First, just to be perfectly clear so you'll know where I'm coming from: Unlike you, I don't try to passive-aggressively disguise my blunt remarks in a transparent and superficial veil of "respect" and "admiration." Because of that, I'll just come right out and tell you the reason I won't come back to answer another Nita Rant. My real life and my family are more important than you. I'm sure you understand. An hour spent reminiscing here with you about Trannie is an hour away from my real life. After all, that's how it should be, right? Just as your real life and your family life should be more important to you than Nita and her "perky coffeepot." (You do have a wonderful way with words.)
Second, how long did it take you to compose your #149 message to me, Askel? You obviously spent some time on it, even doing a search on the Trannie threads so you could do a thread count and a cut-'n'-paste. Which one of the many threads did you copy that quote from, anyway? And how long did you spend cyber-surfing before you found one of my replies that you deemed worthy of using? Maybe Nita even has her very own folder on your hard drive? I wish I could say I'm flattered, but...
Maybe we should take a page from the Askel Playbook and quote you from one of your Nita Rants to show everyone just how preoccupied with this you are, ya think? Just a couple of months ago you seemed convinced that the "Tranny Crowd" were FR Admin's and we're the ones responsible for yanking FR threads and making rebellious FReepers go 'poof.'
You spent a considerable amount of time analyzing Nita's personality, sarcastically claiming that although she did some "brilliant deductive work on the Tranny Trail," she is actually "a wannabe sexpol op(erative)" and "FR's resident sex therapist" who recently "wrote a mini-opus of sorts about how school and the kids suddenly were going to eat into her 24/7 freeping time."
According to you, Nita wrote this "mini-opus" not because "she thinks she's so terribly important, of course, but -- having been a target of a disinformation campaign and repeated cyber assaults from terrorist-harboring nations," she's afraid "her admirers might worry." After all, she once "got anonymous mail from a Deep Throat DC insider" and was "trailed by MIBs in the sports department."
You went on to tell everyone that they "can still find her from time to time...posting the occasional hip and fun little sado-masochistic whip gif ... and talking about butt pimples." (That one went quite nicely with your "scatalogical schlock" comment, by the way.)
(This obsessive behavior that I'm copying from you -- the posting of someone else's quotes from some long-forgotten conversation -- is rather tedious. How do you keep all this in your memory bank? By my best estimate, the preceding three paragraphs represent dozens of different FR threads from as far back as two or three years ago. Amazing. Is Nita really that memorable?)
How long are you going to let this eat at you, Askel? This particular thread -- the thread you're reading now -- is about the Oklahoma City bombing, not something that happened in the year 2000. It has now been eighteen months since Clinton was forced to leave office by our Constitution. Eighteen months is a long time to let something fester at you like this. It was a year and a half ago.
What is it exactly that bothers you about the Trannie threads? You said:
You've got a canon of 14 "REVISIT Wagging Trannie" threads before you put the sucker to bed. No. 5 in the series entitled:
Wag The Vice-President: Trannie Revisited (Thread 5 - Faster Load!)
The "faster load" (as well as the footnotes, links, recaps, summations, etc.) was very cool of you and obviously much-appreciated. You can open any of the threads -- all of which run to nearly 200 replies -- and find top notch research, analysis and replies by some of the most respected posters FR's ever had.Would "mesmerized" have been the better word to use?
Sooo..... If we go by your words here, your obsession with the Trannie thing is because of your perception that Nita Nuprez hypnotized a huge group of talented, "top notch" people at Free Republic and "mesmerized" them, enticing them to follow her around from thread to thread for six long months. Maybe your perception is that her "mesmerization" of many of FR's top-notch researchers detracted from their attention to your worthy and valuable Blood Trail threads? (I'm not being facetious here; those threads are wonderful.)
But wait, that's not it. You then retract your fangs and claim you were just joking, going on to blame Nita for causing a general "sea change" at Free Republic - an overall degradation of its cyber-quality and excellence. Nita's gullibility allowed Trannie to cause "discord, suspicion and mistrust" at Free Republic, right?
In all seriousness, Nita, I haven't any fangs to draw where you or the whole Trannie thing is concerned. What's done is done and, if anything, I'm not so much amused in retrospect as I am genuinely sorry for the sea change generally -- and with regard to specific relations -- the threads engendered.
I still believe diversion and discord, suspicion and mistrust were exactly Trannie's angle the whole time. That's certainly all we were left holding once the Evil Clinton took off to the private $ector, occasionally representing our nation abroad as Bush's adminstration sees fit. All's well that finally ends, I guess.
Do you realize how much power you're attributing to this person named "Nita?" According to you, she and her mindless Trannie working group members single-handedly manipulated and controlled hundreds (thousands?) of FReepers for six months and caused a massive shift in the group dynamics here at Free Republic.
And you're apparently not even sure that Trannie was an actual person. You insinuated (again) on the LibertyForum that Trannie was actually Nita, an obviously emotionally-unbalanced person who concocted some elaborate scheme to gain the admiration and affection of people worldwide for her valiant efforts to save the American people from Clinton's sociopathic behavior. I must admit, it makes for a good story line.
Who better to put in charge of "profiling" anonymous posts, churning through every shred of evidence collected throughout the net and -- above all -- CONVINCED BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT OF THEIR OWN IMPORTANCE.
It don't get any better than the "anonymous tipster" from the White House story and a group of folks who can cheer the valiant Miss Nita through several volumes of hyperlinked Tranny Speculation.
Assuming they weren't lying and they did contact the authorities, etc. etc. thoughout that whole affair, I suspect they'd be in like Flynn with Jim as well. Nothing like a little crisis, comrade, to forge a bunker buddy or two.
