Ruthie: Don't Pm Me

**Snee** · 01-23-2005, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by hobbes

touche, corksoaker

I believe that should be "touché", cawksmuggler

**scroff** · 01-23-2005, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Cool it guys...

please?

Aww, RF, it's just starting to get good!

**Snee** · 01-23-2005, 10:42 PM

https://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/searc...searchid=54996

Discuss

**ruthie** · 01-23-2005, 10:42 PM

hobbes

Before you make some quip about my agenda, please explain what it is. Vague innuendo is rather childish. Ruthie's agenda is in every post and at her web site. Anti-Bush at all cost.

Would have been nice for you to admit your bias up front, helps people to know you are really speaking sincerely and not just defending your wife

RF Congratulations Scrogg and Ruthie... I didnt know you'd tied the knot..

ruthie--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
Would have been nice for you to admit your bias up front, helps people to know you are really speaking sincerely and not just defending your wife

ROFL. It has already been discussed through another thread that we are indeed, a couple. I don't need to be defended. You obviously know of our website..which Scroff put together. Anyone checking the site knows this, so let's not pretend there were veils of secrecy..like the Bush administration. ROFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by RF
Congratulations Scrogg and Ruthie... I didnt know you'd tied the knot..

Why thank you. I didn't know either. Neither does Scroff. ROFL

Hobbes Scrogg,

I know you and Ruthie have a relationship, but many here don't. That would be relevant information to the average Joe in understanding the context in which to view your post. Is he some objective onlooker, or is there something between he and Ruthie that might explain why he was objecting to Hobbes' post.?

Whether you are actually married or not is not relevant to the CONCEPT. You 2 share a passion for politics and host a site together. Ruthie has been known to post under your name and refer to you as "sweetie".

The important concept is that you have strong feelings for her, whether you are actually legally united is not relevant to how you might have an inclination towards defending her. No need to quibble details.

and best..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
Scrogg,

I know you and Ruthie have a relationship, but many here don't. That would be relevant information to the average Joe in understanding the context in which to view your post. Is he some objective onlooker, or is there something between he and Ruthie that might explain why he was objecting to Hobbes' post.?

Whether you are actually married or not is not relevant to the CONCEPT. You 2 share a passion for politics and host a site together. Ruthie has been known to post under your name and refer to you as "sweetie".

The important concept is that you have strong feelings for her, whether you are actually legally united is not relevant to how you might have an inclination towards defending her. No need to quibble details.

Some people will laud your posts because they concur with your outlook. They will agree with you and slap you back when you twist a scenario to make Bush look bad. They will turn their heads away from the truth and say, "Well, it is justified for the cause".
my response

To address this briefly. We thought this was understood..we are a couple, as I stated previously, days ago. I am known to post under Scroff's name..when I have ever done that, it has been accidental, and followed with the proper log-in, stating it was RUTHIE who made the post. I understand you feel i don't present a "balanced" view, however I find nothing balanced in the politcal scene these days. I have, however, posted my own feelings about Kerry, which are not all positive. Enough already.

the thread was https://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showt...8&page=5&pp=10. though I see from reading, I stated we were a couple in a thread before that.

**Biggles** · 01-23-2005, 10:45 PM

Incidently Ruthie

Which was it? Guard or Inmate?

**manker** · 01-23-2005, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by scraggle

Sure, but there isn't a post yet that I won't bite back.

Are you making up your own language now.

So there are posts that you don't bite at yet there aren't posts that you wont bite back. Please forgive my perplexedness but wtf.

**hobbes** · 01-23-2005, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by scroff

You can't remember the thread, but you expect us to believe that you remember, verbatim, the line you posted in response? Right.

Did it ever occur to you that we have "an emotional attachment" because we agree on so much? It's called "compatibility".

Well, I found the thread and I said exactly what I thought.

The thread was about troops in Iraq being undersupplied.

See the thread title had nothing to do with the subsequent discussion, that is why I couldn't remember the thread.

Would have been nice for you to admit your bias up front, helps people to know you are really speaking sincerely and not just defending your wife

RF

Congratulations Scrogg and Ruthie... I didnt know you'd tied the knot..

My point at the time was that Scroff was defending Ruthie without defining his relationship to her. This is important information for the reader to know.

edit: ruthie has found the thread too.

**ruthie** · 01-23-2005, 10:54 PM

yes I found the thread, and restated that we were a couple in that particular thread. If you read what I just put up, it states that I had made that clear several days before that thread. here is another doozy, Hobbes..the Saving private Ryan thread https://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/t85004-.html
Our relationship was well defined to everyone on the board. The readers did know that.