to say about you outing
information from emails, eh? Hmmm? And what about your driving need to
protect yourself from admitting your own involvement by denying you had any
at all?

It was all me, wasn't it, Rhonda? It's all about me, and all my doing. Yes,
it was all my doing. You're just the victim in all of this. How thoughtless
of me to even think you were not spotless, stainless, sinless, righteous and
wholly justified.

> I said "okay,"
> and I wished you the best.

Actually, it was, IIRC, verbatim, save for the personal pronoun, what you
said only yesterday that you told Dustin in email some moons ago...

You'd already told me in email, and I'd responded with "Take care of
yourself, Dustin."
So...

"Take care of yourself, Dustin."
"Take care of yourself, Rick."

Who's next? "Michael Cranston" attorney, perhaps? Is a pattern emerging, oh
great pattern identifier?

> You have no compunction about posting unsolicited email, and you have
> told me you believe it is not out-of-bounds to do so. Therefore...
>
> ...if you continue to harangue me in public, in any way, I will
> create a web site to which I will post every single email from the
> exchange that began with your unsolicited assault on me beginning on
> March 13. All of it.

Victolly! Well, almost. What prevents you from going the whole hog, Rhonda?
Put up your kooksite with all the emails and all the IM messages from day
one of the relationship. Oh, you won't do that, will you? No, you won't,
because if you do then everyone will see the lead up to March 13. How
convenient that you would choose to show only that which you claim purports
to support your claim whilst denying any and all involvement of yourself. Do
you see a pattern there, pattern identifier extraordinaire?

You should have been a lawyer. You have all the narcissism for it. Oh,
there's another reason you won't put everything on your kooksite; "Michael
Cranston" attorney will get to see the dirty knickers you really don't want
him to see... those containing your expresions of vile contempt for lawyers
one and all, without exception, save one old man.

Have you told "Michael Cranston" attorney what you really think of him,
Rhonda?

> I gave you everything I had, and you weren't satisfied. You wanted
> more.

[Replay]
It was all me, wasn't it, Rhonda? It's all about me, and all my doing. Yes,
it was all my doing. You're just the victim in all of this. How thoughtless
of me to even think you were not spotless, stainless, sinless, righteous and
wholly justified.

> You relentlessly pushed for more. And you never let up, even
> when I told you the damage it was doing. Now you're at it again, even
> though you said you would stop--and not only in email. You even
> posted that you would stop.

On the subject of broken agreements, double standards, hypocrisy, and hands
covered in filthy ****, I merely point to your usenet post dated 28 March
2007.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/al...e=source&hl=en

You can either tell the readers what you believe it signifies or you can let
them draw their own conclusions. Oh, wait; better you don't say anything.
That sequence of emails from March 13 might take on the appearance of
something you really don't want exposed. Bugger, eh.

> None what passed between us had anything to do with "ex-husband," or
> "father," except that I have plenty of experience recognizing "****ed
> up" when I see it.

Patterns, patterns, patterns. Patterns everywhere.

> It was all you,

[Replay]
It was all me, wasn't it, Rhonda? It's all about me, and all my doing. Yes,
it was all my doing. You're just the victim in all of this. How thoughtless
of me to even think you were not spotless, stainless, sinless, righteous and
wholly justified.

> putting relentless pressure on me
> to do things I couldn't do, because I didn't have the
> wherewithal--emotional, financial and otherwise--to do them. I kept
> telling you I needed you to lay off, and you would agree to do so, but
> then you'd follow up your abject apologies with something bizarre:
> Discordian Meme, the brain tumor, and especially, the ambush emails
> and posts. Even something as innocuous as my telling PJR how highly I
> regard him was enough to make you lash out at me.
>
> Before I met you in Texas, I'd made it clear my financial situation
> was precarious, so it's not as if you weren't aware of how much I
> pushed myself to get there. In October, I told you that your behavior
> was endangering my health and my safety and that if I were to remain
> in the relationship, I wouldn't survive it unless you stopped
> pushing. I told you that I was at the point that I would not even be
> able to feed myself if I did not take time away from you to do the
> things that needed to be done. But you continued to push me to do
> things I had no time for, to spend money that would--again,
> literally--take food out of my mouth.
> It is now April, and it's well past time for you to stop. Let it go.

I didn't read the rest. I will merely assume it is thick with more bitterly
twisted, self-serving justifications, perhaps a few more threats too, and
ought to be treated with the contempt it deserves. Or should I have just
dragged out the violins and played "Poor, poor, pitiful me!"?

I said to you long ago that what you did to Dustin Cook you were doing to
me. Maybe you can identify a pattern there too.

Go for it, Rhonda. Put up your kooksite. Then we can move on to desperation,
pulling out all stops, double standards, hypocrisy and blatant lies.

The difference between what you did to Dustin Cook, what you did to me, and
what you are now threatening to do to me is that Dustin Cook beat you to the
finish line he knew you were running for.

Need proof? Look for patterns, but you won't find them in the behaviour of
others.

--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.

Vescere puter subgalia meis.

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org