Well, now and then, you get a wacko person responding to blog sites...odds were that one would come my way eventually.
On the heels of a post about Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul, some strange woman sent me a "personal" e-mail last week, noting that I was right - that "Paul" had a great sense of humor.
Of course, I thought she was referring to the man in the run for the White House.
In response, I thanked her for her comments, and noted that she should watch for another upcoming post.
Later that day, when I posted a second item referring to Ron Paul, she immediately sent me an e-mail back, and remarked something to the effect of, "I liked it..."
By her actions, it appeared she was definitely referring to Mr. Paul.
When I used a quote from her e-mail for another post in respect to a remark about "humor", she proceeded to attempt to post an angry message (curious, since the woman always zipped off e-mails in the past...suspicious, yes?) stating that she did not know who "Ron Paul" was, that - in fact - she was referring to Paul Williams.
A Paul Williams item was posted weeks ago.
Instead of recognizing that the problem persisted due to her failure to point out that she was not referring to Ron Paul, especially when I posted the second item casting all doubt, she proceeded to threaten that she was a paralegal, and I should watch myself - after all - I quoted her without her permission.
Have you ever heard anything so stupid in all your life?
If reporters were required to obtain permission from subjects to print quotes for articles, newspapers would have folded decades ago.
In a response e-mail I noted that the problems arose due to her failure to post to the original item, her neglect to advise me she was not referring to Ron Paul when the second post on him was published, and so on and so forth.
In addition, I informed her that if she did not wish to be quoted, she should not send e-mails to individuals so boldly, without a full understanding of the legal ramifications.
For an "alleged" paralegal, she lacked basic knowledge of the law, to say the least.
I also found it ironic that someone so keen on making comments about "humor", didn't have a sense of one, herself.
In response, she fired back comments that indicated the poor woman is in dire need of therapy, psychiatric help, whatever.
For example, the oddball made wild, unfounded statements about this and that, and summed it all up, by assuming that I received all my legal information from a lowly, unreliable source - the Internet!
Ha!
I have a certificate that states otherwise, but I won't beleaguer the point.
Any attorney worth his salt is mindful of the fact that it is unwise to make accusations, unless fully apprised of the facts in advance.
Obviously, the woman has **it for brains.
However, I should give you fair warning Missy - your numerous angry e-mails, fired out in rapid succession (which shall remain unread, except by Law Enforcement) - amount to "harassment".
Please take note.
When you received my response, it would have been wise to keep your mouth shut.
Abraham Lincoln once said,
"Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
Lady - and I use the term loosely - thanks for the big laugh of the day!