You didn't hurt my feelings (assuming, for the sake of argument, that
"feelings" even exist). I was in a hurry when I provided the earlier
response and realized later that you would probably misinterpret it and
say something moronic which I would correct you on, after the fact
(that's our usual exchange, anyway).
I didn't fail to comprehend anything you had stated in your prior
message. I was being proactive, anticipating what your response would be.
Regarding the quality of my work: you're free to contact either my
current, or any of my prior supervisors, who will tell you that the
quality of my work is consistently exceptional. In fact, ALL of the
bugs in the current product have been introduced by the team in China
and by one or two of the junior developers on the team in Canada. The
project manager usually assigns the more complex, system and
architecture level issues to me. Go ahead and call. My current
supervisors are Erick Feng and Tyler Goodbrand. in fact, why don't you
speak with Neng Xu - the president of the Canadian office. I'll get you
the number when I get to the office tomorrow.
The rest of your message is your usual idiotic nonsense - claims with no
evidence, arguing points that have already been proven false, et cetera
and doesn't justify the time it would take to respond. Have you EVER
had ANYTHING intelligent to say which wasn't just repeating what you
heard someone else say?
There was no photo attached - but either way, it doesn't matter - I know
what I look like and I know exactly what Steve would say if you
sent him my picture.
Please provide the definition of "tantrum" which you have used
repeatedly. I suspect you are misusing it. For such a racist,
immigrant hating person as yourself, you don't seem to have a very good
grasp of your own language.
On 01/28/2015 08:55 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> I can clearly see I hurt your(supposedly non-existent) feelings with
> the previous e-mail response. Let me again clarify since you
> obviously can't or won't read for comprehension.
> Your rude demanding response was never a factor in the decision. As I
> clearly pointed out, we already have plans for that period of time.
> G***** knows this. Therefore the answer is no.
> With such a myopic and distorted point of view coupled with a now
> documented inability to read and comprehend, I am truly astounded that
> you can maintain a technical position of any sort. I'd assume the
> vast majority of bugs in the products you work on must have you to
> thank. Do you pawn off the interns? Good job. I'll also assume you
> forge your own references, as that makes the most sense given your
> long history of lies and existing arrest for forgery/ passing bad
> checks. Do you do voices when they call to speak to one of your
> fictitious references? I'll assume so as well.
> As for your other immature tantrums(four by my count), all I can see
> is, "I'm going to lie about a bunch of stuff, fabricate details, then
> blame you for them because my mommy never loved me. That is your
> fault too. Please pay attention to my pathetic attempts to gain your
> attention." As such, a blanket denial about everything you say being
> the result of your ongoing struggle with addiction to meth and other
> substances seems appropriate. You are wrong as usual.
> On a bright note, I did show the photo below to your father. He stated
> that while there is a striking resemblance to his son, he could not be
> certain this was him:
> Perhaps you are not as entirely full of crap as you seem to be all the
> As always, please go find someone or some thing to fill that gaping
> hole I left in your life. It has been long enough, and is pretty
> pathetic at this point. Please grow up, Richard...
> ~ Desiree
> On Wednesday, January 28, 2015, Patrick > wrote:
> Sorry, I forgot that you're usually a little slow on matters of
> strategy. I'll explain: G*****'s visits with me are for his
> benefit, not mine. Therefore, if I ask for your consent for
> G***** to visit at any time, I am asking for G*****, not me.
> Since I am not the beneficiary of your consent then it should make
> no difference how I phrase the request. If you take offense to
> the way a person asks for something for themselves, then of
> course, you are right to refuse. However, since I am asking for
> G***** - not myself, your refusal based on how I presented the
> request means that you are refusing G***** because you are upset
> with me.
> Understand now? In other words, you would take it out on G*****
> because you don't like the way I asked. Have you ever actually
> done ANYTHING right? No, really, I'm serious.
> On 01/28/2015 10:22 AM, Patrick wrote:
>> For the record, I phrased it as a "demand" (to use your words)
>> deliberately, because I knew that would significantly increase
>> the probability that you would say no. You're just so easy
>> On 2015-01-28 6:41 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>> The answer to your demand (that was not a request) is no. Let
>>> me repeat that since you never get it the first time. No,
>>> G***** may NOT visit during his Spring Break as plans have
>>> already been made.
>>> Reasonable visitation does not mean that I am required to jump
>>> whenever you snap your fingers or send G***** at every one of
>>> his vacations. It is SUPPOSED to be a negotiation. We already
>>> have family plans over Spring Break and G***** already knows
>>> this or should.
>>> My behavior now is absolutely no different than before you
>>> declared in open court that you wished to relinquish all
>>> parental rights to G*****. Another unfounded baseless
>>> accusation. Good job.
>>> ~ Desiree
>>> On Tuesday, January 27, 2015, Patrick
>>> >> <_e>> wrote:
>>> G***** told me tonight that he would like to come to
>>> Vancouver, to visit with me during his Spring Break, which
>>> runs from March 7, 2015 through March 15, 2015, but that he
>>> didn't think you'd agree to it.
>>> I'm done with showing him what you're like when there's no
>>> court orders in place so we will be returning to court
>>> shortly. In the meantime may you provide your written
>>> consent for G***** to spend his Spring Break with me in
>>> Vancouver? If you decline, I will have my attorney schedule
>>> a hearing for the matter and we both know the court is going
>>> to order you to allow him to visit, being that he hasn't
>>> seen me since the beginning of January.
>>> If I don't receive your written response by January 31, 2015
>>> then I'll assume you refuse consent.