To Mr. Barker

*IF* I had said " I received this from Chris Barker " and stated it as
fact, it would be a lie. What I said was that I thought, after
seeing some of your posts reprinted by others, and hearing how you
stalk topics involving certain people for no other reason than to
insert your bile and insult them, I thought that I MIGHT have received
it from you -- I didn't save the submission, or the letter, because it
all happened before I knew you existed ( happy time, that ) - and it
should come as no suprise to you if you perused your own rantings why
people might jump to the conclusion that someone acting in an
irrational manner was, in fact, you -- particularly in this small
world of supernatural fiction. So, I apologize for bringing your name
up in a private place and you can apologize for reprinting my words (
from a private forum ) in this public forum where it's entirely
illegal for you to do so. Much as you may feel you rule the world,
you don't, and posting my words to an open forum is a breach of
privacy. In fact, if you could keep your attention focused on your
own life, work, and web-space, and on conversations where you are
welcome, you wouldn't know that *I* exist.

But, again, a resounding whatever. I don't care one way or the other
about insulting you. I probably would enjoy posting here and reading
what is said on subjects that I care about, but the fear ( well, hell,
almost certainty ) that you will break into any conversation with
certain people involved and insult them ( as you did to Chris Barker
so recently ) with no regard for context or clarity - prevents it.
Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how sock puppets fit into the
topic of alt.books.ghost-fiction? In point of fact, I see nowhere
here that you have posted anything on that topic at all, only
insulting others who are trying to. The one time someone honestly
asked you for an opinion on an Aickman story, you refused. So why be
here at all?

There is a reason why Horrabin Hall is by invitation only...it's
possible to have a pleasant virtual conversation there without
worrying whether the inmates are off their much-needed meds.

So, rather than comparing you to child abusers, or rapists ( or
paranoid delusional megalomaniacal lunatics ) as you have done so
graciously for me, I'll delete this link from computer and brain and
let you rant in peace.

No doubt you'll take the opportunity to have the "last post" and count
it as some weird victory .. have at it. Guns blazing, if you will.

How you can take yourself seriously for one sentence is beyond me.
What is further beyond me is why anyone ( myself included ) bothers
with you at all.


OhThoseVileBodies RemoveThis @hotmail.com (Haunted River) wrote in message news:<8aeb84d7.0402171516.13be5949 RemoveThis @posting.google.com>...
 > I've seldom heard a nastier apology.
 >
 > The point is, you were wrong. Your error falsely smeared me. My only
 > intention was to correct your lie.
 >
 > With regard your weak and deeply prejudiced validation for having been
 > wrong. It smacks of the ridiculous and immoral arguments that some
 > rapists or child abusers resort to e.g. 'she was only a prostitute so
 > it can't have been rape' or 'she might only be 14 but she had done it
 > before'.
 >
 > A lie is a lie, just as a crime is a crime. You can't excuse a crime
 > by blaiming the victim.
 >
 > CB
 >
 >
 > bookwyrm55 RemoveThis @mchsi.com (David Niall Wilson) wrote in message news:<537dc661.0402170654.3a3aafd1 RemoveThis @posting.google.com>...
  > > First off, nobody talks like that anymore. Meet me here with pistols
  > > drawn (sigh). Welcome to the real world, Mr. Barker.
  > >
  > > I said "I believe I may have received" said story - and that belief
  > > was born from having read your posts in the past, and from the nature
  > > of the response I received to the aforementioned rejection of the
  > > story from my anthology.
  > >
  > > From your hiding in the shadows and then taking what was meant to be a
  > > private goup post public - not to mention doing so in a "voice" that
  > > makes me wonder what old movie you think you live in -- I can assume
  > > that I am fortunate if you did not submit to said anthology, and will
  > > count myself more fortunate still that I don't frequent "these parts"
  > > and don't have to pay any further attention to you.
  > >
  > > You will note in my post to horrabin-hall (the one that you have no
  > > right to have read) that when psychotic submitter of said story
  > > responded to my reasonable rejection, then again to my reasonable
  > > response to his wildly crazed commentary thereon, that I chose the
  > > wise path and moved on with my life. I do so now, and trust you will
  > > do no such thing, but will ramble and babble with apparent virtual
  > > drool on your chin -- but I won't be listening.
  > >
  > > It really does amaze me that you have nothing better to do.
  > >
  > > DNW<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: To Mr. Barker 

1). Being not true, is not the same thing as a lie, stupid.
2) a lie, being untrue, is not the same thing as an untruth.
3) Not speaking the truth is not the same as speaking the truth if it isn't the truth, because that's a lie. Or not.
4) It's not a lie if the lie isn't the truth.


This just to explain the logic around here.
 >> Stay informed about: To Mr. Barker 

Michael John Thompson <mjt DeleteThis @mjtbooks.com> wrote in message news:<4032BE14.79E29564 DeleteThis @mjtbooks.com>...
 > 1). Being not true, is not the same thing as a lie, stupid.
 > 2) a lie, being untrue, is not the same thing as an untruth.
 > 3) Not speaking the truth is not the same as speaking the truth if it isn't the truth, because that's a lie. Or not.
 > 4) It's not a lie if the lie isn't the truth.
 >
 >
 > This just to explain the logic around here.

And yet, there was no untruth spoken.

What was spoken was a sincere thought that perhaps this person, Chris
Barker, who I know only by reputation, was a person who had sent me a
story to read. There was such a person, and the ranting letter I
received after my rejection was very much like the ranting posts I see
all over this board, and had heard of in the past. There were logical
reasons, then, to suppose it *might* be true. Mr. Barker assures me
it is NOT true, and that is an end to that particular thing, as far as
I'm concerned. It was someone else. I never, in fact, stated that I
knew it to be him, but that I thought maybe it was him.

That said it is CERTAINLY the truth that my post was made in a forum
considered private, or at least semi-private, and that -- in fact --
it was not publicly directed at Mr. Barker, but was a "Hmm, I wonder"
kind of thing that I thought others might either question, or
corroborate, and so I wouldn't have to wonder any more.

As in - I wonder if I've had any contact with this very strange man
who insults everyone I know with such vehemence. Until now, I guess,
I have not had that dubious privilege. C'est la vie.

DNW<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: To Mr. Barker