THE PANTYHOSE WAR

• if you are a regular reader of antebellumblog then you know what has been going on with  my feud with dilettante~ Sharon Rearick-Arquette~.
  if you wanna get caught up~ HERE~ is the original posting
  I would like you to know dear readers that i now have a loyal following for~"THE PANTYHOSE WAR" as it has been dubbed by one of my loyal readers.Andrew P Wood
  

  
  

  i don't know if you'll actually get this message but i am fucking loving the panty hose war on your blog. keep it coming!

  
  

  ok andrew~ here is the latest response from phil van tee regarding my response to his response~
  Phil Van Tee
  

  
  

  Wow, Rick. Talk about a tempest in a teapot.

  Sorry that you found my little smiley face response 'irritating'. I was laughing at you telling me not to, 'worry my pretty little head'. That was my way of saying, 'touche', or, 'good one', considering my original sarcasm, playing the part of a gay basher via the comment on the meme.

  And, concerning that comment, I must tell you that, as a comedian, the original phrasing of a joke is very important.

  Now that you have blogged/posted the whole back and forth, I can see that SRA misquoted to you my original post (which is still up, unedited, if you care to check), by suggesting that I said:
  "BLAME IT ON THE GAYS." (and all in caps, no less).

  You then continued, in your otherwise well represented chronological re-telling of the tale, to say that I had posted:
  "Blame the gays."

  Neither of those work, comedy wise, for the purpose of the point that I was trying to make. Most experienced comedy writers, worth their salt, would be able to explain why.

  I'll try.

  In reality, I wrote neither of those things.

  My comment, rather, was: "I blame the gays." putting the onus entirely on the character being played by me - the imaginary right wing, paranoid, extremist Christian homophobe.

  There is, of course, nothing more pitiful for a comic, than to have to explain, in great detail, the logic or flow of a finely tuned one liner.
  Some would choose, instead, to say, "Well, if it was really funny, you wouldn't have to explain it anyway."

  I could suggest another reason that someone might not understand a particular joke, but I do not care to be unkind.

  Might be time to let this whole thing go, brother.

  I get the idea that everyone involved actually wanted to defend love and fairness, each in their own way, regardless of differing senses of humor.

  We are more alike than we are different here.

  Best to you, always, all ways.

  Phil

  
  

  now my response to phil's response to my response regarding his response~
• Today
• 

  10:03pm
  

  Rick Castro
  

  
  

  phil....... my darling.....
  i was being humorous by calling the smiley face-irritating.
  smiley faces ARE irritating, as are~ LOL, OIC, ROTFL, and all those other online symbols... i didn't say you were irritating.
  i know you were being funny.. i get it.. i got it.

  didn't you read my response to ~ Sharon Rearick-Arquette?
  i stated i thought your comment was funny..
  i am taking her to task.. not you!

  you don't have to explain any of your humor to me... i got it..

  now if you are going to "suggest another reason for not getting a particular joke, but don't want to be unkind".... is an insinuation to me.. then you better be careful..

  yes i am a tempest and this teapot is just beginning to brew ...
  btw.. did you contact~ Sharon Rearick-Arquette~ and tell her how mistaken she has been in her obnoxious email to me.. her self~entitled theory, and life in general?

  i can tell you right now, there is nothing fair about
  ~ Sharon Rearick-Arquette~ she needs to be called out and i am the "gay to blame" in doing so.

  

  ( and yet another dog wearing pantyhose~ just to irk~

   Sharon Rearick-Arquette.)

  
  

  and now for your reading pleasure!

  yet another response from your original "bitch in pantyhose*

  ~Sharon Rearick-Arquette~

  

  12:12pm
  

  
  

  Sharon Rearick-Arquette
  

  
  

  FYI I AM indeed a reporter and get paid for my work. I retired from a busy and active career in 2004 and was then asked by the publisher of a glossy, regional, life style magazine, to write two monthly columns which I did for several years. I was asked by a different publisher in 2010, to write for a regional monthly publication that focuses on Literacy and fighting for better education in our public schools; I continue to write a monthly column for that publication. I will probably be paid to write AND volunteer for animal rescue organizations until the day I die. If you know even one active writer, ask them about the phrase "currently procrastinating." They will EXPLAIN the humor to you. The cats in the photos are pretty; on the other hand, YOU come off sounding very pompous, condescending and judgemental. Knowing nothing about me, you assume I "made up" my job title, insinuate that I don't know humor and have no brain. Nothing could be further from the truth. Have you ever heard the saying,"let's just agree to disagree." ??
  

  (Sharon Rearick-Arquette's dog. desperate for pantyhose)
  
  

  my latest response to  Sharon Rearick-Arquette's response on my response about her response~

  
  

  

  10:39pm
  

  Rick Castro
  

  
  

  hallo~ Sharon Rearick-Arquette,
  have you ever heard the term~
  dish it out, but can't take it?"
  i am being rude and condesending to you. i am doing it on purpose, you fool, to see how you like it when a total stranger contacts you without knowing anything about you and insults you.
  what nerve you have to dismiss that you are the one who was a jerk in the first place and insulted me with everything you could think of with the self~entitled justification that you are" an animal lover".

  get off your high horse and put your pantyhose back on.
  btw~ i was the west coast editor of studio publications for 10 years. i freelanced for the advocate during the 80s, and numerous euro publications , and have been interviewed all my adult life, including a recent book about photographer herb ritts called- the golden hour, so yes i do know "a few active writers".....
  now of course when you say this you mean it with kindness and sincerity, but when i say it i am pompous and condesending. what a tool you are.

  

  Sharon Rearick-Arquette~ in all her glory