Third, I hate to interrupt a good plot, but getting to the subject that matters -- your perception that I'm "attacking OKCSubmariner"...
If you'll bother to read my initial #31 to him, you'll see that I was confronting him about his incessant need to publicly denigrate Jayna Davis (and others) who don't happen to see the OKC issue in his own viewpoint. An excerpt of what I said:.
"Personally, I'll reserve judgment on Jayna Davis and anyone else who is publicly trashed at FR unless I hear both sides of the issue. There are always, always, always two sides to an issue, no matter what that issue may be. I can sit here and think of several good reasons to explain her actions, but that's beside the point. The point is this: A public forum like FR is not the place to air your grievances against someone in a personal dispute. You obviously harbor some bitterness, but this is not the place to dump it. I certainly can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not interested in wading through it. It's nothing personal; you seem like a nice, sincere person whose motivations are very sincere, and I appreciate all your hard work at uncovering the truth.... Now is not the time for infighting."
That was it. That was my point. In my 'ever-so-humble-despite-your-claims-otherwise' opinion, the very public and petty infighting about OKC should be kept to a minimum to preserve any chance we have of the Senate committees getting to the real truth in their current investigations. But since you probably think we have zero chance of Truth Finding under a Bushie Administration, I can understand why you would accuse me of "being absolutely irresponsible, divisive and -- worst of all -- patently hypocritical as [I] attack OKCSubmariner."
Pat Briley is a big boy. I'm sure he can handle Nita's simple-minded opinions without going off the deep end, can't he? Or maybe you made those accusations just so you could drag out the Trannie thing again? Don't flatter yourself by claiming that you're only here because I pinged you to my remarks. I pinged everyone to my remarks and didn't want to be accused of ignoring only Askel. (I can't win for losing with you, can I?)
Regardless, I've said what I needed to say and won't be back unless you accuse me of something as ridiculous as secretly aborting babies in my spare time; bashing Catholics on the street corners; or being Karen Hughes in real life. (...gasp!!... Does my recent surge of activity at FR coincide with her return to private life in Austin? There's some homework for you.)
Now, your Nita/Trannie preoccupation is getting really old. Go work on it or me an' thuh boys will make you go "Poof.
If you limit your harping on OKC to substantive complaints and show him the same respect for his years of investigation that you expect from others where your own private investigations or private messages from anonymous stranger/proofreaders are concerned, it's quite likely you'll never hear from me again.
(The notion I would "use" Patrick Briley to get in a tranny dig is beneath you. Just as Mods and some posters will pull in reams of quotes from unrelated threads and even Other Web Site to impeach a person's post, I felt your Tranny Saga AND your work on behalf of Ted Maher belied the substance and tone of your criticism of Patrick. If you've got some criticisms which don't make you look like a rank hypocrite, fire away. I'm all ears.)
It's just that I haven't been following Patrick for two years now just to leave him hanging when -- upon the usual falling out and smear jobs that ensue once the spotlight's suddenly focused on a sleeper story for one reason or another -- folks start engaging in character assassination.
So, it's not really all about you or your past obsessions, Nita. I'm just not one to sit tight while someone of your caliber and posting history takes cheap shots more suited to a Klayman or Keyes thread. You've earned a lot of respect around here over the years and your opinion means something. I'd like to see it rooted always in the substantive.
(I don't know Nancie Drew and haven't been reading her for years as I have you. I suspect that, given her emotional ties to her friend, it's understandable she throw a punch or two below the belt. Like I said, I just expect more from you.)
Is Nita really that memorable?
I've always thought so.
Though I hope it won't disappoint you if I don't bookmark, even, your threads or our altercations over the years. I have no file of Nita quotes from FR -- or other sites -- from which to regurgitate at will. The quotes I took from you should be found in the one Tranny thread I opened (FASTER LOADING TIME!) and the last Ted Maher thread I read and in which I was impressed to learn you were doing your own investigation. Took all of five minutes, I'm sure to find, cut and paste them.
(I've gotten pretty handy at that sort of thing over the years -- some perverse part of my nature REFUSES to make a load of boilerplate for links/quotes I dig up and repaste ad infinitum. =)
Since you're getting all personal and everything ... (or is your psychoanalysis now strictly Professional?) ... Do you want to know the one thing you posted -- besides the somewhat understandable Tranny freak-out -- that did bother me greatly?
It's the way you actually stated once that you felt part of your mission here was to get these uptight Christian sorts to loosen up and talk openly about sex. Have some fun with it. (And you did a great job ... your threads often made for some hysterical reading but inevitably you slipped in some hard facts and provocative -- in an intellectual way =) -- questions.)
But on one thread ... as you defended your understanding of sex as Christian (by noting that you and your second husband had waited until your wedding night), you then proceeded to negate that in the next sentence by inviting all and sundry to your wedding bed where, you told us, you guys couldn't tell who was the biggest "rapist" on your wedding night.
<Thud>
Maybe you're an Ayn Rand fan. Perhaps you've never been raped. But right there is the moment I lost a certain amount of respect for and trust in you.
I didn't divine any particular purpose on your part (though I think you'd make a smashing sexpol agent, you dumb blonde you! =). I chalked it up to the area of study in which you're immersed and, perhaps, an incomplete undertanding of what constitutes a truly Christian view of sex ... to include female modesty and total self-giving (nothing even resembling something so heinous as rape).
Other than that, it's true I have always been jealous of your groovy handle.
Too cool for school.
Regards, Nita.